- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
Shooting rampage at Fort Hood
- Thread starter old medic
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Hang him, already. 
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
Lethal injection according to the latest (attached)jollyjacktar said:Hang him, already.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
That works too. :nod:milnews.ca said:
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
Bumped with the latest
KXXV-TV Waco-Kileen-Temple, 17 Jun 12
- Reaction score
- 1,401
- Points
- 1,160
Watched a video recording last night, of a news program (from 7 Jul 12) re Fort Hood.
During the interview of a SSgt medic who was shot 5 times (still has two bullets), it came out that the administration is classifying the Ft Hood shootings as "workplace violence".
The SSgt is a mental health worker who was to be a member of a team including Hasan, who he was scheduled to meet later that day.
The SSgt also stated that a soldier could be kicked out of the service for bad credit, but emailing a known terrorist (which authorities knew) had no penalty.
More on the older story below.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-purple-heart-20120511,0,1797171.story
Purple Hearts for domestic terror victims? Lawmakers say it's time
By Richard Simon
May 11, 2012, 12:25 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The Purple Heart dates back to 1782 when Gen. George Washington created the Badge of Military Merit to recognize meritorious action. The medal, which features a likeness of Washington, fell into disuse after the Revolutionary War but was brought back in 1932 and is awarded to members of the military killed or wounded in combat.
Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in Congress to expand the eligibility for the medal to include members of the armed forces killed or wounded in a domestic terrorist attack -- an effort to recognize military victims of the 2009 shootings at Ft. Hood, Texas, and at a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station.
"The unfortunate fact is that members of our armed forces are at risk of being attacked by the enemy – Al Qaeda and its adherents – not only when deployed overseas but also while stationed here at home,’’ said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, who has introduced one of the bills.
Purple Hearts were awarded to military victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Currently, members of the armed forces can receive the medal if they were killed or wounded "to an extent requiring treatment by a medical officer; in action against an enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States, provided the secretary of the military department concerned recognizes the attack as an international terrorist attack,’’ according to the Defense Department.
King’s bill would remove the distinction between domestic and international terrorism by expanding eligibility to military victims of "a terrorist attack within the United States perpetrated by an individual or individuals expressing a political, religious or ideological obligation to engage in unlawful violence directed against United States military operations or foreign policy.’’
A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
"Congress has historically acted to ensure that the recognition we award to our service members keeps pace with the threats they face,’’ Lieberman said in a statement.
"The shootings outside the Little Rock recruiting center underscore that there are no front lines when it comes to terrorism,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), a cosponsor of the bill. “When a soldier signs up to serve and becomes a target of terrorism as a result, the least we can do is ensure he or she receives the proper honors and recognition."
According to Arkansas’ senators, the Army did not recognize the Little Rock shootings as an international terror attack because federal charges were not filed against Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, sentenced last year to life without parole for killing one Army soldier and wounding another. Police said Muhammad told them he carried out the shootings to protest the U.S. military and "what they had done to Muslims in the past."
Separately, language has been written into a defense bill headed to the House floor that would award the medal to the military victims of the Ft. Hood and Little Rock shootings.
In the Ft. Hood attack, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is due to go on trial in August, accused of killing 13 people and wounding 32.
There have been changes in the eligibility for the award over the years.
President Kennedy in 1962 signed an executive order expanding the eligibility to service members wounded in any armed conflict in which the U.S. is engaged, making it possible for service members to receive the medal for wounds suffered in Vietnam. Before that, eligibility was limited to declared wars.
Later that same year, Army policy was modified to allow prisoners of war to receive the medal if wounded or injured by their captors.
John Bircher, national director of public relations for the Military Order of the Purple Heart, an organization of about 45,000 Purple Heart recipients, said in an interview that he considers the legislation "not necessary. The criteria already includes acts of terrorism."
During the interview of a SSgt medic who was shot 5 times (still has two bullets), it came out that the administration is classifying the Ft Hood shootings as "workplace violence".
The SSgt is a mental health worker who was to be a member of a team including Hasan, who he was scheduled to meet later that day.
The SSgt also stated that a soldier could be kicked out of the service for bad credit, but emailing a known terrorist (which authorities knew) had no penalty.
More on the older story below.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-purple-heart-20120511,0,1797171.story
Purple Hearts for domestic terror victims? Lawmakers say it's time
By Richard Simon
May 11, 2012, 12:25 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The Purple Heart dates back to 1782 when Gen. George Washington created the Badge of Military Merit to recognize meritorious action. The medal, which features a likeness of Washington, fell into disuse after the Revolutionary War but was brought back in 1932 and is awarded to members of the military killed or wounded in combat.
Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in Congress to expand the eligibility for the medal to include members of the armed forces killed or wounded in a domestic terrorist attack -- an effort to recognize military victims of the 2009 shootings at Ft. Hood, Texas, and at a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station.
"The unfortunate fact is that members of our armed forces are at risk of being attacked by the enemy – Al Qaeda and its adherents – not only when deployed overseas but also while stationed here at home,’’ said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, who has introduced one of the bills.
Purple Hearts were awarded to military victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Currently, members of the armed forces can receive the medal if they were killed or wounded "to an extent requiring treatment by a medical officer; in action against an enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States, provided the secretary of the military department concerned recognizes the attack as an international terrorist attack,’’ according to the Defense Department.
King’s bill would remove the distinction between domestic and international terrorism by expanding eligibility to military victims of "a terrorist attack within the United States perpetrated by an individual or individuals expressing a political, religious or ideological obligation to engage in unlawful violence directed against United States military operations or foreign policy.’’
A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
"Congress has historically acted to ensure that the recognition we award to our service members keeps pace with the threats they face,’’ Lieberman said in a statement.
"The shootings outside the Little Rock recruiting center underscore that there are no front lines when it comes to terrorism,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), a cosponsor of the bill. “When a soldier signs up to serve and becomes a target of terrorism as a result, the least we can do is ensure he or she receives the proper honors and recognition."
According to Arkansas’ senators, the Army did not recognize the Little Rock shootings as an international terror attack because federal charges were not filed against Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, sentenced last year to life without parole for killing one Army soldier and wounding another. Police said Muhammad told them he carried out the shootings to protest the U.S. military and "what they had done to Muslims in the past."
Separately, language has been written into a defense bill headed to the House floor that would award the medal to the military victims of the Ft. Hood and Little Rock shootings.
In the Ft. Hood attack, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is due to go on trial in August, accused of killing 13 people and wounding 32.
There have been changes in the eligibility for the award over the years.
President Kennedy in 1962 signed an executive order expanding the eligibility to service members wounded in any armed conflict in which the U.S. is engaged, making it possible for service members to receive the medal for wounds suffered in Vietnam. Before that, eligibility was limited to declared wars.
Later that same year, Army policy was modified to allow prisoners of war to receive the medal if wounded or injured by their captors.
John Bircher, national director of public relations for the Military Order of the Purple Heart, an organization of about 45,000 Purple Heart recipients, said in an interview that he considers the legislation "not necessary. The criteria already includes acts of terrorism."
FBI did not investigate Fort Hood shooter because of political correctness, report says
Published July 19, 2012
Article Link
The FBI was too concerned about political correctness and did not launch an investigation into a man who was later charged with killing 13 people in a 2009 attack at the Fort Hood military installation in Texas, despite significant warning signs that he was an Islamic extremist bent on killing civilians, according to a lawmaker briefed on a new report about the terrorist attack.
In emails to a known terrorist, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan expressed his support for suicide bombings and killing civilians, while the terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki, encouraged Hasan to stay in touch, Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, told The Associated Press on Wednesday after he was briefed on the findings of a new review of the attack.
The review was done by former FBI Director William Webster and was more than two years in the making. FBI Director Robert Mueller asked that Webster conduct an independent review, and the bureau is expected to release an unclassified version this week.
Much was already known about the series of oversights and missteps the government made leading to the terror attack at the Fort Hood Army post. Soon after the attack, it was revealed that members of two FBI anti-terrorism task forces saw emails between the Army psychiatrist and al-Awlaki beginning in December 2008. Those task forces reviewed the communications and decided they were in keeping with Hasan's research at the time, and as a result, no formal investigation of Hasan was opened. Hasan was writing a research paper about the effects of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But McCaul said Webster's report offers some new details that show the FBI was concerned about investigating an American Muslim in the military, and that is why an investigation was not pursued.
The FBI in San Diego had been investigating al-Awlaki, a former San Diego resident, for his possible connections to the 9/11 hijackers. When agents saw emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki, they asked the FBI's Washington office to talk to Hasan's bosses, according to a government official briefed on the findings who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the Webster report. But the Washington agents thought that interviewing American Muslims who visit extremist websites was a sensitive issue and did not reach out to Hasan's bosses at the Defense Department, the official said.
"It shows you the length of the political correctness stuff going on," McCaul said after he was briefed on the findings of the independent review
More on link
Published July 19, 2012
Article Link
The FBI was too concerned about political correctness and did not launch an investigation into a man who was later charged with killing 13 people in a 2009 attack at the Fort Hood military installation in Texas, despite significant warning signs that he was an Islamic extremist bent on killing civilians, according to a lawmaker briefed on a new report about the terrorist attack.
In emails to a known terrorist, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan expressed his support for suicide bombings and killing civilians, while the terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki, encouraged Hasan to stay in touch, Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, told The Associated Press on Wednesday after he was briefed on the findings of a new review of the attack.
The review was done by former FBI Director William Webster and was more than two years in the making. FBI Director Robert Mueller asked that Webster conduct an independent review, and the bureau is expected to release an unclassified version this week.
Much was already known about the series of oversights and missteps the government made leading to the terror attack at the Fort Hood Army post. Soon after the attack, it was revealed that members of two FBI anti-terrorism task forces saw emails between the Army psychiatrist and al-Awlaki beginning in December 2008. Those task forces reviewed the communications and decided they were in keeping with Hasan's research at the time, and as a result, no formal investigation of Hasan was opened. Hasan was writing a research paper about the effects of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But McCaul said Webster's report offers some new details that show the FBI was concerned about investigating an American Muslim in the military, and that is why an investigation was not pursued.
The FBI in San Diego had been investigating al-Awlaki, a former San Diego resident, for his possible connections to the 9/11 hijackers. When agents saw emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki, they asked the FBI's Washington office to talk to Hasan's bosses, according to a government official briefed on the findings who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the Webster report. But the Washington agents thought that interviewing American Muslims who visit extremist websites was a sensitive issue and did not reach out to Hasan's bosses at the Defense Department, the official said.
"It shows you the length of the political correctness stuff going on," McCaul said after he was briefed on the findings of the independent review
More on link
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
Was he writing on the terrorists' PTSD suffering? :brickwall:GAP said:
- Reaction score
- 1,292
- Points
- 940
Fort Hood massacre suspect's lawyers argue against beard-shaving order
Defense lawyers for Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood massacre suspect, told an Army appeals court on Thursday that his court martial judge had overstepped his authority in ordering him to appear clean shaven for trial.
A prosecutor, in turn, argued before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals that the court martial judge, Colonel Gregory Gross, was empowered to maintain decorum in his courtroom. Hasan is accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009.
Lieutenant Colonel Kris Poppe, a defense attorney, said Army regulations only allowed forcible shaving of inmates in military correctional facilities, not by a judge’s order.
“Forcible shaving exceeds the authority of the military judge,” he told the seven-judge appeals panel.
Poppe added that the defense did not dispute that soldiers should appear in court in proper uniform and that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allowed Hasan to have a beard.
Gross, a Fort Hood judge, ordered Hasan last month to shave off his beard or be forcibly shaven, ruling that it was not covered by laws protecting religious freedom. He said Army grooming regulations banning beards overrode his religious beliefs.
More at link
Seriously? They're arguing about whether or not he should have to shave? Must be a slow news day.... :not-again:
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,046
- Points
- 1,160
PMedMoe said:
All things considered it sounds pretty stupid. It's going to come across to the public as the judge trying to add insult to injury (for lack of a better phrase) which the defense could probably easily turn around and paint this asshole as a victim of religious persecution etc..
This traitor murdered his brothers and they want to make an issue about shaving, just seems counter productive.
A
aesop081
Guest
http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/10/nidal-hasan-says-hes-amish-in-last-ditch-effort-to-save-beard/
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
Similar threads
