PDA

View Full Version : Fort Hood shooting victims sue government, accused shooter



txradioguy
11-06-2012, 03:39 PM
Families and victims of a mass shooting in 2009 at the Fort Hood military base in Texas filed a wrongful death suit on Monday against the U.S. government, the accused gunman and the estate of an alleged al Qaeda leader.

The 148 plaintiffs are seeking damages and a ruling that the rampage was a terrorist attack. The finding would clear the way for them to receive benefits.

Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, faces 13 charges of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder for the November 5, 2009, attack on soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq.

Survivors have expressed frustration about repeated delays over the past three years in bringing Hasan to trial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces indefinitely postponed Hasan's court-martial last month pending further review.

The suit filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia alleges that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other officials disregarded the safety of soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood. It also alleges that they allowed Hasan to be in a position to open fire on the troops despite knowing he was a "radical extremist."

"The government seems to have gone out of its way to give the stiff arm to these victims. They have made their lives miserable," said attorney Neal Shur, who is the lead counsel in the case.

The lead plaintiff is Shawn Manning, who was an Army staff sergeant three years ago and was shot six times.

"The Army has refused to acknowledge this was a terrorist attack, and I have exhausted all other options," he said.

The other defendants include Hasan, who was shot by police during the attack and paralyzed from the chest down, and the estate of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric linked to al Qaeda's Yemen-based wing. He was killed in a U.S. drone strike last year.

An independent review headed by former FBI Director William Webster found that Hasan had exchanged emails with Awlaki.

The lawsuit includes allegations of civil conspiracy, gross negligence, assault and battery, due process violations and intentional misrepresentations.

Shur said one reason the suit was filed was that federal authorities had "ignored" $750 million in administrative claims he sought in 2011.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/05/us-usa-crime-forthood-idUSBRE8A41KH20121105

m00
11-06-2012, 03:40 PM
Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist...


I mean, one would think psychiatrists face the most rigorous psych exams.

txradioguy
11-06-2012, 03:53 PM
Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist...


I mean, one would think psychiatrists face the most rigorous psych exams.

And because political correctness trumps common sense these days...this assclown was allowed to be put into a position where he could wage jihad on his fellow soldiers.

And what has yet to be explored is what kind of number he did on the mental status of the soldiers who came to him needing psych help.

SaintLouieWoman
11-06-2012, 04:42 PM
It seems this is following the Obama administation's general policy of stonewalling, the all-encompassing excuse of "we're investigating it."

Good for them to stand up to the government. This wasn't workplace violence.

m00
11-06-2012, 04:53 PM
And what has yet to be explored is what kind of number he did on the mental status of the soldiers who came to him needing psych help.

That is extremely scary.

Zeus
11-06-2012, 04:56 PM
I'm missing something here. What does it matter if it was/is classified workplace violence , a terrorist act , really super bad luck on that day, as long as one wasn't declared outside line of duty any injuries sustained are treated and any long term effects rated service connected.

Want a medal then do something worthy of receiving one. handing medals out like candy cheapens the actions of those who actually performed to receive theirs.

txradioguy
11-07-2012, 05:35 AM
I'm missing something here. What does it matter if it was/is classified workplace violence , a terrorist act , really super bad luck on that day, as long as one wasn't declared outside line of duty any injuries sustained are treated and any long term effects rated service connected.

Want a medal then do something worthy of receiving one. handing medals out like candy cheapens the actions of those who actually performed to receive theirs.

The difference in the terminology means a difference in the type of benefits (medical/psych/etc) they can get.

Calling it work place violence instead of a terrorist act on all of the claims means the survivors don't get some of the treatment they would otherwise be entitled to.

txradioguy
11-07-2012, 05:37 AM
Obama Denies Benefits to Victims Of Fort Hood Shooter's 'Workplace Violence'

http://nation.foxnews.com/fort-hood-shooting/2012/10/22/obama-denies-benefits-victims-fort-hood-shooters-workplace-violence

Black Phoenix
11-28-2012, 07:46 PM
Okay... I'm livid.

(To the purple heart debate, the army hands out ribbons and medals for just about anything these days. I got one for signing up, one for going to Korea when I was ordered to, one for not majorly screwing up over the course of a few years... I think if I were to check, I have about six ribbons altogether I didn't serve a day in combat before I left the army. I just consider them an non-issue by now.)

So many questions. Why was a professing Islamist with ties to extremist regions allowed to acquire a field officer rank? Why, once again, were trained soldiers UNARMED during an attack whilst on duty? If it's so natural for soldiers to be unarmed while training and preforming their duties (it is) why didn't anyone pull aside a freaking therapist carrying a tricked out pistol before hand? How is this not terrorism if the man had ties to a terrorist group and even went ahead and apparently yelled "allah akbar" before he started firing? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting) Why was the nearest armed personnel not even on site? Why does the government have to be slapped with multi-million dollar pain and suffering style lawsuits before it will pay attention to injured soldiers? And finally, why is it, no matter how outraged I am at a guilty party, even when it's the government, why, oh why, do I still have to scratch my head at the random lawsuit amount? (750 million dollars for... what? That's enough to buy all 13 soldiers their own islands and still set them for life. Why?)

Odysseus
11-29-2012, 01:12 AM
Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist...


I mean, one would think psychiatrists face the most rigorous psych exams.

Not to mention army officers having their security clearances properly vetted so that the powers that be can prevent jihadis from gaining access.


I'm missing something here. What does it matter if it was/is classified workplace violence , a terrorist act , really super bad luck on that day, as long as one wasn't declared outside line of duty any injuries sustained are treated and any long term effects rated service connected.

Want a medal then do something worthy of receiving one. handing medals out like candy cheapens the actions of those who actually performed to receive theirs.

There are several issues. First, as Tx pointed out, there is a significant difference in the types of benefits and awards that the casualties are entitled to. Mobilized Reservists under Title 10 who are wounded by enemy action are awarded Purple Hearts, and have status as wounded combat veterans that victims of workplace violence do not.

Second, by pretending that Hasan's rampage was simply a matter of "workplace violence", we sweep a host of failures under the rug. Hasan had been growing more radical in his conduct and language, often haranguing patients with jihadi talking points. His chain of command was afraid to pull his clearance or otherwise take precautions against this, precisely because they feared reprisal in the PC climate. The report on the attack omits his motivation, which was Islamic jihad. When a subsequent Muslim Soldier demanded (and received) a discharge as a conscientious objector, the army doubled down on craven PC. Instead of arguing that Islam is compatible with military service in the US and loyalty to the Constitution, the powers that be conceded the jihadi's arguments that the US is waging war on Islam, despite our desperate attempts to argue otherwise. That's the kind of intellectual failure that cedes critical ground to our enemies, who we cannot even name.

Finally, by avoiding the designation of terrorism, the administration also evaded another critical truth, which is that Hasan is more than a murderer. The Constitutional definition of treason is to levy war against the United States. Hasan took up arms against American Soldiers because he chose to side with our enemies. The inability to call this treason is one of the intellectual failings of our elites, who routinely disdain patriotism. The fact is, there are too many people in this country who are uncomfortable with loyalty to the United States, and who don't see the big deal in siding against America during wartime. They don't understand the concept of treason because they are indifferent to their identity as Americans. Nidal Hasan, John Walker Lindh, Naser Jason Abdo, Antonio Martinez (AKA Muhammad Hussain), Anwar al-Awlak, John Walker Lindh and every other American citizen who has taken up jihad against the United States, need to be treated, not just as criminals or psychopaths, but as agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign ideology and part of a concerted effort to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. We need to reestablish that citizens of the United States owe loyalty to the nation. For many of our elites, that's too much to ask.

Zeus
11-29-2012, 02:38 AM
Not to mention army officers having their security clearances properly vetted so that the powers that be can prevent jihadis from gaining access.



There are several issues. First, as Tx pointed out, there is a significant difference in the types of benefits and awards that the casualties are entitled to. Mobilized Reservists under Title 10 who are wounded by enemy action are awarded Purple Hearts, and have status as wounded combat veterans that victims of workplace violence do not.

Second, by pretending that Hasan's rampage was simply a matter of "workplace violence", we sweep a host of failures under the rug. Hasan had been growing more radical in his conduct and language, often haranguing patients with jihadi talking points. His chain of command was afraid to pull his clearance or otherwise take precautions against this, precisely because they feared reprisal in the PC climate. The report on the attack omits his motivation, which was Islamic jihad. When a subsequent Muslim Soldier demanded (and received) a discharge as a conscientious objector, the army doubled down on craven PC. Instead of arguing that Islam is compatible with military service in the US and loyalty to the Constitution, the powers that be conceded the jihadi's arguments that the US is waging war on Islam, despite our desperate attempts to argue otherwise. That's the kind of intellectual failure that cedes critical ground to our enemies, who we cannot even name.

Finally, by avoiding the designation of terrorism, the administration also evaded another critical truth, which is that Hasan is more than a murderer. The Constitutional definition of treason is to levy war against the United States. Hasan took up arms against American Soldiers because he chose to side with our enemies. The inability to call this treason is one of the intellectual failings of our elites, who routinely disdain patriotism. The fact is, there are too many people in this country who are uncomfortable with loyalty to the United States, and who don't see the big deal in siding against America during wartime. They don't understand the concept of treason because they are indifferent to their identity as Americans. Nidal Hasan, John Walker Lindh, Naser Jason Abdo, Antonio Martinez (AKA Muhammad Hussain), Anwar al-Awlak, John Walker Lindh and every other American citizen who has taken up jihad against the United States, need to be treated, not just as criminals or psychopaths, but as agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign ideology and part of a concerted effort to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. We need to reestablish that citizens of the United States owe loyalty to the nation. For many of our elites, that's too much to ask.

I have no argument with what you've posted.

The only compensation difference service connected disability and Combat service connected disability compensation is the Retirement pay offset IF the Soldier retires with at least 20 yrs of service. The Awards qualifier doesn't change The rest is just politics having no impact on the victims beyond platitudinal status unworthy of anyone seeking or desiring it.