This new development further demonstrates at least two realities. First, when the United States was hit on 9/11/01, declaring war on “terror” instead of on the actual enemy, was a grave mistake. Second, that mistake is being grossly exploited with legalese and political correctness, this time coming from the Department of Defense (DOD).
The primary objective of the Federal government – and the DOD by extension – is to defend the United States “against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. It’s exceedingly ironic that the DOD would stake out a position that does the opposite by overtly denying a self-evident truth while slapping the Fort Hood survivors in the collective face.
If we had declared war on the actual enemy after 9/11 (any and all Muslim Brotherhood groups or governments / entities that fund / support those groups), perhaps the DOD would have long ago admitted that Nidal Malik Hasan committed an act of war on the U.S.
Before murdering innocent people, Hasan shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’, just like the 9/11 terrorists did from inside cockpits. Belonging to the religion of Islam is another common trait Hasan shares with those hijackers. It was further learned that while al-Awlaki had ties to Hasan, he also had extensive ties to the 9/11 hijackers.
In hindsight the DOD’s treatment of al-Awlaki several months after 9/11, in the form of a plush luncheon served as a foreshadowing of how it has handled Hasan, who was inspired by al-Awlaki.
Via Fox News:
Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart would adversely affect the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan by labeling the attack terrorism, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Fox News.
The document comes following calls from survivors and their families for the military honor, because they say Fort Hood was turned into a battlefield when Hasan opened fire during the November 2009 attack. Fox News is told that the DOD “position paper” is being circulated specifically in response to the proposed legislation.
Here are some excerpts:
The DoD position is the Purple Heart is awarded to Service members who are killed, or wounded and require treatment by a medical officer, in action against the enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States. Adhering to the criterion for award of the Purple Heart is essential to preserve the integrity of the award. To do otherwise could irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration.
Again, had an actual enemy been identified after 9/11, Hasan would have easily been identified as one of its agents. After all, his own business card confirmed it. It’s also beyond egregious to suggest that awarding Purple Hearts to soldiers who were attacked by an enemy of the United States damages the integrity of the award is another slap in the face to Hasan’s victims.
The proposed bill alters the long established Purple Heart award criterion contained in Executive Order 11016.
This is perhaps the clearest example of why it was wrong for the George W. Bush administration to identify “terror” as the enemy. A consequence of that decision is that our own soldiers, who are wounded or killed by a member of the enemy don’t qualify for Purple Hearts.
As for the criteria for being awarded the Purple Heart…
The criteria have since been modified to include those wounded or killed as the result of being held as a prisoner of war or from an international terrorist attack as determined by the Secretary of the department concerned. This “international” distinction is important because US military personnel are organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign – not domestic – forces or threats.
Uh, what if the unidentified foreign enemy makes it onto U.S. soil and infiltrates our largest Army post? Oh, yeah, that’s right. The enemy is unidentified so there’s no need to train or equip military personnel for such threats. Besides, there’s no Purple Heart for doing so anyway.
Besides, was that an admission by the DOD that our military is not trained or equipped to defend the homeland against attack from within?
Now, how about the reason why the DOD doesn’t want Hasan’s victims to be awarded Purple Hearts?
The Army objects to section 552 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.
The murder of 14 and injuring of 32 happened almost three and a half years ago and we’re still on “the eve of the trial”?
What more evidence is needed to demonstrate that our response to 9/11 was bungled? The (unidentified) enemy of the U.S. (Hasan) must have a fair trial and in order for that to happen, our soldiers (his victims) must be denied the honor of a Purple Heart?!
The DOD torpedoes its own credibility at the end of the document:
The Government has vigilantly tended to the needs of the victims and their families since the tragic events of November 5, 2009. The Government – as much if not more than other interested parties – very much desires emotional closure for victims and families. Purple Heart legislation, in advance of a finding of guilt or an acquittal, is not the answer to address these most sensitive concerns.
That excerpt directly contradicts the sentiment of one of Hasan’s victims.
Via ABC News:
In a report that aired on “World News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline,” former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said that President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.
“Betrayed is a good word,” said Munley, who sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2010 State of the Union address. “Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of … In fact, they’ve been neglected.”
There was no comment from the White House about Munley’s allegations.
So who’s telling the truth, DOD or Munley?
I’ll take Munley, hands down.