Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1 Dem Blames 'Political Correctness' for Fort Hood 'Workplace Violence' Controversy 
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,060
    NED BERKOWITZ reports:

    A long-serving Pennsylvania Democrat has joined Republican colleagues to ask Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to overturn the "indefensible" decision by the military to designate the Fort Hood massacre "workplace violence" rather than terrorism.

    "This designation has since resulted in an embarrassing lack of care and treatment by our military for the victims and their families," said Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Penn.)...in a later dated May 6 and obtained by ABC News.

    In the letter, the trio of lawmakers blame "considerations of 'political correctness'" not only for the "workplace violence" designation, but for allowing the attack to unfold in the first place.

    The new letter alleges "political sensitivities" regarding the alleged shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan's "extremist" Muslim beliefs prevented the FBI from properly investigating Hasan before the attack, despite evidence he was in communication with high-profile al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. <snipped>
    Unreal. Unless you elect someone who is nothing more than a community organizer, twice. What an incredible failure Barry has been. Fiscal, domestic, international. Complete failure.

    re: Chaka Fattah coming on board with this. Quite surprising. They don't get more Dem than that guy.

    muslim political correctness kills people too
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member LukeEDay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Happy Valley
    Posts
    2,056
    It is political correctness and Barry's stance on not offending his religion. The Liberals are the blame for everything from the time their racist baby killing party was conceived to now. There are also a party filled with some of the most stupid people on earth.

    I love my God, my country, my flag, and my troops ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,671
    I don't understand why a situation like the Ft. Hood shooting isn't considered both workplace violence and a terrorist attack. The shooter worked there, so it is workplace violence maybe from a criminal prosecution standpoint. The motive for the shooting was terrorism, though, and the military personnel who were injured or killed deserve whatever designation gets them the benefits they need.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member LukeEDay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Happy Valley
    Posts
    2,056
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I don't understand why a situation like the Ft. Hood shooting isn't considered both workplace violence and a terrorist attack. The shooter worked there, so it is workplace violence maybe from a criminal prosecution standpoint. The motive for the shooting was terrorism, though, and the military personnel who were injured or killed deserve whatever designation gets them the benefits they need.

    They called it workplace violence because Barry can't say the word terrorist in fear of insulting his religion. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I love my God, my country, my flag, and my troops ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,060
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I don't understand why a situation like the Ft. Hood shooting isn't considered ...a terrorist attack.
    I can see the gubmints point that awarding people the Purple Heart now could incriminate Hasan where he could not get a fair trial. However, whatever the outcome of the trial (guilty or not guilty) Purple Hearts should be awarded regardless.

    The takeaway from the article should be that bit about the FBI not being able to properly investigate the guy because of his muzzieness. Someone needs to explain that load of bullshit from their prison cell or the unemployment line.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    I can see the gubmints point that awarding people the Purple Heart now could incriminate Hasan where he could not get a fair trial. However, whatever the outcome of the trial (guilty or not guilty) Purple Hearts should be awarded regardless.

    The takeaway from the article should be that bit about the FBI not being able to properly investigate the guy because of his muzzieness. Someone needs to explain that load of bullshit from their prison cell or the unemployment line.
    This is especially true because the servicemembers wounded in the Pentagon attacks on 9/11 were awarded Purple Hearts, but there are implications to awarding Purple Hearts that have nothing to do with incriminating Hasan, but which the administration doesn't want to address. For example, awarding the Purple Heart means acknowledging that they were involved in combat against an armed enemy (which is the criteria for the award). That means designating Hasan as an enemy combatant. If Hasan was designated as an enemy combatant, his actions would have constituted, not just terrorism, but treason. I've argued that this should have been the case from the beginning, but our elites don't care much for the "T"-word, especially since it would mean that many of their actions could be construed as treasonous. The definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy can include propagandizing on their behalf (Michael Moore's statements were no less treasonous than Tokyo Rose's, and the college professors who expressed their glee over the 9/11 attacks, or who advocated fragging of officers are definitely in a grey area), providing them with supplies and money (Code Pink's delegation to Fallujah), exposing classified operations (The NY Times' exposure of the SWIFT program, which legally tracked terrorist finances and made it possible to shut down their support networks and follow their movements) and, of course, engaging in jihad.

    A fragging incident in Iraq raised the same issues. SGT Hasan Akbar killed two officers and wounded several more, and his statements indicated that he was waging war against the US:
    As he was led away from the scene on Sunday, the 31-year-old sergeant was heard to mutter: "You guys are coming into our countries and you're going to rape our women and kill our children."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...de-attack.html
    Now, these events occurred in the war zone, but unless the DOD was prepared to cite Akbar as an enemy combatant, the wounded Soldiers would not have received the Purple Heart. Declaring an American citizen as an enemy combatant raises other issues of citizenship. The younger Tsarnaev brother became a US citizen on September 11, 2012, just seven months before he bombed the Boston Marathon (his brother's application was denied, due to his jihadi activities). The citizenship oath includes a statement regarding foreswearing allegiance to any other state or group and a promise to support and defend the Constitution. If he was sincere in his citizenship application, and really meant to support and defend the Constitution, rather than to supplant it with Sharia, then he committed treason, and should be treated as an enemy combatant. If he was not, then he is an enemy combatant who made a fraudulent oath and his citizenship can be revoked on grounds of perjury. How many other Islamic terrorists have been naturalized citizens? Are the naturalized imams who radicalized them also subject to revocation of citizenship? Can you imagine this administration revoking the citizenship of persons based on proven disloyalty to the United States prior to taking the citizenship oath? Hell, they won't even deport illegals.

    Finally, designating terrorists who commit attacks in the US as enemy combatants means acknowledging that the attacks are acts of war, rather than simply criminal complaints, and that means that the GITMO trial bar can't use lawfare to try to spring terrorists. Despite the cluelessness of the Supreme Court in reviewing the Geneva Conventions, they explicitly state that enemy combatants who are not subjects of signatories to the conventions, and who violate them in their own conduct, are not protected by them. We don't have to hold trials for captured terrorists, we can detain them for the duration of hostilities, and if we choose to try them for war crimes, then the proper venue is in military courts, at the end of hostilities. The Ron Kubys of the world won't stand for that.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,035
    Odysseus is correct. There are rules for awarding the PH - and all military awards.

    I didn't get the PH for a wound in Laos in '59 because of the circumstances. Further, two helicopter pilots killed in a training accident in Bosnia did get the PH during the Clinton administration even if not technically eligible.

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •