Obama Adm. Refuses Benefits to Victims of Hasan

[East of Eden]

According to Obamathink, this wasn't terror, it was 'workplace violence'. Question for debate: Does anyone want to defend this lunacy?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood ... N41Qm80WSo

[micatala]

The citation by East of Eden notes the following:

The Defense Department document says that to expand the Purple Heart criteria to include “domestic criminal acts or domestic terror attacks would be a dramatic departure� from traditional criteria.

“The Army objects to (the proposal) because it would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial. Such a situation, prior to trial, would fundamentally compromise the fairness and due process of the pending trial,� the document said.

It continues: “Moreover, the effect of such an act by Congress would be to deprive the victims of these crimes the right to see justice done.�

At this point, the first paragraph is simply reiterating what has been stated before. Awarding Purple Hearts in this situation would be at odds with standard military procedure.

While I can understand the feelings of the families, they don't seem to have any right to expect the military to make these awards.

Once again, we also see that this is a military decision, not one by the Administration. There has yet to be any good reason given for blaming the Administration for this in this entire thread.


Now, I am not sure I entirely agree that making the awards would undermine the case against Hasan and I would like to hear more detail on that point.


On the other hand, the evidence is so clear cut that I can't imagine Hasan will not be convicted of murder, as he should be. That conviction would be what justice requires, whether or not labeling him as a terrorist is part of the proceedings.

[East of Eden]

The citation by East of Eden notes the following:

The Defense Department document says that to expand the Purple Heart criteria to include “domestic criminal acts or domestic terror attacks would be a dramatic departure� from traditional criteria.

“The Army objects to (the proposal) because it would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial. Such a situation, prior to trial, would fundamentally compromise the fairness and due process of the pending trial,� the document said.

It continues: “Moreover, the effect of such an act by Congress would be to deprive the victims of these crimes the right to see justice done.�

At this point, the first paragraph is simply reiterating what has been stated before. Awarding Purple Hearts in this situation would be at odds with standard military procedure.

I don't see how. This whole episode is untraditional. Funny coming from the administration that is all for a dramatic departure from the traditional (standard) view of marriage.

While I can understand the feelings of the families, they don't seem to have any right to expect the military to make these awards.

We disagree, and I quote the representative of the victim's families:

"This is a cynical travesty. What the government has done by making this statement is guarantee that anything done to help the victims will effectively prevent or impair Hasan's prosecution. There was no reason for the government to put this kind of a statement in writing, even if it were true (which it is not)," Sher said via email.

Once again, we also see that this is a military decision, not one by the Administration. There has yet to be any good reason given for blaming the Administration for this in this entire thread.

Once again, who is Commander in Chief? Obama had no problem forcing gays into the military, was that not a military decision then?

Now, I am not sure I entirely agree that making the awards would undermine the case against Hasan and I would like to hear more detail on that point.

On the other hand, the evidence is so clear cut that I can't imagine Hasan will not be convicted of murder, as he should be. That conviction would be what justice requires, whether or not labeling him as a terrorist is part of the proceedings.

I'm sure he will be convicted of murder, and I hope executed. The issue is giving the victims their due, and taking off the blinders and callilng this episode what it is: Terrorism. Hasan is a self-proclaimed soldier in the global jihad movement (he had contact with overseas AQ people), which we can't defeat until we call it what it is. Do you really think this was just 'workplace violence'?

This is all due to political correctness, there were clear signs long ago of which side Hasan was really on, but other army officers were afraid to make an issue of it as it could hurt their careers. Hasan long ago should have been given a dishonorable discharge, made to pay back his Army funded education, and put on a terror watch list.

[micatala]

The citation by East of Eden notes the following:

The Defense Department document says that to expand the Purple Heart criteria to include “domestic criminal acts or domestic terror attacks would be a dramatic departure� from traditional criteria.

“The Army objects to (the proposal) because it would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial. Such a situation, prior to trial, would fundamentally compromise the fairness and due process of the pending trial,� the document said.

It continues: “Moreover, the effect of such an act by Congress would be to deprive the victims of these crimes the right to see justice done.�

At this point, the first paragraph is simply reiterating what has been stated before. Awarding Purple Hearts in this situation would be at odds with standard military procedure.

I don't see how. This whole episode is untraditional. Funny coming from the administration that is all for a dramatic departure from the traditional (standard) view of marriage.

While I can understand the feelings of the families, they don't seem to have any right to expect the military to make these awards.

We disagree, and I quote the representative of the victim's families:

"This is a cynical travesty. What the government has done by making this statement is guarantee that anything done to help the victims will effectively prevent or impair Hasan's prosecution. There was no reason for the government to put this kind of a statement in writing, even if it were true (which it is not)," Sher said via email.

Once again, we also see that this is a military decision, not one by the Administration. There has yet to be any good reason given for blaming the Administration for this in this entire thread.

Once again, who is Commander in Chief? Obama had no problem forcing gays into the military, was that not a military decision then?

Now, I am not sure I entirely agree that making the awards would undermine the case against Hasan and I would like to hear more detail on that point.

On the other hand, the evidence is so clear cut that I can't imagine Hasan will not be convicted of murder, as he should be. That conviction would be what justice requires, whether or not labeling him as a terrorist is part of the proceedings.

I'm sure he will be convicted of murder, and I hope executed. The issue is giving the victims their due, and taking off the blinders and callilng this episode what it is: Terrorism. Hasan is a self-proclaimed soldier in the global jihad movement (he had contact with overseas AQ people), which we can't defeat until we call it what it is. Do you really think this was just 'workplace violence'?

This is all due to political correctness, there were clear signs long ago of which side Hasan was really on, but other army officers were afraid to make an issue of it as it could hurt their careers. Hasan long ago should have been given a dishonorable discharge, made to pay back his Army funded education, and put on a terror watch list.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on most of this. I don't accept your subjective judgments on the case, nor your unfounded inferences on the Administration, and I think you continue to ignore the facts, including traditional bounds on Administrative action.

You may be right that Hasan's superiors should have monitored the situation differently, and taken action before the tragedy occurred. Whether their actions were due to "potlicial correctness" is a highly subjective inference.


You and some of the victims wish to see the standard definition of what counts as terrorism, and the criteria for purple hearts, redefined. You are certainly welcome to that opinion. However, not agreeing to these redefinitions does not warrant the, to use your words, "politically correct" spin, albeit from the right, that is being put forward here. You also have provided no reason the administration should be blamed for this. Those criteria and definitions certainly pre-dated Obama, and standard protocol puts all of this issue within the realm of the military. Saying "Obama could do something about it if he wanted" is nothing more than an excuse to continue your smear.

[East of Eden]

The citation by East of Eden notes the following:

The Defense Department document says that to expand the Purple Heart criteria to include “domestic criminal acts or domestic terror attacks would be a dramatic departure� from traditional criteria.

“The Army objects to (the proposal) because it would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial. Such a situation, prior to trial, would fundamentally compromise the fairness and due process of the pending trial,� the document said.

It continues: “Moreover, the effect of such an act by Congress would be to deprive the victims of these crimes the right to see justice done.�

At this point, the first paragraph is simply reiterating what has been stated before. Awarding Purple Hearts in this situation would be at odds with standard military procedure.

I don't see how. This whole episode is untraditional. Funny coming from the administration that is all for a dramatic departure from the traditional (standard) view of marriage.

While I can understand the feelings of the families, they don't seem to have any right to expect the military to make these awards.

We disagree, and I quote the representative of the victim's families:

"This is a cynical travesty. What the government has done by making this statement is guarantee that anything done to help the victims will effectively prevent or impair Hasan's prosecution. There was no reason for the government to put this kind of a statement in writing, even if it were true (which it is not)," Sher said via email.

Once again, we also see that this is a military decision, not one by the Administration. There has yet to be any good reason given for blaming the Administration for this in this entire thread.

Once again, who is Commander in Chief? Obama had no problem forcing gays into the military, was that not a military decision then?

Now, I am not sure I entirely agree that making the awards would undermine the case against Hasan and I would like to hear more detail on that point.

On the other hand, the evidence is so clear cut that I can't imagine Hasan will not be convicted of murder, as he should be. That conviction would be what justice requires, whether or not labeling him as a terrorist is part of the proceedings.

I'm sure he will be convicted of murder, and I hope executed. The issue is giving the victims their due, and taking off the blinders and callilng this episode what it is: Terrorism. Hasan is a self-proclaimed soldier in the global jihad movement (he had contact with overseas AQ people), which we can't defeat until we call it what it is. Do you really think this was just 'workplace violence'?

This is all due to political correctness, there were clear signs long ago of which side Hasan was really on, but other army officers were afraid to make an issue of it as it could hurt their careers. Hasan long ago should have been given a dishonorable discharge, made to pay back his Army funded education, and put on a terror watch list.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on most of this. I don't accept your subjective judgments on the case, nor your unfounded inferences on the Administration, and I think you continue to ignore the facts, including traditional bounds on Administrative action.

You may be right that Hasan's superiors should have monitored the situation differently, and taken action before the tragedy occurred. Whether their actions were due to "potlicial correctness" is a highly subjective inference.


You and some of the victims wish to see the standard definition of what counts as terrorism, and the criteria for purple hearts, redefined. You are certainly welcome to that opinion. However, not agreeing to these redefinitions does not warrant the, to use your words, "politically correct" spin, albeit from the right, that is being put forward here. You also have provided no reason the administration should be blamed for this. Those criteria and definitions certainly pre-dated Obama, and standard protocol puts all of this issue within the realm of the military. Saying "Obama could do something about it if he wanted" is nothing more than an excuse to continue your smear.

Any objection to Obama policy is a 'smear' to you, apparently. Please cite where this necessity of the Obama administration pre-dates him, and also address his not having a problem interferring in the military when it comes to gay marriage. While you're at it answer my question if you think this is 'workplace violence' and not terrorism. I would think Hasan's yelling 'Allah Akbar' would be a clue.

[Goat]

More on this outrage:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 ... ould-hurt/

Well, I see you are using argument by adjective again. Rather than list the facts, you are poisoning the well, by using such words as 'outrage'..

Now, the reason the Army (and, by the way, it's NOT the 'Obama administration', refused is that by issuing the purple hearts at this time, it would hinder the prosecution of Hasan, and it would add at least a year to the trial. It seems to me getting this guy convicted with a fair trial is more important that the immediate giving a medals to people.

[East of Eden]

More on this outrage:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 ... ould-hurt/

Well, I see you are using argument by adjective again. Rather than list the facts, you are poisoning the well, by using such words as 'outrage'..

Argue with the victims, not me.

Now, the reason the Army (and, by the way, it's NOT the 'Obama administration',

Yes it is, who is Commander in Chief? Who interfered in the Army to get his cause of gays in the military implemented? If it wasn't the Obama administration I suspect this outrage wouldn't be so vociferously defended by certain quarters here.

refused is that by issuing the purple hearts at this time, it would hinder the prosecution of Hasan, and it would add at least a year to the trial. It seems to me getting this guy convicted with a fair trial is more important that the immediate giving a medals to people.

I'm sure he will be convicted either way, there are tons of witnesses and he hasn't denied it. Do you think this was 'workplace violence'? I'll at least give you points for not launching a red herring attack on FOX news.

[Goat]

More on this outrage:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 ... ould-hurt/

Well, I see you are using argument by adjective again. Rather than list the facts, you are poisoning the well, by using such words as 'outrage'..

Argue with the victims, not me.

Now, the reason the Army (and, by the way, it's NOT the 'Obama administration',

Yes it is, who is Commander in Chief? Who interfered in the Army to get his cause of gays in the military implemented? If it wasn't the Obama administration I suspect this outrage wouldn't be so vociferously defended by certain quarters here.

refused is that by issuing the purple hearts at this time, it would hinder the prosecution of Hasan, and it would add at least a year to the trial. It seems to me getting this guy convicted with a fair trial is more important that the immediate giving a medals to people.

I'm sure he will be convicted either way, there are tons of witnesses and he hasn't denied it. Do you think this was 'workplace violence'? I'll at least give you points for not launching a red herring attack on FOX news.

Oh yes, I am sure that the commander and chief has the time/energy and desire to micormanage every little thing that the Defense department does. Right , Uh huh.

[East of Eden]

More on this outrage:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 ... ould-hurt/

Well, I see you are using argument by adjective again. Rather than list the facts, you are poisoning the well, by using such words as 'outrage'..

Argue with the victims, not me.

Now, the reason the Army (and, by the way, it's NOT the 'Obama administration',

Yes it is, who is Commander in Chief? Who interfered in the Army to get his cause of gays in the military implemented? If it wasn't the Obama administration I suspect this outrage wouldn't be so vociferously defended by certain quarters here.

refused is that by issuing the purple hearts at this time, it would hinder the prosecution of Hasan, and it would add at least a year to the trial. It seems to me getting this guy convicted with a fair trial is more important that the immediate giving a medals to people.

I'm sure he will be convicted either way, there are tons of witnesses and he hasn't denied it. Do you think this was 'workplace violence'? I'll at least give you points for not launching a red herring attack on FOX news.

Oh yes, I am sure that the commander and chief has the time/energy and desire to micormanage every little thing that the Defense department does. Right , Uh huh.

Not when you go on a vacation a month.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mor ... 11998.html

[Wyvern]

Oh yes, I am sure that the commander and chief has the time/energy and desire to micormanage every little thing that the Defense department does. Right , Uh huh.

Not when you go on a vacation a month.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mor ... 11998.html

So is it your contention that if the president had not taken eleven days off since the new year he in fact would be able and willing to micromanage every little thing that the government does and somehow given your opinion of the man that this would be a good thing?

It should also be noted that the article you provided is misleading in that it is talking about the presidents family as a whole not the president himself. I don't understand how getting the kids and wife out of the house would somehow prevent the president from conducting business.

[East of Eden]

Oh yes, I am sure that the commander and chief has the time/energy and desire to micormanage every little thing that the Defense department does. Right , Uh huh.

Not when you go on a vacation a month.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mor ... 11998.html

So is it your contention that if the president had not taken eleven days off since the new year he in fact would be able and willing to micromanage every little thing that the government does and somehow given your opinion of the man that this would be a good thing?

It should also be noted that the article you provided is misleading in that it is talking about the presidents family as a whole not the president himself. I don't understand how getting the kids and wife out of the house would somehow prevent the president from conducting business.

That says a lot when the Ft. Hood massacre by a jihadist is viewed as a minor, insignificant issue. As far as his daughters, I think it inapproriate for them and a dozen of their friends to go on a lavish vacation at a time like this on our dime, with no accountability. We have every right to question this, they work for us, not the other way around.