Fort Hood shooting "work place violence."

[Twotonsteak]

On November 5th, 2009, psychiatrist and US Army Major Nadil Hasan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas. He killed 13 and injured another 30 before being stopped. Since the shooting a group of soldiers and their families have been pushing the Department of Defense (DoD) to make the victims of the attack eligible for the Purple Heart and combat-related benefits.

In an press release made available Friday, March 29th, and after three years of fighting, the DoD officially classified the Fort Hood shooting as "work place violence." The apparent reasoning is that a "work place violence" classification gives Hasan a better chance at a fair trial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1992283.html

I have a few problems with this.

1. Hasan was quoted by many witnesses as yelling "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) right before the attack.
2. Hasan has been tied to (via e-mail correspondence) to Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed in Yemen last year by a drone strike.
3. There have been multiple US Governmental documents that refer to the attack, unofficially, as a terrorist attack.

Now I'm not necessarily concerned with awarding the Purple Heart, although it would be nice. However by classifying the attack as "work place violence" the DoD ends up denying benefits to the victims, and their families, that would otherwise be given. This is especially painful for those victims that survived but were deemed, because of the injuries, unable to continue service.

In short...call it what it was, terrorism, and give them the benefits they deserve.

[Porcell]

I don't care how they characterize it. Even if it was a terrorist attack, it still wasn't what I would describe as a combat situation.

[Deleted]

1. Hasan was quoted by many witnesses as yelling "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) right before the attack.
2. Hasan has been tied to (via e-mail correspondence) to Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed in Yemen last year by a drone strike.
3. There have been multiple US Governmental documents that refer to the attack, unofficially, as a terrorist attack.

1 - makes no odds what his god is. May as well have been shouting "Hail meat sauce, full of beef. The Spaghetti Monster is with you!" for all the difference it makes.
2 - I can be connected with via emails to the church of the flying spaghetti monster, im on their mailing list, Does that make me a terrorist ? in otherword's we need to see what the emails where, are they a two way communication, or are they just a "spam" email from the cleric about official business and have nothing to do with terrorist activities.
3 - Then these Documents need to be provided to the courts and made official.


I am not saying that what Hasan done was not an outrage, however just because someone shouts something as they go crazy does not make them a terrorist. Had this have happened in a "public" place rather than a military base in the middle of the country then it would simpley be another case of mad-man goes on a shooting spree. However with it happening on a military base people are automatically jumping on the "its a terrorist attack!" bandwagon without proof of this.

if or I should say when, it is proven that hasan was of sound mind and was in fact a terrorist, then yes those that where involved should be treated as if the injured and the killed should be treated as if it was in a military engagement. Until then, I think that it being treated as a work place risk to give him a fair trial is the right thing to do, for the moment.

if it was said to be a terrorist attack then there is no way that he would be given a fair trial as the taint of being a terrorist that killed a lot of service personal would ensure that a guilty verdict came back no matter what evidence was presented, And I believe this is one of the cornerstone's of US rights, To have a fair trial.

[Twotonsteak]

I don't care how they characterize it. Even if it was a terrorist attack, it still wasn't what I would describe as a combat situation.

Guns being shot. Thirteen dead, 30 injured (not including Hasan himself.)

I mean if a soldier is ambushed and shot in Afghanistan they call it "combat." If a police officer is ambushed and shot they call it "combat." If you don't qualify gun-fire as "combat" what WOULD you all it?

---------- Post added 2013-04-01 at 03:46 PM ----------

1 - makes no odds what his god is. May as well have been shouting "Hail meat sauce, full of beef. The Spaghetti Monster is with you!" for all the difference it makes.
2 - I can be connected with via emails to the church of the flying spaghetti monster, im on their mailing list, Does that make me a terrorist ? in otherword's we need to see what the emails where, are they a two way communication, or are they just a "spam" email from the cleric about official business and have nothing to do with terrorist activities.
3 - Then these Documents need to be provided to the courts and made official.


I am not saying that what Hasan done was not an outrage, however just because someone shouts something as they go crazy does not make them a terrorist. Had this have happened in a "public" place rather than a military base in the middle of the country then it would simpley be another case of mad-man goes on a shooting spree. However with it happening on a military base people are automatically jumping on the "its a terrorist attack!" bandwagon without proof of this.

if or I should say when, it is proven that hasan was of sound mind and was in fact a terrorist, then yes those that where involved should be treated as if the injured and the killed should be treated as if it was in a military engagement. Until then, I think that it being treated as a work place risk to give him a fair trial is the right thing to do, for the moment.

if it was said to be a terrorist attack then there is no way that he would be given a fair trial as the taint of being a terrorist that killed a lot of service personal would ensure that a guilty verdict came back no matter what evidence was presented, And I believe this is one of the cornerstone's of US rights, To have a fair trial.

1. Yelling his praises, as he did, does matter in the context of him being an Muslim extremist.
2. He was connected DIRECTLY via e-mail. As in he sent mail to and from a known terrorist leader with no middle-man.
"A Senate report released last year said the FBI missed warning signs about Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who was to deploy to Afghanistan the following month. The report said he had become an Islamic extremist and a "ticking time bomb" before the rampage at Fort Hood, about 125 miles southwest of Fort Worth. Officials also say Hasan exchanged emails with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed in Yemen last year by a drone strike."
3. "But the National Counterterrorism Center's 2009 Report on Terrorism called the Fort Hood shooting a "high fatality terrorist attack." The shooting also was mentioned in the State Department's "Country Reports on Terrorism 2009."

Honestly I'm not asking for awards to be handed out and I'm not looking to blame anyone (other than the shooter). I'd just like to see the people who were injured, and the families that lost loved ones, receive the benefits they deserve. As I said...if being shot by a terrorist doesn't qualify as a "terrorist attack" then I'm not sure what does.

[Porcell]

Guns being shot. Thirteen dead, 30 injured (not including Hasan himself.)

I mean if a soldier is ambushed and shot in Afghanistan they call it "combat." If a police officer is ambushed and shot they call it "combat." If you don't qualify gun-fire as "combat" what WOULD you all it?

Was an airplane flying to the World Trade Center combat? Was a gunman opening fire in a church / theater / school combat?

Hasan loaded up, went to a medical building, and started shooting unarmed people. Just because the people were soldiers doesn't mean it was combat.

"A group of 160 victims and family members have asked the government to declare the Fort Hood attack an act of terrorism, which would mean that injuries would be treated as if the victims were in a combat zone, providing them more benefits." They weren't in a combat zone. It wasn't combat, it was a shooting.

By the way, "Act of Terror" is such a bullshit term.

[Twotonsteak]

Was an airplane flying to the World Trade Center combat? Was a gunman opening fire in a church / theater / school combat?

Hasan loaded up, went to a medical building, and started shooting unarmed people. Just because the people were soldiers doesn't mean it was combat.

"A group of 160 victims and family members have asked the government to declare the Fort Hood attack an act of terrorism, which would mean that injuries would be treated as if the victims were in a combat zone, providing them more benefits." They weren't in a combat zone. It wasn't combat, it was a shooting.

By the way, "Act of Terror" is such a bullshit term.

...

You do realize that the attacks of 9/11/01 are widely considered to be one of the worst TERRORIST attacks in history?

I mean do you actually consider the attacks of 9/11 "work-place violence?"

[Deleted]

...

You do realize that the attacks of 9/11/01 are widely considered to be one of the worst TERRORIST attacks in history?

I mean do you actually consider the attacks of 9/11 "work-place violence?"

That was terrorism, in the most widely accepted definition, a violent attack on civilians for political purposes. Atta was no worker at WTC, nor was anyone of his complices, who said that (apart from Alex Jones or similar conspiracy theorists)?. I don't know if you use "work-place violence" as a legal term, but doubt that, and suspect it would fall in the simple category of murder. You may like to use "terrorism" as a term for "somehow scary people believing in a different religion than mine", but that is fluffy bullshit. And any definition of terrorism that includes soldiers killing soldiers is ridiculous.

[Twotonsteak]

That was terrorism, in the most widely accepted definition, a violent attack on civilians for political purposes. Atta was no worker at WTC, nor was anyone of his complices, who said that (apart from Alex Jones or similar conspiracy theorists)?. I don't know if you use "work-place violence" as a legal term, but doubt that, and suspect it would fall in the simple category of murder. You may like to use "terrorism" as a term for "somehow scary people believing in a different religion than mine", but that is fluffy bullshit. And any definition of terrorism that includes soldiers killing soldiers is ridiculous.

The Obama administration classifies Anwar al-Awlaki as a terrorist and green-lights his death by drone strike. That's widely considered acceptable. The same administration refuses to classify one of al-Awlaki's followers, a person who was talking to him via e-mail (confirmed by the F.B.I.), who followed al-Awlaki's teachings as a terrorist SOLELY for the sake of his court trial.

That's the kicker here. The ONLY reason the DoD has given, for classifying this attack as "work-place violence," is because they're worried that calling it terrorism will hinder Hasan's trial.

Really the only difference between Fort Hood and 9/11 is numbers. The number of participants and number of victims. The intent and reasoning, even the source of that intent and reasoning, is pretty much the same. I guess that raises the question...how many have to die in an attack for it to be classified as terrorism?

[Theinquisition]

Personally i think of it as combat.

When you are sworn in you swear to protect the U.S. from all enemies foriegn and domestic.

Husan definately qualifies as a domestic enemy.

[Pendulous]

Guns being shot. Thirteen dead, 30 injured (not including Hasan himself.)

I mean if a soldier is ambushed and shot in Afghanistan they call it "combat." If a police officer is ambushed and shot they call it "combat." If you don't qualify gun-fire as "combat" what WOULD you all it?

Combat would imply a situation where both parties know that they're under attack. You can't define every gun shooting as "combat", and award Joe at the bank a Purple heart because some guy came in and shot him.

[Theinquisition]

Combat would imply a situation where both parties know that they're under attack. You can't define every gun shooting as "combat", and award Joe at the bank a Purple heart because some guy came in and shot him.

Just because they were ambushed doesn't mean it wasn't a attack.

Husan entered the SRP facility with the sole intention of engaging and killing U.S. soldiers. In my eyes it was a military style attack by a domestic terrorist.

[Kraenen]

Conservatives acting politically correct (PC). You don't see that often.

[Theinquisition]

Conservatives acting politically correct (PC). You don't see that often.

Who's being "PC"?

[Deleted]

The Obama administration classifies Anwar al-Awlaki as a terrorist and green-lights his death by drone strike. That's widely considered acceptable. The same administration refuses to classify one of al-Awlaki's followers, a person who was talking to him via e-mail (confirmed by the F.B.I.), who followed al-Awlaki's teachings as a terrorist SOLELY for the sake of his court trial.

That's the kicker here. The ONLY reason the DoD has given, for classifying this attack as "work-place violence," is because they're worried that calling it terrorism will hinder Hasan's trial.

Really the only difference between Fort Hood and 9/11 is numbers. The number of participants and number of victims. The intent and reasoning, even the source of that intent and reasoning, is pretty much the same. I guess that raises the question...how many have to die in an attack for it to be classified as terrorism?

I don't know the intent, but from what I remember on this site, some military members commented on the case about the deed likely motivated by jealousy. They sounded more believable that you invoking the big boogeymen. But whatever the motives were, it was a soldier killing soldiers, of his own army, and certainly not civilians, meaning murder or manslaughter, possibly mutiny or treason, but certainly not terrorism. And that has nothing to do with the number of casualties.

[Kraenen]

Who's being "PC"?

Didn't my post say exactly that?

[Deleted]

Who's being "PC"?

Always the other side, never us.

[Wiyld]

The reason we give purple hearts is as follows.

What differentiates a member of the armed forces from a civilian is that they put on a uniform and say 'hey bad guys, if you want to shoot at an American, shoot at me first'.

Therefor in a case where an individual sought out American troops specifically I think they were in fact combat victims, as they would not have been victims if they had not donned the uniform.

Another point to consider is that the shooter was a member of, or was at least becoming a member of, an organization with which we are already engaged in combat.

Saying that they were not in combat because the victims of the shooting were not shooting back would mean that for the most part the victims of Pearl Harbor were also not combat victims but just victims of a mass murder. 'Work place violence' indeed.

[Deleted]

Regarding my post of jealousy, I confused that with a more recent murder among US soldiers with two victims, not this one.

[Theinquisition]

I don't know the intent, but from what I remember on this site, some military members commented on the case about the deed likely motivated by jealousy. They sounded more believable that you invoking the big boogeymen. But whatever the motives were, it was a soldier killing soldiers, of his own army, and certainly not civilians, meaning murder or manslaughter, possibly mutiny or treason, but certainly not terrorism. And that has nothing to do with the number of casualties.

It has to do more with the intent.

He attacked a military facility where he knew that not only would the soldiers be unarmed (we don't go about our daily buisness on post armed) and be present in high numbers.

He attacked in the name of world wide jihad with the intent of causing as many causlities as possible. He did so under the guise of being a fellow military member and took advantage of the trust implaced in him as a U.S. Army officer.

My word isn't law, but in my eyes it was a terroristic attack by a domestic enemy.

[Twotonsteak]

Combat would imply a situation where both parties know that they're under attack. You can't define every gun shooting as "combat", and award Joe at the bank a Purple heart because some guy came in and shot him.

I'm not worried about awarding Purple Hearts. I said that in the OP. I just want to see these service members, and the families of those service members who were killed, receive the benefits appropriate for a terrorist attack.

I mean the F.B.I. referred to him as an "Islamic extremist." A State Department report listed the attack under the heading of "terrorism." The ONLY reason they (the DoD) doesn't want to classify it as terrorism is because they're afraid it might, somehow, alter the "fairness" of Hasan's case.