Fort Hood Jihad Victims May Finally Be Getting Purple Hearts after Attacked by Muslim Terrorist

A new defense policy bill is being pushed through Congress that will essentially identify acts of domestic terrorism in which active military personnel are injured or killed, as an act of war. This will have the effect of granting the murdered and injured victims of Nidal Malik Hasan’s 2009 Fort Hood jihadist attack their Purple Hearts.

According to a report from the Washington Times:

Victims of the Fort Hood shooting will soon be eligible to receive the Purple Heart, with Congress pushing ahead with a policy change that would officially recognize domestic terrorism as an issue, rather than the “workplace violence” designation the Obama administration had used.

The issue has been contentious since the 2009 attack, with victims and their family members saying Army Maj. Nidal Hasan’s shooting spree was clearly linked to the broader war on terror that the U.S. is fighting overseas.

For years, the families’ congressional allies had butted heads with the Obama administration, which balked at designating part of the U.S. the equivalent of a battlefield.

But the backers finally prevailed, writing the new terrorism designation into the annual defense policy bill that is speeding its way through Congress this month.

“It’s been a long fight, and we’ve always had some stumbling blocks, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed and will be very happy when this thing is signed by the president so we can go back to those people who have been waiting for some acknowledgment of their injuries,” Rep. John R. Carter, Texas Republican, told The Washington Times.

The White House did not have an immediate comment on the change Wednesday.

Hasan shouted “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” while going on his shooting spree that left 13 dead and more than 30 injured. In testimony, the American-born Muslim said he was receiving assistance from foreign terrorist sources, and an FBI investigation found he had been emailing with Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda leader who was killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

This very well could be a consequence of the recent elections in which Republicans gained control of the Senate. Since majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been in control, he has served as a pocket veto for Barack Obama by shelving every piece of legislation that made it to his desk out of the House.

While he’s still the majority leader, Reid will lose that distinction in January. One would think it would be fruitless for him not to bring this bill up for a vote as it’s sure to get passed after he relinquishes power.

Not mentioned in the article is any likelihood that Obama would veto the bill.

Here is a video from 2012 that features the survivors of Hasan’s act of jihad at Fort Hood:

print

, , , , , , ,

  • royal

    It’s about time.thank you Jesus !….Now give them the *backpay and the *benefits that they rightfuly deserve.And stop all military pay from going to nadal the terrorist. And change the attack to a “TERRORIST ATTACK.”and not work place violence with a full apology, for the dishonnor that this Government showed them and thir familys .,

  • richinnameonly

    I would be surprised if Mr. O signs this.

  • ChiRho

    If they truly changed the classification of these actions to “an act of war” against the U.S. then what other legal ramifications could there be? Certainly as royal pointed out this might finally end nadal hassan’s six figure salary curtesy of the American taxpayer. Could this classification finally end the idea of trying these types in a civilian court? Surely someone, even a legal citizen, committing an act of war against the U.S. military would have to be tried in a military court, would they not?

    • Pero Ercegovac

      Your point is a good one for considering. The feeling amongst most military scholars/analysts though is that if you trial a legal citizen committing an act of war against the military in a military court you do two things of concern: first you give them legitimacy as an enemy which gives them more rights but if you keep it in a civil court they remain a simple criminal; secondly, they then have the full rights granted under the Geneva Convention which is more lenient by definition to those interned during the period of judicial questioning. Not saying I agree, but this is what the debate is about.

  • royal

    *Obama and his *Administration are as guilty as , the terrorist hassans, OA has done very thing to finish the job that hassans started.. by denying them their benefits and the ability to take care of themselves and their families.This is unbelievable, to think the men and woman of Fort Hood were denied their benefits , just to peas the Muslims and not call it terrorism. You have to ask your self. Why is his loyalty with Muslims and not to his Country.make no mistake it is to please the Muslims ..The proof is AT the UN and the Orgaanization of Islamic Cooperation the OIC ( human rights, an racism) ….they were influential in write the Fort Hood Report.. as well as the 911 Report . Islam is all ready running this Country if you dont think so your lieing to your self