Purple Hearts proposed for Fort Hood victims

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Thanks Marg.

From your reply, I get the impression that if it was deemed a terrorist attack, it cannot be a crime?

On a seperate note, the determination seems to be very similar to that of a hate crime in my opinion.

[kallend 1,681]

Quote

Quote

Based on the latest reports released from Walter Reed, it sounds like he was just another nutter with a gun.

Do you have a link?


/Marg

Sorry, it was a NPR segment on (I think) Monday about his written evaluations at Walter Reed prior to going to Fort Hood. Clearly he had abnormal behavioral problems

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Based on the latest reports released from Walter Reed, it sounds like he was just another nutter with a gun.

Do you have a link?

I had dinner last night with a group of friends from my church that included a surgeon who very recently returned from a deployment to Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center. One of the comments he made, when he brought up the Ft Hood shooting (I left it to him to speak about it if he wanted to/initiated) was the shortage of folks with medical capabilities across all fields in the Army.

/Marg

Hire more Contract empoyee's to make up for shortages.

Next problem

One Jump Wonder

[Ron 7]

Quote

Sorry, it was a NPR segment on (I think) Monday about his written evaluations at Walter Reed prior to going to Fort Hood. Clearly he had abnormal behavioral problems

It was discussed here on the Diane Rehm Show today, and on another show I think on Tue. Basically said that if he had tried to get a civilian position, his record would have prevented him from finding a job.

He had quite the history of mental issues and they were documented.

Some of the reasons they said nothing was done:

1. Military was low on mental health workers.
2. People were being overly cautious not to look like they were after him for being Muslim.
3. Typical BS of pushing the problem to someone else.

They had interviews of co workers and they talked about how they had to be aware of their limits and not looking like they were not being harder on him due to being Muslim.

The report also said that all Mental Health workers are offered therapy, but he did not take any.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Para_Frog 1]

I too heard the NPR segment about the memo they obtained. And (gulp) agree tentatively with Dr. Kellend. Unless some new unknown findings come out.

This was an overweight, lazy, douchebag with a poor work ethic, who couldn't get laid (initial computer forensic reports showed he spent a lot of time getting shot down on dating sites), spent money at titty bars, sought out a militant mullah trying to find acceptance in his loser masturbatory world...

...and had superiors who thought as much but were afraid to affect any REAL negative action against him.

Probably because they were afraid of being labeled racist or intolerant of Islam.

Run of the mill loser who decided to shoot at people who couldn't defend themselves.

Did militant Islam convince him to do this? Perhaps, but no more than William Luther Pierce (Turner Diaries) convinced McVeigh.

He's a home-grown shitbag who will more than likely see a similar fate.

My $.02

Purple Hearts? IMHO no.

ARCOMS or MSMs for those who did great things during the incident? Absolutely.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[d16842 0]

Quote

Just curious, did your friends die in a training accident? I'm not aware of any IEDs being deployed in the US. No disrespect to their service, I just don't understand what you mean.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902703.html

There are literally hundreds or thousands of IED's per year in the US, depending on how you define them, a heck of a lot more than most realize. You just don't hear about the sucessful interventions, as they play them down for obvious reasons. The war on terror didn't start on 9/11. It just became official. Those who died in the "peacetime" prior to that just got shipped home.

People know of Ted Kazinski, the Unibomber, the many blown up abortion clinics, OK City, but the mass numbers come from drug wars on the border, gang wars, etc. There literally are mined and bobby trapped areas in most southern National Parks and Forrests, where people grow grass.

It has changed some now, with all of the teams deployed, but not all that long ago, Army EOD teams were charged with responding to all such incidents in the continental US, except where local police had specific training, and that was really limited to larger population areas.

Oh, the same FALN terrorists that Clinton pardoned to get the PR vote, were bombing all over for a LONG time. The were even mailing letter bombs to EOD team members' family homes in some places.

Having said all that, it was the best experience of my life. Including skydiving.

Tom B

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

From your reply, I get the impression that if it was deemed a terrorist attack, it cannot be a crime?

Terrorism is a federal crime, yes. 18 U.S.C. § 2331.

To be prosecuted as a terrorist, it has to be shown that the actions (motive) were and appear to be intended to cause terror, rather than for personal financial or other gain, because of negligence or stupidity, etc.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Thanks marg!!!

[d16842 0]

Quote

What are the determining factors in the decision whether this is terrorism or murder?

I think because it was a political act. When soldiers are killed because they represent US government policy, it is not just murder, and they are not just murder victims. It is literally an attack on the whole US and its policy.

Tom B

[DanG 1]

Quote

I think because it was a political act. When soldiers are killed because they represent US government policy, it is not just murder, and they are not just murder victims. It is literally an attack on the whole US and its policy.

I think you could reasonably make the argument that it was terrorism. I disagree because that makes anything done with political motivation an act of terrorism. Then you have to define what is meant by "politial motivation". Was the DC sniper motivated politically? What if he had shot a soldier pumping gas off-Post? Does that guy get a Purple Heart? Even if you decide that all acts with a political component are terrorism, there is still the question of whether they are an act of war.

To me, a single gunman, acting on personally held beliefs, and not acting as an agent of a foreign state or non-state actor, can't commit an act of war. He can murder a bunch of people, maybe even commit an act of terrorism, but it doesn't make it war.

I think there is a big difference between the actions of your EOD friends, who intentionally put themselves in harm's way as part of their job, and people who happened to be soldiers being murdered by a nutcase while sitting in a Texas clinic waiting room.

- Dan G

[d16842 0]

Quote

I think you could reasonably make the argument that it was terrorism. I disagree because that makes anything done with political motivation an act of terrorism. Then you have to define what is meant by "politial motivation". Was the DC sniper motivated politically? What if he had shot a soldier pumping gas off-Post? Does that guy get a Purple Heart? Even if you decide that all acts with a political component are terrorism, there is still the question of whether they are an act of war.

To me, a single gunman, acting on personally held beliefs, and not acting as an agent of a foreign state or non-state actor, can't commit an act of war. He can murder a bunch of people, maybe even commit an act of terrorism, but it doesn't make it war.

I think there is a big difference between the actions of your EOD friends, who intentionally put themselves in harm's way as part of their job, and people who happened to be soldiers being murdered by a nutcase while sitting in a Texas clinic waiting room.

Dan, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It does get complicated. I would not dream of suggesting that any or all of those killed at Ft Hood should be decorated for valor, just because they were shot. But that is not the meaning of a Purple Heart. It is instead official notice that one made a sacrifice of blood for the nation, in official service. Nothing more, nothing less.

You mentioned that they were killed because they "happened to be soldiers". That is not the case. They were deliberately killed BECAUSE they were soldiers. That removes any comparison to random events.

In these circumstances, and I speak of those killed, a Purple Heart may be mere symbolism in the big picture to the nation. But symbolism is very important to their wives, children and parents. It becomes something for them to hang on to in the darkest moments of their lives. That medal can be something for a growing child to touch, when their parents are no longer there to be touched, and I support it for that.

One person, as you state, can't make war on the US. But we are in a sanctioned war on terror, directed by the President and approved by Congress. And this individual clearly was attacking that action and policy. He acted in mental unity with those we are in war with, be it officially declared or not.

The mere geography of the act, Ft. Hood, or where they were about to be deployed, should not be the determing factor here. Would anyone question the award if they were in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Again, thanks.

Tom

Tom B

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The mere geography of the act, Ft. Hood, or where they were about to be deployed, should not be the determing factor here. Would anyone question the award if they were in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Not easy to answer. If a soldier's unit is on deployment, and the soldier frags his asshole L-T, is the L-T deserving of a Purple Heart?

[livendive 8]

Quote

I guess I should have said that it is my opinion that this act was murder, not terrorism.

I am very leary of labeling an act terrorism. In fact, since the target was a military installation, if the shooter is later determied to have acted on orders from a foreign combatant, then this act would be combat, not terrorism. The label terrorism, in my opinion, should be restricted to acts against civilian targets with no military value, and intended to cause fear in the civilian population. Guys shooting at soldiers with the intent to do military damage are not terrorists.

But, like I said, I really think this was an act of mass murder by a disturbed individual.

What he said.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Erroll 53]

Quote

Quote

You mentioned that they were killed because they "happened to be soldiers". That is not the case. They were deliberately killed BECAUSE they were soldiers.

Quote

And this individual clearly was attacking that action and policy. He acted in mental unity with those we are in war with, be it officially declared or not.

On what information do you base your very definitive statements?

[BIGUN 1,106]

For the record:

Quote

The following criteria governs award of the Purple Heart in ALL branches of service, not just the United States Army. The text here is taken directly from AR 600-8-22, 25 February 1995 and Public Law 104-106 - Feb. 10, 1996 (sub-paragraphs have been indented to ease reading) AR 600-8-22 / 25 February 1995

SEC. 571. PURPLE HEART TO BE AWARDED ONLY TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.--(1) Chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

"§ 1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed forces

"The decoration known as the Purple Heart (authorized to be awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016) may only be awarded to a person who is a member of the armed forces at the time the person is killed or wounded under circumstances otherwise qualifying that person for award of the Purple Heart.".

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

"1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed forces.".

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Section 1131 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to persons who are killed or wounded after the end of the 180-day period beginning on (18 Nov 1997) the date of the enactment of this Act.

2-8. Purple Heart

The Purple Heart was established by General George Washington, at Newburgh, New York, on 7 August 1782, during the Revolutionary War. It was reestablished by the President of the United States per War Department General Orders 3, 1932 and is currently awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016, 25 April 1962, Executive Order 12464, 23 February 1984 and Public Law 98-525, 19 October 1984.

a. 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.

b. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.

(1) A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same missile, force, explosion, or agent.

(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

(3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.

(4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.

(b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.

(c) Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.

(d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.

(e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.

(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

(b) Heat stroke.

(c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

(e) Battle fatigue.

(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.

(i) Post traumatic stress disorders.

(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action.

(6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration, the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria. Note the following examples:

(a) In case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made.

(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.

(c) Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.

c. A Purple Heart will be issued to the next of kin of each person entitled to a posthumous award. Issue will be made automatically by the Commanding General, PERSCOM, upon receiving a report of death indicating entitlement.

d. Upon written application to Commander, ARPERCEN, ATIN.- DAR-P-VSEA, 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132-5200, award may be made to any member of the Army, who during World War 1, was awarded a Meritorious Service Citation Certificate signed by the Commander in Chief, American Expeditionary Forces, or who was authorized to wear wound chevrons. Posthumous awards to personnel who were killed or died of wounds after 5 April 1917 will be made to the appropriate next of kin upon application to the Commanding General, PERSCOM.

e. Any member of the Army who was awarded the Purple Heart for meritorious achievement or service, as opposed to wounds received in action, between 7 December 1941 and 22 September 1943, may apply for award of an appropriate decoration instead of the Purple Heart.

f. For those who became Prisoners of War after 25 April 1962, the Purple Heart will be awarded to individuals wounded while prisoners of foreign forces, upon submission by the individual to the Department of the U.S. Army of an affidavit that is supported by a statement from a witness, if this is possible. Documentation and inquiries Should be directed to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPCPDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471.

g. Any member of the U.S. Army who believes that he or she is eligible for the Purple Heart, but through unusual circumstances no award was made, may submit an application through military channels, to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC-PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471. Application will include complete documentation, to include evidence of medical treatment, pertaining to the wound.

PUBLIC LAW 104-106 - FEB. 10, 1996

SEC. 621. AWARD OF PURPLE HEART TO PERSONS WOUNDED WHILE HELD AS PRISONERS OF WAR BEFORE APRIL 26, 1962.

(a) AWARD OF PURPLE HEART.—For purposes of the award of the Purple Heart, the Secretary concerned (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code) shall treat a former prisoner of war who was wounded before April 25, 1962, while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) in the same manner as a former prisoner of war who is wounded on or after that date while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive).

(b) STANDARDS FOR AWARD.—An award of the Purple Heart under subsection (a) shall be made in accordance with the standards in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act for the award of the Purple Heart to persons wounded on or after April 25, 1962.

(C) ELIGIBLE FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.—A person shall be considered to be a former prisoner of war for purposes of this section if the person is eligible for the prisoner-of-war meda1 under section 1128 of title 10, United States Code.

Source: Military Order Of The Purple Heart

Comments:
They _may_ receive the Legion of Merit.
The Purple Heart does not necessarily move one up in line for VA services.
Unless the PH holder is >50% disabled, they can remain as a Priority 3 within the VA system, whereas a 100% service-connected disabled vet that does not hold the PH can be a Priority 1.

http://www4.va.gov/healtheligibility/eligibility/PriorityGroupsAll.asp

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You mentioned that they were killed because they "happened to be soldiers". That is not the case. They were deliberately killed BECAUSE they were soldiers.

Quote

And this individual clearly was attacking that action and policy. He acted in mental unity with those we are in war with, be it officially declared or not.

On what information do you base your very definitive statements?

The Army has a tight lid on this for obvious reasons, so few of those on active duty can freely comment. But one of the shooter's former co-workers is retired, and thus not subject to the constraints the Army put in place. He spoke out on the first day of the shooting. He was VERY explicit in describing the Major Hasan's comments of Jihad against America. Like Major Hassan, he is also a psychiatrist, so he is a witness AND a trained medical health professional. I can't imagine a more credible witness in this case. And despite the Army's attempts to silence their staff, there were many others who have spoke out as well, verified by members of Congress. What better definition can one make?

Tom B

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Based on the latest reports released from Walter Reed, it sounds like he was just another nutter with a gun.

Do you have a link?

I had dinner last night with a group of friends from my church that included a surgeon who very recently returned from a deployment to Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center. One of the comments he made, when he brought up the Ft Hood shooting (I left it to him to speak about it if he wanted to/initiated) was the shortage of folks with medical capabilities across all fields in the Army.

/Marg

Hire more Contract empoyee's to make up for shortages.

Next problem

Not so fast. Not nearly so fact. The military, AND the VA, face profound shortages of medical, including mental health, professionals. They have tried to hire contract employees, but precious few of them seem willing to deploy to a war zone. And large stateside shortages exist as well. As a 100% disabled veteran, who also enjoys the privilage of dealing with PTSD, I guarantee such shortages exist.

Tom B

[d16842 0]

Quote

Comments:
They _may_ receive the Legion of Merit.
The Purple Heart does not necessarily move one up in line for VA services.
Unless the PH holder is >50% disabled, they can remain as a Priority 3 within the VA system, whereas a 100% service-connected disabled vet that does not hold the PH can be a Priority 1.
http://www4.va.gov/healtheligibility/eligibility/PriorityGroupsAll.asp[/url]

Given that many veterans, myself included, view the Legion of Nerit as an award given to officers for a sustained period of not catching the clap, pardon me for not fully appreciating that award.

I don't believe it possible to distinguish the Ft Hood injured and dead from those occurring in Iraq and Afghaniston. Per the Geneva Convention, their attackers are both unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatant/belligerents, i.e. a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law, who may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

Despite, the earlier claim, the award of the Purple Heart DOES move one forward in the priority for vetrans care. Specifically, if they are less than 50 disabled, they will be authorized lesser VA care an a non-disabled veteran who shot in Afthanistan or Iraq.

Also it bothers me greatly that those who "died", i.e wee not officially not killed, in to the period of service between Vietnam and Desert Storm, were not eligle for it the Purple Heart despite the conditions. For example, many air crews were lost penetrating what the Soviet's viewed as their air defense zone, or many other very dangerous assignments. Somehow I don't think they were frightened, less injured, or less dead.

Tom B

[DanG 1]

Quote

I don't believe it possible to distinguish the Ft Hood injured and dead from those occurring in Iraq and Afghaniston. Per the Geneva Convention, their attackers are both unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatant/belligerents, i.e. a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law, who may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

MAJ Hasan was not a civilian.

Given how you feel the Legion of Merit has become less appreciated, I'm suprized you seem to want the same thing to happen to the Purple Heart. If this goes through, soon it will be awarded to any servicemember injured while on duty, regardless of circumstance.

Furthermore, awarding the Purple Heart to these victims gives MAJ Hasan more credit than he is due. He was not an enemy combatant, he was a raging asshole who committed a dispicable act. Don't glorify his crazed murderous rampage as jihad.

- Dan G

[d16842 0]

Quote

MAJ Hasan was not a civilian.

No sadly. He didn't act as a Army soldier, but instead bailed on the US Army, and became a "soldier" of the body of Islamic terrorists, who's "orders" he was following. Do they have a swear in ceremony different than the one he took with our blood? We are at war with that body. In two nations.

Quote

Given how you feel the Legion of Merit has become less appreciated, I'm surprised you seem to want the same thing to happen to the Purple Heart.

Hardly. The Legion of Merit is largely a political award, one normally granted officers of flag or senior staff rank, or a RARE enlisted person, like the Sergeant of the Army. I have never heard ot it being awarded anywhere near the hail of bullets. Hell we even gave it to Russian generals!

The VAST majority of Americans seem to believe as I do, that those falen in Texas were just as much casualties of our war on Islamic Extremists and Terrorists, just as if they happened in Iraq. So except for perhaps with purists, the honor of the Purple Heart is safe. Personally, I think Americans will be offended if it is NOT awarded.

My wife was twice deployed, and met as many Purple Heart recipients as I know, for she he spent two deployments talking to them, serving as Chief Nurse of an evacuation hospital. She is sure that they will support the award in overwhelming numbers. And that is all the referral I need. Nobody else matters!

Quote

If this goes through, soon it will be awarded to any service member injured while on duty, regardless of circumstance.

Horse shit. I am a 100% disabled vet, and I don't think I deserve a Purple Heart. These soldiers were shot and killed by an Islamic Extremists, holding the same views as those are at war with.

Quote

Furthermore, awarding the Purple Heart to these victims gives MAJ Hasan more credit than he is due. He was not an enemy combatant, he was a raging asshole who committed a despicable act. Don't glorify his crazed murderous rampage as jihad.

Now THAT feeling I do give weight to. But my Islamic friend here tells me that nothing we here about is justified as jahad, so I use it in a political context. But in total, I don't think we should hold that against those shot in Texas. And it is the same motives, for the asshole in Texas, Iraq or Afghanistan.
The award of the Purple Heart literally defines the degree of service they are entitled to at the VA. For those killed, it is the only award their kids will be able to hold in very dark days.

Tom B

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

He didn't act as a Army soldier, but instead bailed on the US Army, and became a "soldier" of the body of Islamic terrorists, who's "orders" he was following.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence that that (highlighted text) occurred anywhere but in the tormented recesses of his delusional mind.

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

He didn't act as a Army soldier, but instead bailed on the US Army, and became a "soldier" of the body of Islamic terrorists, who's "orders" he was following.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence that that (highlighted text) occurred anywhere but in the tormented recesses of his delusional mind.

You mean these kind of comments? Fellow Army Psychiatrist Colonel Terry Lee stated that Hasan had made comments at a conference that "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor" in Iraq. According to Lee, Hasan made similar comments several other times, including repeatedly saying "we should not be over there." He also said Hasan seemed "almost sort of happy" about the shooting at a Little Rock recruiting office. He also stated that Hasan seemed otherwise normal. He calmly prepared for his Islamic warrior death, giving away all his possesions to his civilian neighbors, got a nice clean haircut, and prepared his financial affairs.

That kind of delusional? Then it seems you must find ALL Islamic terrorist delusional. Like all of the suicide bombers for example. And the the ones who inflicted the 9/11 WTC attacks, and all those who entered Iraq from a host of other nations, in the virtual certainty that if they engaged US troops, that they would die. And all the Islamic Mullahs who call for the above. There seems no end to the delusional people in this cause.

And I generally agree, they are. But we are at war with exactly that. Your positions seems to make both wars really just dealing with the insane, and nobody should get a Purple Heart for that. Right?

Tom B

[Erroll 53]

Quote

...verified by members of Congress. What better definition can one make?

If this is so clear cut, why then would it require another bill passed by Congress?




PS. I am not picking a fight with you. I also served for many years and had several tours of operational duty. I'm just trying to get a feel for how things work over there.

[BIGUN 1,106]

On one hand, you acknowledge the dilution of the Legion of Merit which is the case for many awards these days. Having gone in at the end of Vietnam, those who wore their awards (medals) did so and were revered because the criteria was established. THe CIB meant something as did the Bronze Star (which can be awarded with or without the "V" device).

During Grenada, the dilution began. I know many a soldier who participated in Grenada and were more ashamed of being awarded CIB's and Bronze Stars for Grenada because they knew the criteria for the CIB as the dilution began then. Over the years, I saw Bronze Stars awarded to officers whose butts sat at Ft. Bragg (w/o the "V" device) while others on the battlefield in the face of fire received nothing.

You say most Americans would be "offended" if those at Ft. Hood were not awarded the PH. Perhaps this is the time to honor the criteria established for the PH and/or to bring the criteria back up for all the awards. I too, have received a symphony of medals of which some I am ashamed of having received. In one case, I received an Army Commendation medal for being involved in operations planning (and it's success), but received an Army Achievement medal for a life-saving action (for those unknowing on the thread, the Achievement Medal is a lesser award than the Commendation Medal).

In addition, I know of 31 soldiers who died at Ft. Hood in preparation for Desert Storm... Any less of a sacrifice? They didn't receive any medals higher than a ArCom. Right now, there is a lot of emotion surrounding this incident, but I ask if it had been Major Smith, who happened to be a Christian extremist (they kill too) had committed the act whether we would be having this discussion. And, by definition of U.S. law could be considered an act of terrorism.

I'm not saying your argument is not without merit... they do deserve acknowledgment. But, let's not react in the emotion of the moment. Some may know that the Army and Air Force are the only two branches that do not award a "V" device for the Legion of Merit. And, let me close with this... Is the sacrifice made by the police officer who shot him to be overlooked and not acknowledged in like simply because she wore a different uniform? Whereas, by preserving the criteria for the Purple Heart and making the criteria solid for the award they _may_ receive... America can be proud of whatever award they may receive for those who died during this unfortunate incident.

IMO, One cannot complain about the dilution of the Legion of Merit on one hand, while asking for the dilution of the PH on the other. Personally, I look to a logical solution in honoring those who died without this sad situation becoming a reason and a catalyst for diluting the PH. Once diluted, it never regains a higher criteria.

Let's take our time and do this right. Honor the PH, honor those who passed and honor those police officers in an appropriate manner. Let's not award the PH just to make ourselves feel better.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Ron 7]

Quote

but I ask if it had been Major Smith, who happened to be a Christian extremist (they kill too) had committed the act whether we would be having this discussion.

Good question...

Quote

IMO, One cannot complain about the dilution of the Legion of Merit on one hand, while asking for the dilution of the PH on the other

That's only if you feel this is a dilution of the PH... I don't. If it is found his motivation was to support terrorism... then they should get the PH IMO.

If it was just some nutter wanting to kill.. then no.

Quote

Is the sacrifice made by the police officer who shot him to be overlooked and not acknowledged in like simply because she wore a different uniform?

Her unit can award her anything they wish, but since she was not US forces then the PH would not apply.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334