# Fort Hood terrorism victims get Purple Heart... finally



## Marauder06 (May 11, 2014)

http://www.kcentv.com/story/25466864/fort-hood-shooting-victims-to-receive-purple-hearts

WASHINGTON D.C. -- Senator John Cornyn issued the following statement on Thursday after the House Armed Services Committee unanimously approved the inclusion of his legislation to honor and support the victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting and make them eligible for benefits in the Defense Authorization bill:

“I applaud the Members of the committee for their leadership in approving this important piece of legislation for Fort Hood and the surrounding community,” said Sen. Cornyn. “The 2009 Fort Hood victims should be eligible for all the honors and benefits available to U.S. troops who fall victim to an international terrorist attack, especially Purple Heart medals, and this would make that a reality.”


----------



## Kraut783 (May 11, 2014)

I am torn by my thoughts on this......


----------



## RackMaster (May 11, 2014)

I think that's the first time I've seen an official of any kind call it an act of terrorism;  long overdue.


----------



## pardus (May 11, 2014)

A good first step, and about time too.


----------



## DA SWO (May 12, 2014)

Shame it took this.
Purple Hearts would have been awarded aad POTUS/SecDEf called this terrorism, but Political Correctness trumps reality.

I wonder if the wo Soldiers (one KIA) shot in Arkansas will also qualify?


----------



## Viper1 (May 12, 2014)

Finally!


----------



## Marauder06 (May 12, 2014)

Kraut783 said:


> I am torn by my thoughts on this......



What are you torn about?  A terrorist attacked a bunch of on-duty Soldiers on behalf of a hostile foreign entity, the Purple Heart was completely warranted.


----------



## Brill (May 12, 2014)

Marauder06 said:


> What are you torn about?  A terrorist attacked a bunch of on-duty Soldiers on behalf of a hostile foreign entity, the Purple Heart was completely warranted.



Wait a sec...he was charged with and found guilty of murder and attempted murder but not terrorism.  So does this (awarding of the PH) "mean" that the work-place violence was actually a terrorist act committed on US soil?


----------



## Kraut783 (May 12, 2014)

Sorry....I am torn about being happy for the victims finally getting this done...or that it took way too freaking long for our Government to admit to it not being workplace violence.....IF this is even an admission....

Politics..........:wall:


----------



## Viper1 (May 12, 2014)

lindy said:


> Wait a sec...he was charged with and found guilty of murder and attempted murder but not terrorism.  So does this (awarding of the PH) "mean" that the work-place violence was actually a terrorist act committed on US soil?



I see your concern.  In response, it doesn't need to be terrorism necessarily.  Hasan just needs to be seen as an enemy combatant (which I wholeheartedly believe he was), participating in Armed Conflict against US forces (which he was) in which case the Purple Heart is warranted.


----------



## CDG (Feb 9, 2015)

I don't know where the disconnect was, maybe there was none and it just took this long for it to become official in the USAs mind, because I know the OP link quoted the Senator saying the victims would receive the award.  This article says the Army just announced it on Friday.  Either way, good to see it actually happening.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/02/06/fort-hood-shooting-purple-heart/22982217/


----------



## Wench (Feb 9, 2015)

lindy said:


> Wait a sec...he was charged with and found guilty of murder and attempted murder but not terrorism.  So does this (awarding of the PH) "mean" that the work-place violence was actually a terrorist act committed on US soil?



The actual criminal charges brought shouldn't have any bearing on calling a spade a spade.  Oftentimes prosecutors will charge what they have best evidence for or what is most likely to earn a conviction, no matter that multiple charges may apply.  And like Viper said, it doesn't have to be "terrorism" to be an action against an enemy or an armed conflict, etc.


----------



## Brill (Feb 9, 2015)

Wench said:


> The actual criminal charges brought shouldn't have any bearing on calling a spade a spade.  Oftentimes prosecutors will charge what they have best evidence for or what is most likely to earn a conviction, no matter that multiple charges may apply.  And like Viper said, it doesn't have to be "terrorism" to be an action against an enemy or an armed conflict, etc.



Oh I completely agree with you and @Viper1 but at the time the Admin wouldn't admit that it was an act of war but "workplace violence"...committed by a Muslim...who targeted USMIL because of their collective actions against Muslims.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 9, 2015)

lindy said:


> Wait a sec...he was charged with and found guilty of murder and attempted murder but not terrorism.  So does this (awarding of the PH) "mean" that the work-place violence was actually a terrorist act committed on US soil?


Per my wife, adding terrorism and other charges might have been seen as piling on.
personally the State of TX should have found something to charge him with and run that trial (which would have been speedier than the Army trial).


----------



## Wench (Feb 9, 2015)

lindy said:


> Oh I completely agree with you and @Viper1 but at the time the Admin wouldn't admit that it was an act of war but "workplace violence"...committed by a Muslim...who targeted USMIL because of their collective actions against Muslims.



Lump this administration in with "things that the actual truth should not be measured by," as you already know.  Not only an illogical stance, but disrespectful and contemptuous.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 9, 2015)

http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=17135

Latest release on the issue...an issue rightly resolved.


----------

