Fort Hood Victims May Finally Get Purple Hearts

cmhbob · Dec 8, 2014

Finally.

I really don't understand why those killed or wounded at the Pentagon on 9/11 would be eligible, and those killed or wounded at Ft Hood would not.

The military recruiters in Little Rock should be eligible as well.

"Workplace violence" indeed.

badwolf.usmc · Dec 9, 2014

I'm not too sure that they should be awarded the Purple Heart.

Shifting the critiera to "members of the armed forces killed or wounded in domestic attacks inspired by foreign terrorist organizations" easily shifts to "members of the armed forces killed or wounded in domestic attacks inspired by foreign and domestic terrorist organizations" in the future.

The more i think about it, the more i think it is a bad idea.

cmhbob · Dec 9, 2014

Then you need to retract all the PH awarded to anyone at the Pentagon on 9/11. Fort Hood was not an act of workplace violence. If you believe it was, then every military casualty ever was an act of workplace violence.

raburrell · Dec 9, 2014

I have to agree with Bad Wolf - the Fort Hood shootings were unquestionably a tragedy, and the government's treatment of the victims and their families has been shameful, but this isn't what I think of when I think of someone who's earned the Purple Heart.

It's a combination of that and my dislike for the idea of elevating the ideology of those commit violent acts. Take care of the families and the wounded, commend their service, but don't give that scumbag any more notoriety than he has.

badwolf.usmc · Dec 9, 2014

cmhbob said:
Then you need to retract all the PH awarded to anyone at the Pentagon on 9/11. Fort Hood was not an act of workplace violence. If you believe it was, then every military casualty ever was an act of workplace violence.

I have no control over past awards, and nor do i like the idea of retroactively removing them, but we can control who they go to in the future.

In my mind, the Purple Heart is for those who have been wounded by the enemy in combat operations. Fort Hood was not a combat operation.

Are those injured at Fort Hood more deserving of the Purple Heart than those injured or killed in training incidents? What about Blue on Blue or Green on Blue incidents?

Vince524 · Dec 9, 2014

badwolf.usmc said:
I have no control over past awards, and nor do i like the idea of retroactively removing them, but we can control who they go to in the future.

In my mind, the Purple Heart is for those who have been wounded by the enemy in combat operations. Fort Hood was not a combat operation.

Are those injured at Fort Hood more deserving of the Purple Heart than those injured or killed in training incidents? What about Blue on Blue or Green on Blue incidents?

Fort Hood wasn't a training incident that amounts to an accident. It was an attack by a person on them because they were US Military. The person who carried out the attack had been in contact with a enemy.

A google found this.

The PH medal can legally be authorized to only three groups of personnel:

One, those wounded or injured as a direct result of hostile enemy action.

Second, those wounded or injured as a direct result of friendly fire (FF). (Broadly speaking, FF occurs only during a hostile encounter or initiative with, or in response to, an enemy when someone on your side mistakes you for the enemy.) Or when injured by your own non-projectile weapon (bayonet, sword, blunt instrument, etc.) or projectile weapons fire (bullet, explosive device, etc) while engaging, responding to or attacking an enemy.

And third, POWs injured or wounded as a result of individually directed conflict or punishment with their captor in violation of any article of the Geneva Convention Rules of Warfare Concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War whether or not the captor's government is a signatory to the Convention.

They meet that criteria.

Vince524 · Dec 9, 2014

raburrell said:
I have to agree with Bad Wolf - the Fort Hood shootings were unquestionably a tragedy, and the government's treatment of the victims and their families has been shameful, but this isn't what I think of when I think of someone who's earned the Purple Heart.

It's a combination of that and my dislike for the idea of elevating the ideology of those commit violent acts. Take care of the families and the wounded, commend their service, but don't give that scumbag any more notoriety than he has.

While I agree with the principle of not elevating the shooter here, it's not a valid reason to deny the victims something if they meet the criteria.

raburrell · Dec 9, 2014

Fair enough, but of the criteria you listed, I don't think any apply - Hasan was a fellow soldier, not an enemy, albeit a piss-poor excuse for one. They weren't engaged in a hostile encounter with the enemy for it to qualify as friendly fire either.

I certainly understand (and support) the desire to honor those who fell, but unless we want to extend the definition of who merits a PH, I don't think this is the right way to go.

Vince524 · Dec 9, 2014

raburrell said:
Fair enough, but of the criteria you listed, I don't think any apply - Hasan was a fellow soldier, not an enemy, albeit a piss-poor excuse for one. They weren't engaged in a hostile encounter with the enemy for it to qualify as friendly fire either.

I certainly understand (and support) the desire to honor those who fell, but unless we want to extend the definition of who merits a PH, I don't think this is the right way to go.

I would think if he was acting on behalf of the enemy, declaring himself an enemy, it counts. Not sure where we'd get a ruling on that.

raburrell · Dec 9, 2014

Vince524 said:
I would think if he was acting on behalf of the enemy, declaring himself an enemy, it counts. Not sure where we'd get a ruling on that.

I don't really have any heartburn if it gets expanded to cover such cases, so long as it's applicable to both foreign and domestic terrorism, but I guess bottom line for me, I really do think 'workplace violence' was a fairly accurate description.

Vince524 · Dec 9, 2014

raburrell said:
I don't really have any heartburn if it gets expanded to cover such cases, so long as it's applicable to both foreign and domestic terrorism, but I guess bottom line for me, I really do think 'workplace violence' was a fairly accurate description.

I don't know this would be expanding the definition. It wasn't accidental or friendly fire. Hassan identified with the enemy and attacked.

And when I think workplace violence, I'm thinking of a person who attacks people he or she works with because of whatever issues exist or perceive to exist. Hassan's reasoning was the same as any terrorist that might travel overseas to attack us.

Maybe it's kind of like an all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs kind of thing.

raburrell · Dec 9, 2014

Vince524 said:
I don't know this would be expanding the definition. It wasn't accidental or friendly fire. Hassan identified with the enemy and attacked.

From a historical perspective - is there any precedent for a PH to be awarded to soldiers killed on US soil?

And when I think workplace violence, I'm thinking of a person who attacks people he or she works with because of whatever issues exist or perceive to exist. Hassan's reasoning was the same as any terrorist that might travel overseas to attack us.

In this case, the issue that exists is that he had a beef with the US and he took it out on his colleagues.

Maybe it's kind of like an all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs kind of thing.

What if someone in an extremist militia (i.e. US-based) carried out a similar attack?

Vince524 · Dec 9, 2014

raburrell said:
From a historical perspective - is there any precedent for a PH to be awarded to soldiers killed on US soil?

Pearl Harbor? Does that count?

raburrell said:
In this case, the issue that exists is that he had a beef with the US and he took it out on his colleagues.

But his beef was because he had bought into the jihad against the US Government and decided to attack the military. It was easier for him target the ones he worked with for obvious reasons.

raburrell said:
What if someone in an extremist militia (i.e. US-based) carried out a similar attack?

Sure why not? If the person attacking because it's the military, then yes.

kuwisdelu · Dec 9, 2014

raburrell said:
From a historical perspective - is there any precedent for a PH to be awarded to soldiers killed on US soil?

Pearl Harbor.

I don't see why it matters whether it's on U.S. soil or foreign soil or whether the enemy combatants are foreign or domestic or "terrorists" or not.

If they identify as an enemy of the U.S., that's enough for me.

raburrell · Dec 9, 2014

Vince524 said:
Pearl Harbor? Does that count?

Duh - yes, thanks.

FWIW though, what I had in my head was more like a guy inside the unit turns on the others, not an attack on domestic soil by a foreign power. But your answer satisfied the question as I posed it.

But his beef was because he had bought into the jihad against the US Government and decided to attack the military. It was easier for him target the ones he worked with for obvious reasons.

But this is that elevation of terrorism to something special thing that I don't like. All jihad means is 'nobody ever taught me to settle grievances like a functional adult', imo.

Sure why not? If the person attacking because it's the military, then yes.

okay.

kuwisdelu · Dec 9, 2014

raburrell said:
But this is that elevation of terrorism to something special thing that I don't like.

I still don't really get this.

raburrell · Dec 9, 2014

To me, labeling something as terrorism lends a degree of cachet (not really the word I'm looking for, but it's the closest I can come up with), along with legitimizing the act of violence in the eyes of some who share the belief. I'd prefer to just call them violent assholes and be done with it.

kuwisdelu · Dec 9, 2014

raburrell said:
To me, labeling something as terrorism lends a degree of cachet (not really the word I'm looking for, but it's the closest I can come up with), along with legitimizing the act of violence in the eyes of some who share the belief. I'd prefer to just call them violent assholes and be done with it.

I apologize in advance for Godwinning the thread, but the logic just doesn't make sense to me.

If we called Hitler a "violent asshole" to avoid legitimizing the Holocaust, would it really have made a difference?

Distinguishing between terrorists and "real" militaries seems like a false and pointless distinction to me.

Does having a "real" country automatically make your cause and your soldiers more legitimate?

raburrell · Dec 9, 2014

kuwisdelu said:
I apologize in advance for Godwinning the thread, but the logic just doesn't make sense to me.

If we called Hitler a "violent asshole" to avoid legitimizing the Holocaust, would it really have made a difference?

Distinguishing between terrorists and "real" militaries seems like a false and pointless distinction to me.

It's probably at least part a knee jerk response, I'll admit - it's been a 'thing' for me since the Bush Administration's days of trying to label everything that squinted funny a terrorist.

kuwisdelu · Dec 9, 2014

raburrell said:
It's probably at least part a knee jerk response, I'll admit - it's been a 'thing' for me since the Bush Administration's days of trying to label everything that squinted funny a terrorist.

Oh, I totally get that, but for me that's a separate issue from the "legitimizing terrorism" spiel.

Vince524 · Dec 9, 2014

raburrell said:
Duh - yes, thanks.

FWIW though, what I had in my head was more like a guy inside the unit turns on the others, not an attack on domestic soil by a foreign power. But your answer satisfied the question as I posed it.

But this is that elevation of terrorism to something special thing that I don't like. All jihad means is 'nobody ever taught me to settle grievances like a functional adult', imo.

okay.

If a guy in the unit decides to kill everyone because they're picking on him, or he got a demotion he feels he didn't deserve, or because he went nuts and believes his dog told him to do it, then it's workplace violence. That could happen in any job. More likely where there are fire arms, but you get the idea.

If it happens because the person chooses to identify and communicate an known and active enemy of the US, then it's more than workplace violence.

raburrell · Dec 9, 2014

Vince524 said:
If a guy in the unit decides to kill everyone because they're picking on him, or he got a demotion he feels he didn't deserve, or because he went nuts and believes his dog told him to do it, then it's workplace violence. That could happen in any job. More likely where there are fire arms, but you get the idea.

If it happens because the person chooses to identify and communicate an known and active enemy of the US, then it's more than workplace violence.

His motivation doesn't change the act though. Nor did he receive any material support from whoever he talked to.

This article does a better job of explaining it than I'm probably doing.

The petition (referring to one filed by the National Review) is an emotionally charged misreading of the situation that presents what was actually a procedural, legal challenge as if it were an ideological campaign led by the government. First and foremost, prosecutors did not pursue “Terrorism” or “Act of Terror” because Courts-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (PDF) do not currently include such a charge. Secondly, acquiescence to the demand that Hasan be deemed an “enemy combatant” would have created far more legal confusion, making the prosecution’s case more difficult to prove.

We must be sensitive to those victims and their families who have called for the terrorism charge, because without the recognition of terrorism they are denied both material benefits and emotional resolution. Nonetheless, the court’s job is not to yield to victims’ wishes, however sympathetic they are, but to follow the dictates of due process and justice.

Consider that if Hasan had been labeled as an “enemy combatant”, the next important legal determination would have to be whether he was protected with special privileges under the lex specialis principle of International Humanitarian Law—or whether he should have been treated instead as an “unprivileged enemy belligerent” under some form of military commissions derived from the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The AUMF is the closest thing our nation has to any declaration of war at present, and it is an imperfect and aging authority for fighting the many imitators of Al Qaeda, whether at home or abroad.

There's more in the link, but that's the crux of the legal basis for me.

Fingers · Dec 9, 2014

For what its worth, Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. No matter how you couch it, the shooter at Ft. Hood was an US Army Officer. He wasn't an enemy combatant. Its a damn shame for those soldiers who were wounded and killed, but it wasn't due to an enemy action.

I know more than a couple of people who were killed in the army and it was not due to enemy action and they didn't get a purple heart or any other award because of it. It may not be fair, but no one ever said the military was fair about anything.

cmhbob · Dec 9, 2014

The moment Hassan took up arms against his fellow soldiers, he became a traitor, and thus an enemy.

raburrell · Dec 9, 2014

cmhbob said:
The moment Hassan took up arms against his fellow soldiers, he became a traitor, and thus an enemy.

Would that apply if he'd been a guy who took up arms against his fellow soldiers for other reasons?

Fort Hood Victims May Finally Get Purple Hearts

Did...did I do that?

#CustomUserTitle

Did...did I do that?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

#CustomUserTitle

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Revolutionize the World

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Revolutionize the World

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Revolutionize the World

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Revolutionize the World

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

My cat Toby

Did...did I do that?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee