Victims of Ft. Hood Shooter Nidal Hassan courtesy foxnewsinsider.com

“Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart would adversely affect the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan by labeling the attack terrorism, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Fox News.” Because we can’t say a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar!” as he shot US soldiers during the War or Terror constitutes terrorism. And here’s their, um, thinking . . .

“Passage of this legislation could directly and indirectly influence potential court-martial panel members, witnesses, or the chain of command, all of whom exercise a critical role under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Defense counsel will argue that Major Hasan cannot receive a fair trial because a branch of government has indirectly declared that Major Hasan is a terrorist — that he is criminally culpable.”

As you’d expect, this isn’t sitting particularly well with the families of the victims.

“This is a cynical travesty. What the government has done by making this statement is guarantee that anything done to help the victims will effectively prevent or impair Hasan’s prosecution. There was no reason for the government to put this kind of a statement in writing, even if it were true (which it is not),” (counsel for the Fort Hood families, Neal) Sher said via email.

The DoD’s still taking the position that, rather than moving the battlefield to a US Army base, Hassan’s murders were and act of “workplace violence.” Just another whack-o coming unhinged and going postal as if he’d been just been fired. Which is of a piece with the administration’s continual efforts, since coming to power in 2008, to try other, even more unambiguous terrorists in civilian courts.

By doing so, the army, the DoD and the Obama administration dishonor the Ft. Hood victims and treat the American public like fools. Still.

70 Responses to DoD: Don’t Call Ft. Hood Casualties Victims of Terrorism

  1. I have gradually come to the conclusion that the most distinctive characteristic common to all gun grabbers is their intellectual dishonesty. Refusal to admit that CCW holders commit fewer crimes than off-duty police, refusal to admit that Obama’s executive orders will not reduce any crime and would not have prevented the Newtown spree killing, refusal to admit that guns have any virtues, refusal to follow the amendment process to ban guns or even admit in public that they do want to ban guns … I am used to politicians lying, but the sheer bias towards nothing but lying with hoplophobes has taken a while to sink in.

    This is just more of the same.

    • We KNOW they’re duplicitous; their primary dishonesty is with themselves.

      Others a simply Machiavellian and downright evil.

  2. No surprise here. Eric Holder’s pro-Jihadist Justice Department, under HUSSEIN Obama’s treasonous leadership, already classified Major Hasan’s deadly assault on Fort Hood as a simple case of workplace violence. Now, Obama is arming al Qaeda and other factions of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in Syria (Just like we did in Libya) and NO ONE CARES.

    Hasan was radicalized by a senior al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki – a known affiliate the Islamic Society of North America (the preeminent operating wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States). Awlacki also dined at the Pentagon, as an honored guest, just prior to 9/11.

    Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:

    “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, Qur’an is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

    • “Pro-Jihadist”, my ASS. They’re simply USING them as agents of chaos and change. I don’t understand how you can’t see that.

      • WB: There have been dozens of terrorist attacks against innocents on U.S. soil leading up to and following 9/11- all reclassified as being something other than Jihadist in nature. Following Obama’s election (2008), the Justice Department scrubbed the terms “Jihad” and “Islam” from all investigative files under the “Words Matter Doctrine”. Perhaps, you need to expand your knowledge of the obvious.

  3. “Because we can’t say a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar!” as he shot US soldiers during the War or Terror constitutes terrorism.”

    Well, you’re begging the question, and it all falls upon the definition of terrorism. The definition I think makes the most sense is the intentional or indiscriminate targeting of civilians. And although these weren’t civilians, they also weren’t in combat and didn’t have any reasonable expectation being in combat. The label of terrorist seems applicable in these circumstances, but I don’t think that everyone who fights US troops should be automatically classified as a terrorist. It’s not that cut and dry

    • Nidal Hasan is a muslim jihadi, a “homegrown” one, and terrorist. I think the definitions are kind of a smoke screen, though. This guy has no allegiance to the country or its people, only to his religion and the jihad it encourages. He is what he is, and all the definitions seem to cloud reality, which for many is the point. Can’t admit they want to kill or enslave all the jews and crusaders. Aside from the obfuscation of the government, the other thing that is troubling and disgusting, is that active duty military on base are totally disarmed. Ponder that for a bit.

      • The fact that bases are disarmed is troubling and counter-intuitive indeed. However I think definitions are important because language (and the emotions/actions they evoke) matters. Terrorism as a danger itself has been overwrought in my opinion (similar to fear of guns) and it isn’t helped by loose definitions. But loose definitions serve a purpose so this is to be expected. Poor/loose definitions are probably not applicable in this circumstance, but a related concern nonetheless.

        • “The fact that bases are disarmed is troubling and counter-intuitive indeed.”

          Well, THAT’S the understatement of the week! It’s profoundly distressing and confounding, until you understand it serves a number of purposes. First, it eliminates any possibility of insurrection on base. More importantly, it invites just the sort of thing that happened, and these can be playing to various political agendas, the main one being civilian disarmament – “SEE? Their guns didn’t do THEM any good, either!”

          It must be extremely puzzling to Vietnam vets, whose rifle had better have been within reach or else.
          It strikes me that this sort of base-disarmament policy must come from higher-up than branch-of-service level. How high did it come from?

        • I have a feeling base disarmament comes from officers being more afraid of NDs by their troops that would screw over their chances of promotion. Careerism > conspiracy.

        • you guys are all spot on.

          we know these things

          1.) the DOD is severely downplaying, borderline in the realm of criminal negligence, that Nadal Hassan did indeed commit a act of bona fide terrorism (thats not even getting into his affiliations, etc)

          2.) disarming professional soldiers is…utterly idiotic.

          3.) The DOD has a history of downplaying threats on the level of criminal negligence. The only solution is to get on the record and pay attention to details that may come out and others will surely miss because they follow MSM.

  4. Too bad he survived being shot. Now we are on the hook for his medical bills for life, an expensive trial, and all the other waste that comes with his continued breathing.
    We can hope for a death sentence to shorten this process but don’t count on it.

  5. There’s that whole pesky “innocent until proven guilty” thing. He’s an American citizen. Before the government labels him a terrorist they should call a jury to decide so. I see nothing radical about that. In military courts, if there is a perceived bias by the government toward the command, then the case must be dismissed with prejudice and he will go free forever.

    The only really hard question is why hasn’t the jury been asked to decide his guilt or innocence yet?

    • Exactly. He’s an American citizen on American soil. Regardless of my personal feelings toward him he deserves due process. Otherwise we would have to be ok with armed drones in our skies.

    • Just like that American who was accused of running a website that said mean things about America…

      No wait, they killed him without trial via unmanned drone… then they killed his son because, well, why not?

      Once a government gives up principles for pragmatism they are on the slow road to despotism. In our case the US is on the road to despotism in a Porsche GT.

      • “In our case the US is on the road to despotism in a Porsche GT.”

        Im going to have a hard time not plagiarizing that one!

        Brilliant!

    • The reason the court-martial has been delayed this long is that when Hasan is tried for mass murder, the entire chain of command that was in place goes on trial too. The chain that enforced a climate of pro-Muslim political correctness that allowed this “soldier of allah” to preach jihadism & violence toward “infidels” with no correction or intervention. The PC that gave Hasan walk-on-water efficiency reports. The PC that enabled the Army chief of staff to issue a 75-page initial report on the Fort Hood Massacre without once using the words “Islam” or “Muslim”.

      If Hasan ever swings, other heads will roll & the wrongful death lawsuits will proliferate like rabbits. This case will never go to trial & Hasan will die of causes other than the end of a rope.

      • +1

        Sir you are absolutely 100% correct. The brass, especially the Medical Corps bureaucrats, the intel community who would not share his emails with jihadis with his command and the uniformed politicians in the 5 side funny farm, just want to bury his butt. They just want to shovel a load of BS over his corpse and the subject of why he was ever allowed to complete a residency and fellowship at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS – aka u-shoes) . Even the lefties at NPR were able to inteview his teachers and colleagues and identify the guilty bureaucrats in a short 17 paragraphs. He is a terrorist regardless of what some JAG politician says.

        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120313570

      • +1
        It appears to me that there may have been a combination of general pro-Muslim PC, and specific “blind-eye” ignoring of his radicalism and mental imbalance in the case of MAJ Hasan. There may have been some motive to recover the investment the Army made in his education by keeping him on his career path.

      • I actually strongly agree too.

        To me, hasan was a case of passing the hot potato.

        Careerist officers didnt like dealing with him and wouldnt touch the possibility of him being a domestic terrorist, so they promoted him and passed him onto somebody else.

        Anybody who has ever served in the armed forces knows how prevalent the behavior of promoting and passing these sh^tbags around is.

  6. Expect anything less from the “apologizer in chief” who has bowed to a saudi king?

    If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

    Pathetic that he can authorize a drone strike overseas on a U.S. citizen in the name of “terrorism” but insults every man and woman serving in our military past and present with this “workplace violence” crap…

    The asshats who elected this…….

    • This is to be expected from a “Commander in Chief” who has never served. He has no respect or trust toward our individual military members. He has stated: “I thought about military service because I believed it would have been enobling.” Apparently not enobling enough though. Instead he became an anti-Constitutional law professor and practitioner. He hasn’t got an American bone in his body, or even a splinter of one.

    • “Expect anything less from the “apologizer in chief” who has bowed to a saudi king?”

      I suppose you extend the same sentiment toward Dubya, who not only bowed to his virtual IN-LAWS in Saudi Arabia – Bandar Bush and others – BUT HELD THEIR HANDS while walking?

  7. So, despite the cry of “sic semper tyranus” Booth wasn’t performing a politically motivated assassination. Rather is theater criticism as performance art.

  8. Political correctness pushed by progressive/ socialists will be the death of us all; unless we finally wake up to the danger; because a bunch of people on the other side of the world do want us dead; but the real danger are from people calling themselves Americans but who despise traditional American freedoms and rights.

  9. It’s time to end this guy. Pour a bucket of pig’s blood over his head and shove a pork chop up his ass, then put him down. Problem handled.

  10. Refusal to admit that CCW holders commit fewer crimes than off-duty police,
    Felix, I would like to see where you get those stats. Please enlighten me.

    Also, Hussein will never allow him to be declared a terrorist, then he would have to admit that they exist. It’s much easier for them to declare this random crime instead of terrorism.

  11. So the 168 people who were killed in the 1995 Oklahoma City federal building bombing were not victims of terrorism, but workplace violence?

    No. The government and their media lackeys had no objection to labeling Tim McVeigh a “right wing terrorist.” It never occured to anybody that doing so would affect his right to a fair trial. And if anybody had objected, they would have been ridiculed as loons.

    Why? Because McVeigh was a white Christian instead of an Arab Mohamedian.

    • Labeling McVeigh a “terrorist” served Clinton’s antigun agenda, allowing liberals to smear all gun owners as “terrorists.”

      Labeling Hasan a “terrorist” would be a distraction from Obama’s antigun agenda. Therefore, the victims of Hasan do not deserve a voice.

      • you bring up a excellent point.

        That is what pisses me off about this.

        Also, Hassan did the killings on the military installation which killed military personnel…that kind of makes a bigger impression than a federal building with federal civilians (im not comparing the “value” of human beings, but in terms of geo-strategic objectives, yes, there is “value”)

    • McVeigh was tried in a civilian court. In military courts, if the government appears to be influencing the decision, then the case must be dropped with prejudice; that is, he must not be tried for the crime again.

  12. He shouldn’t be getting any trial, why the hell don’t we just take him out back and kill him? That’s what would happen in a logical world. Its sad how we’ve gotten to the point where we rather give scum a chance, then do what everyone knows should be done, just to feel “superior” to the enemy. Id love to know what the DoD’s definition of terrorism is, if an extremist shouting “Allah Akbar” in the name of jihad while shooting soldiers, doesn’t count.

    • WRONG COUNTRY, bumpkin! I can suggest a list of more suitable countries for you. Get your passport ready and start packing. Then contact me here for how to defect to Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or China, to name but a few.

  13. If the purple hearts were allowed the DoD would have to admit
    that it was a terrorist event. But there’s another problem if
    allowed. The DoD would be admitting that their own internal
    security measures are an utter joke. Granted it’s due to the
    continued adherence to political correctness, but still the
    various generals and bureaucrats would have to admit they
    knowingly dropped the ball.

  14. Well, that’s the view from the dark place where the DOD has it’s collective head! These peoples deaths are inconvenient for the DOD. Hey DOD, grab your ears and pull your head out of your asterisk.

  15. By labeling this workplace violence also allows the liberals to use his shooting in statistics for anti gun legislation. Iv’e read articles claiming civilians don’t need guns because an army base full of trained men couldn’t stop a mass shooter. They never say that people aren’t allowed to carry on base of course. If they label it as terrorism all this goes out the door.

  16. there is a lot more going on here than is being reported. we really need some honest journalists that aren’t manipulated and coerced into reporting the status quo or what’s fed to them. there is a reason they don’t want to call this terrorism. how about the plight of the families of the victims? did they all have to sign non-disclosure’s just to get the insurance money?

  17. What makes this interesting, is that internally, the fort hood attack is listed in DoD anti-terrorism training (which is required for all DoD civilians on an almost yearly basis). So this is either a case of beaurocratic lying, or the right hand not having a clue what the left hand is doing.

    • Because there’s no one willing to challenge them on it, they feel free to have it both ways. There’s nothing new about that.

  18. So I guess this makes me a little more comfortable about Obummer using drones on US soil. I mean, if this guy is “not” a terrorist then who is?

    /sarcasm

  19. If it had been done by a white supremist or “patriot” they would have only been too happy labeling it a terror attack on day 1…disgusting

    • Because white people are their new boogeymen. They got more mileage out of “islamic terrorism” than I would have thought possible. Because white, armed Americans are the main land mine in their path, it’s now our turn. Get used to it.

      But of course you can’t; neither can I. There’s an unshakeable feeling that drones are headed our way now.

  20. Now, I’m not a veteran, but let me tell you a little story that happens to be relevant. When I was in Scouts, and working towards my Eagle rank, my assistant scoutmaster and counselor on many merit badges was killed in a car wreck. His youngest son, Brian, was still in the troop. He was born with some mental and physical disabilities, and had also been working on his Eagle. He had a special set of requirements, mostly more time to complete his rank, and he earned his Eagle, completed all of his requirements, save for the eagle board of review and having the paperwork turned in. That responsibility fell on our Scoutmaster who dropped the ball, and Brian was there, stuck without an Eagle. So several of the Eagles we know through the troop were ready to step in where the Council wouldn’t. They were going to go out and buy the Eagle badge for Brian, since they had the credentials, and all of the other accoutrements of an Eagle ceremony. So what I propose, is that here, were the government won’t step in, perhaps some folks will. Hell, I have my grandfather’s medals from WWII, God rest his soul. And I think he’d gladly give up his Purple Heart for one of these guys.

  21. Lost in this argument is ‘Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart’. Before anyone tries to jump down my throat over “support the troops”, let me explain why I question why the award should even be conferred. I am in no way trying to demean the victims of the shooting. These people in uniform did indeed suffer injuries, however these injuries were not suffered in the theater of war. The circumstances over which the Purple Heart has been awarded has been amended to include many different types of injury. However, these injuries do require participation in direct or indirect combat operations.

    The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award. The Purple Heart is not awarded for non-combat injuries.[6]

    The Fort Hood shooting was a mass murder that took place on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and a total of 30 people were wounded in the incident.[2] It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.[3

    With all due respect with those who would differ with my interpretation of the above, while the attack happened to military personnel on a military base, Killeen, Texas is far too removed from the war zone to imply that the injuries suffered were combat related.

      • I’m no expert. I am a vet but I didn’t get wounded. But I always understood that the medal was given for injuries sustained by enemy action regardless of what zone it was in. Does this guy qualify as an enemy combatent?

        • We don’t have enemy combatants within our borders; otherwise, Senators start getting all NIMBY and whiny.

          Oh yeah, another broken promise from Obama. D’oh.

      • +1

        The very nature of `asymmetrical warfare’ means that the battlefront can be anywhere just as it was at Fort Hood when the jihadi terrorist struck. His victims were on their honorable way into theater, and, as the poet once observed,

        “They also serve who only stand and wait.”

        The Purple Heart is their due. Give it to them!

  22. Additional confirmation that at least some senior retired JAG officers have thrown the BS flag on the current Pentagon leaderships story. Taken from CSMonitor dated 21 March 2013

    Former 1st Cavalry Staff Judge Advocate Richard Rosen told the Killeen newspaper this week that labeling Hasan as a terrorist would likely have little impact on the upcoming trial.

    “This guy was taking direction from Anwar al-Awlaki, whom we thought was enough of a threat to kill with drones,” said Mr. Rosen, currently a law professor at Texas Tech University. “Ultimately when you talk about the baseline of the crimes he has been alleged to have committed, [it would have] no impact at all.”

    [Col Tara] Osborn, the judge in the case, has denied a request by Hasan’s lawyers that the death penalty be removed from consideration in return for a guilty plea.
    The judge is unlikely to accept any defense requests that would delay the court-martial, Geoffrey Corn, a former lieutenant colonel in the Army Judge Advocate Corps and now a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, told Reuters.

    “I think she is sensitive to the fact that this has dragged on for a long time, and it’s time to get this case to trial,” Mr. Corn said.

  23. Fine. Then don’t do anything ’til after he’s stretched some five cord hemp – but you’d damned well better do it then.

    However, do not state this “need for denial” out loud or in writing. Of course, publishing this memorandum could amount to a ding in the judicial process, but…

    It certainly would’ve been cleaner had he stopped a bit more lead that day.

  24. This incident was not a “person breaking and going crazy” incident.

    The facts show a pattern of intent and preparation over a long period of time that was well documented but fear of political incorrectness stopped preventative action.

    The Facts lead to the fair conclusion that the casualties resulted from a terrorist attack upon a US Military Facility.

    The Casualties should be treated and awarded as are other war on global terrorism casualties.

    On the other hand, by suing the US for OSHA violations, IE negligent recruitment, negligent retention, negligent supervision, failure to protect employees and permitted persons at the workplace. Financial compensation may far exceed the benefits of combat casualties. Go for it!

  25. workplace violence my f^cking a$$

    call it what it is DOD.

    Another reason to change the name back to the “War Department”.

  26. The liberal fascist pigs like strike again for saying Muslims are not terrorist. Like calling the 1940 Whermact not under Nazi control. This is ludicrous.

  27. Dan Zimmerman’s take on this subject is ridiculous.

    All we need is “threat of terrorism” to be added to the list of reasons why gun control advocates want to restrict the 2A.

    Many of you need to take long, hard looks at your own thoughts on this.

  28. This whole “process” has been a monumental joke. Once again, the perpetrator is given more “rights” than any victim of his crimes. So far, mainly over a scraggly beard.

    Why, oh why, didn’t someone put two in this clown’s head the day they captured him? They would have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars that have been wasted (so far) on this mockery of “justice”, and the families and friends of the victims untold grief and pain.

    Our enemies laugh at us because they know how well they can use our own government against us. The United States is the laughing stock of the world.

  29. Why is this being debated? The regulation governing the Purple Heart or any combat medal is very clear. You have to have received your wounds (death) as a result of being deployed/mobilized in combat or even peace missions.

    Let’s just let our emotions get the best of us and start watering down the valor medals for sunburn, ingrown toenails and torn MCL from jogging on the PT runs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *