Fort Hood shooting "work place violence."

[Theinquisition]

Didn't my post say exactly that?

Not really you gave a vague generality without any specific reference.

[Twotonsteak]

Didn't my post say exactly that?

I think the confusion is in who you're calling a conservative and/or what part of this involves being PC?

[Theinquisition]

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.

Which i think is insane anyway.

Since he is under the authority of UCMJ he is not reciving a trial by jury. I'm not sure exactly why the DoD is worried about somehow dirting Husans name.

[Wiyld]

Which i think is insane anyway.

Since he is under the authority of UCMJ he is not reciving a trial by jury. I'm not sure exactly why the DoD is worried about somehow dirting Husans name.

Unless they want to sweep him under the rug as quickly and quietly as possible for some reason.


/end conspiracy

[Theinquisition]

Unless they want to sweep him under the rug as quickly and quietly as possible for some reason.


/end conspiracy

makes me mad its taken the trial this long.

they have him red handed

[Deleted]

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.

I recognize the intent, I did confuse it with a different case. But the victims were soldiers, and the killer from inside the army, terrorism is directed against civilians. Murder is still murder and doesn't mean easy punishment. There was a similar case in Germany two years ago, a Kosovo Albanian living in Germany (so allied with both as that state was practically created by NATO), killed two US soldiers who were on their way two Afghanistan. He was convicted for murder and given life sentence.

[Theinquisition]

I recognize the intent, I did confuse it with a different case. But the victims were soldiers, and the killer from inside the army, terrorism is directed against civilians. Murder is still murder and doesn't mean easy punishment. There was a similar case in Germany two years ago, a Kosovo Albanian living in Germany (so allied with both as that state was practically created by NATO), killed two US soldiers who were on their way two Afghanistan. He was convicted for murder and given life sentence.

I remember reading about that, it was at the Leipzig Airport wasn't it?

Anyway, the soldiers were not deployed and not in a typical "combat" enviroment. They were in a civlian enviroment and unarmed, Husan used his status as a officer to attack unarmed men and women.

Just because the attack was directed at soldiers doesn't change the fact that it was a domestic terrorstic threat.

[Twotonsteak]

I recognize the intent, I did confuse it with a different case. But the victims were soldiers, and the killer from inside the army, terrorism is directed against civilians. Murder is still murder and doesn't mean easy punishment. There was a similar case in Germany two years ago, a Kosovo Albanian living in Germany (so allied with both as that state was practically created by NATO), killed two US soldiers who were on their way two Afghanistan. He was convicted for murder and given life sentence.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."

In the most technical sense you are correct only as it would apply to military personal. One of the thirteen killed was a civilian employee. As such I would contend that this attack DOES meet the "definition" for a terrorist attack since, it would seem, Hasan was not picky whether he killed military or civilian personal. He just went to a place where there would be a lot of people together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Ho...ing#Casualties

[SirPiken]

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.

You seem to be willing to take drastic steps in order to not call a rose a rose. Not just a river in Egypt and all that.

[Kraenen]

I think the confusion is in who you're calling a conservative and/or what part of this involves being PC?

Well, who called this "work place violence"?