TexasCHLforum.com

Political correctness crosses a line when it no longer conveys stupidity but pathetic weakness to our enemies.

Last Friday, the U.S. Army formally decided not to award Purple Heart medals to the victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, which claimed 13 lives and wounded 32 people. The Army preposterously claims that handing out medals would damage Major Nidal Hasan’s “ability to receive a fair trial.”

The Army issued a “position paper” in which it expressed concern that awarding the medal to the shooting victims “would set the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist.” This is because the Purple Heart is awarded to those who have been “wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States.”

But Hasan clearly was a terrorist. A Muslim, he consulted with a radical overseas imam and shouted “Allahu Akbar” before beginning his deadly rampage. The FBI and Congress have found his carnage to be an act of terrorism, while the Obama administration insists it was an incident of “workplace violence.”

Hasan faces the death penalty if he is convicted by a military jury on 13 specifications of premeditated murder. His court martial is set to begin in July.

Neal Sher, a New York lawyer who represents the Fort Hood victims, called the Army’s findings “rubbish.” “These victims have been given the back of the hand by their government,” he claimed. I’ll go further. In its absurd ruling the Obama administration has given them a kick in the gut.

. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

JALLEN wrote:
I think the problem might be that the deaths and wounds were inflicted by a US Army officer. If he had been just some religious loon who somehow got on base, it might be different.

JALLEN wrote:Here is the criteria:

. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

I think the problem might be that the deaths and wounds were inflicted by a US Army officer. If he had been just some religious loon who somehow got on base, it might be different.

I think one ought to be eligible if the services of a psychiatrist are furnished, but that is just me and not the policy of the government.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What I don't know about military "law" would fill volumes. If the report is correct and it would have even the slightest chance of providing a defense to this mass murderer, then I agree with the decision, if the medals can be awarded after his trial.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What I don't know about military "law" would fill volumes. If the report is correct and it would have even the slightest chance of providing a defense to this mass murderer, then I agree with the decision, if the medals can be awarded after his trial.

Chas.

Charles, I get the logic, but wouldn't it also extend to his appeals? If that's the case, then you couldn't award the medals until he had exhausted all his appeals and been executed. Otherwise he would have grounds for a new appeal asserting that the entire case against him was a fraud designed to make it possible to convict him. (I'm assuming they will execute the scumbag. They'd better.)

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I just don't want to see anything done that gives him a shot at avoiding the death penalty.

Chas.

gthaustex wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Here is the criteria:

...........

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

I think the problem might be that the deaths and wounds were inflicted by a US Army officer. If he had been just some religious loon who somehow got on base, it might be different.

I think one ought to be eligible if the services of a psychiatrist are furnished, but that is just me and not the policy of the government.

So you are saying that #6 above would not apply in this case, even if Hasan were declared as an international terrorist working at the behest of al-Qaeda or some such? His communications before the attack and his actions during would indicate that he was IMHO.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What I don't know about military "law" would fill volumes. If the report is correct and it would have even the slightest chance of providing a defense to this mass murderer, then I agree with the decision, if the medals can be awarded after his trial.

Chas.

Charles, I get the logic, but wouldn't it also extend to his appeals? If that's the case, then you couldn't award the medals until he had exhausted all his appeals and been executed. Otherwise he would have grounds for a new appeal asserting that the entire case against him was a fraud designed to make it possible to convict him. (I'm assuming they will execute the scumbag. They'd better.)