Posted on 08/15/2013 9:13:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
When the US government's National Counterterrorism Center compiled its annual report for 2009, it didn't overlook the deadliest terror attack on American soil since 9/11.
"On 5 November 2009, at 1:30 PM, in Fort Hood, Texas," the report notes in its chronology of "high-fatality terrorist attacks" — those that took at least 10 lives — "an armed assailant entered the Fort Hood Soldier Readiness Processing Center and opened fire, killing one civilian and 12 soldiers, wounding seven civilians, 17 soldiers, and 18 [other] people, and damaging the facility.… No group claimed responsibility, although authorities believed an unaffiliated Sunni extremist was responsible."
That "armed assailant" was Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who bluntly admits perpetrating that day's massacre as an act of war against the United States. On the first day of his court-martial this month, Hasan told jurors: "The evidence will clearly show I am the shooter." Military rules bar the accused in a court-martial from pleading guilty to a capital crime even if he wants to, so a plea of not guilty was entered on Hasan's behalf by the judge, Colonel Tara Osborne. But Hasan, who is representing himself, has consistently maintained that he slaughtered his Fort Hood comrades out of loyalty to jihadists in Afghanistan.
"I was on the wrong side of America's war, and I later switched sides," Hasan said in his opening statement. "We in the mujahideen are imperfect beings trying to establish a perfect religion." A few days before the court-martial got underway, Hasan disavowed his US citizenship and the oath he took as an Army officer. During a pretrial proceeding in June, Hasan told the judge he wished to mount a "defense of others" strategy in responding to the charges he faces. When Osborn asked whom he was defending, Hasan replied: "The leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan — the Taliban."
Yet virtually from the hour it happened, the Defense Department insisted on calling the Fort Hood shooting an episode of "workplace violence," not of terrorism or war — a rhetorical dodge that reeked of political correctness. But when the Pentagon insisted in March that the Fort Hood victims were not entitled to receive Purple Hearts, that PC disingenuousness became something worse: a betrayal.
The Army's justification was that issuing the decoration to the Fort Hood casualties could undermine the shooter's right to due process, by implying that the victims had been killed or wounded in an action against an enemy of the United States. That might enable defense counsel to "argue that Major Hasan cannot receive a fair trial because a branch of government has indirectly declared that Major Hasan is a terrorist." Besides, the Pentagon added, the Purple Heart is for those hurt by America's international foes; it shouldn't be expanded to domestic criminal or terror attacks.
Such circular reasoning never passed the smell test. As noted, the National Counterterrorism Center identified Hasan's bloodbath early on as a "high-fatality terrorist attack." And no one denied Purple Hearts to the "domestic" casualties in the Pentagon on 9/11.
But even if there had been some scrap of merit to the notion that the gunman's due-process rights could be compromised by awarding Purple Hearts to his victims, it has been completely obliterated by Hasan's conduct during his court-martial. He has done everything within his power to make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that he opened fired on US soldiers with the explicit purpose of aiding America's enemies. He identifies himself as a jihadist. He declares that he "switched sides." He renounces his citizenship.
What Hasan perpetrated at Fort Hood was not "workplace violence," it was an act of war. And American military personnel killed or wounded by the enemy have been entitled since the time of George Washington to the recognition conferred by the Purple Heart.
At a memorial service five days after Hasan's lethal assault, President Obama eulogized those who had died. "This is a time of war," he said. One by one he described those who had given the last full measure of devotion. "Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to 13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home."
To deny the victims of Hasan's attack the medal they earned with their lives or blood is no way to pay that tribute. They deserve better from their commander-in-chief — and their nation.
does this mean the attack will no longer be referred to as Workplace Violence??
But those were foreign attackers so the comparison is not correct.
I say give Hassan a fair trial and execution and then pass out the purple hearts.
I thought that the PH was only awarded during war.
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/purple_heart.aspx
a. The original Purple Heart, designated as the Badge of Military Merit, was established by General George Washington by order from his headquarters at Newburgh, New York, August 7, 1782. The writings of General Washington quoted in part:
“The General ever desirous to cherish a virtuous ambition in his soldiers, as well as to foster and encourage every species of Military Merit, directs that whenever any singularly meritorious action is performed, the author of it shall be permitted to wear on his facings over the left breast, the figure of a heart in purple cloth or silk, edged with narrow lace or binding. Not only instances of unusual gallantry, but also of extraordinary fidelity and essential service in any way shall meet with a due reward”.
b. So far as the known surviving records show, this honor badge was granted to only three men, all of them noncommissioned officers: Sergeant Daniel Bissell of the 2d Connecticut Regiment of the Continental Line; Sergeant William Brown of the 5th Connecticut Regiment of the Continental Line, and Sergeant Elijah Churchill of the 2d Continental Dragoons, which was also a Connecticut Regiment. The original Purple Heart depicted on the first page is a copy of the badge awarded to Sergeant Elijah Churchill and is now owned by the New Windsor Cantonment, National Temple Hill Association, PO Box 525, Vails Gate, NY 12584. The only other known original badge is the badge awarded to Sergeant William Brown and is in the possession of The Society of the Cincinnati, New Hampshire Branch but differs in design by not having any lettering embroidered on the heart and the leaves are at the top only with a larger spray of leaves at the base.
c. Subsequent to the Revolution, the Order of the Purple Heart had fallen into disuse and no further awards were made. By Order of the President of the United States, the Purple Heart was revived on the 200th Anniversary of George Washington’s birth, out of respect to his memory and military achievements, by War Department General Orders No. 3, dated 22 February 1932. The criteria was announced in War Department Circular dated 22 February 1932 and authorized award to soldiers, upon their request, who had been awarded the Meritorious Service Citation Certificate or were authorized to wear wound chevrons subsequent to 5 April 1917.
d. During the early period of World War II (7 Dec 41 to 22 Sep 43), the Purple Heart was awarded both for wounds received in action against the enemy and for meritorious performance of duty. With the establishment of the Legion of Merit, by an Act of Congress, the practice of awarding the Purple Heart for meritorious service was discontinued. By Executive Order 9277, dated 3 December 1942, the decoration was extended to be applicable to all services and the order required that regulations of the Services be uniform in application as far as practicable. This executive order also authorized award only for wounds received.
e. Executive Order 10409, dated 12 February 1952, revised authorizations to include the Service Secretaries subject to approval of the Secretary of Defense. Executive Order 11016, dated 25 April 1962, included provisions for posthumous award of the Purple Heart. Executive Order 12464, dated 23 February 1984, authorized award of the Purple Heart as a result of terrorist attacks or while serving as part of a peacekeeping force subsequent to 28 March 1973.
f. The Senate approved an amendment to the 1985 Defense Authorization Bill on 13 June 1985, which changed the precedent from immediately above the Good Conduct Medal to immediately above the Meritorious Service Medals. Public Law 99-145 authorized the award for wounds received as a result of “friendly fire”. Public Law 104-106 expanded the eligibility date, authorizing award of the Purple Heart to a former prisoner of war who was wounded before 25 April 1962.
g. Order of precedence and wear of decorations is contained in Army Regulation 670-1. Policy for awards, approving authority, supply, and issue of decorations is contained in AR 600-8-22.
Hasan came in with Obama.
BOTH serve al Qaeda PROUDLY.
Bump
It was a terrorist attack against soldiers. It shouldn’t matter where it happened.
But it was classified as work place violence by Obama and the DOJ .... they denied it was a terrorist attack.
Thanks Kaslin.
The title reads as if the Obamas had reversed course and awarded them..
Yep, as opposed to a Manchurian Candidate Hussein is the Muslim Candidate..
I thought that the PH was only awarded during war.
But it was classified as work place violence by Obama and the DOJ .... they denied it was a terrorist attack.
Yes, they deserve it. And they won’t get it because we have a Commander in Chief who can’t hope to measure up against...a rodeo clown.
It’s not me that doesn’t think it’s war - it’s Obama’s regime that doesn’t.
I must confess that I'm slightly inclined to not award. I hear all the arguments supporting giving them one but I must admit that I remain not entirely convinced enough at this point. This doesn't mean I couldn't at some point change my mind but considering what I and many of my comrades in arms went through that caused me to be awarded mine, I just have trouble with the merits of this case I suppose. In any event that is just my opinion.
US Army, Sgt - Viet Name 1970-71 - Artillery Forward Observer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.