TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote: I disagree with the death penalty in this case. If he is convicted (death penalty) some will consider him as a martyr. I don't think he deserves that satisfaction.

Plus, he is a psychiatrist, so he must be crazy.

stevie_d_64 wrote:With my fellow veterans opinions, which are held in high regard, I feel the decoration should have been awarded...

More so, by the obfuscation we have seen in the process to deliberately keep this from those who were wounded and murdered by this suspect...Since the investigation and pre-trial pontificating has been ongoing (FOR YEARS!!!), I feel that is justification for the award...The suspect is an admitted islamic radical, who commited this act during a time of war, and the act was targeted at a group of servicemembers because of their current affiliation...

Was this an act of war??? Or a battle, where the conflict was joined??? A discussion could be made about the parameters of the engagement, and it would be a great topic (separate) for putting the facts/issues on the table...I think that would be a great thing (to do) at some point in the future...

I do believe the decorations were not awarded because of the status of the trial...If the PH's were delivered, that would take (create an empathy/bias) away the defenses ability to keep the trial and process out of the military system, as much as possible...Why this guy was given a civilian process (defense) is beyond me, and has been bugging me for as long as I can remember...

If this had stayed within the Department of Defense judicial system, this guy would have already been tried, and sentenced by now...I'm sure his disposition would be rather subdued do to his lack of a pulse...

I still believe some will dissagree with me, but there is one thing that will be true...

After the trial, and after the sentence is carried out...Those surviving service members who were injurder WILL receive the decoration...I am confident of that eventuality...Sometimes these commendations take years to resolve...

This is just my opinion/observation...

I think part of your observations do not, for whatever reason, take into account that this incident was not combat, not military action, despite that it took place on a military base, and most of the victims were military members, including the perp. Other than that, it is no different that an armed robbery of the base PX, or a violent disagreement at the Acey-Deucy Club, whatever they call them in the Army, no different than if the shoot out had occurred at a bank branch in town. Not a combat injury.

What I see in the reaction is yet another manifestation of of the rise of victimhood in our culture. Anything is possible now if you can portray yourself as a victim. Anything is possible if the politician class can portray some cause as being for the victims. Every player gets to play, and gets a trophy, win or lose!

Handing out PHs for this diminishes, demeans, the awards justly earned by the men and women who have actually been wounded in actual combat, even more so than the 3 Purple Owies that John Kerry sports. Maybe, since the regs don't actually cover this situation, there should be a Victim's Medal, to be awarded for anything bad thing that happens short of some other award, a catch-all, if you will.

I wonder if people haven't been watching too many "Queen For A Day" re-runs or something. For those among us too young to remember that afternoon TV show, each episode featured usually 3 women, one at a time telling their story of misery, despair, rotten luck, and woe, at the end of which the audience would "vote" by applause registered on the Applause-meter" for who had the most pitiful story. The "winner" would be crowned "Queen For A Day", draped in an ermine robe (probably fake!) and crown, and given an array of appliances, dishwashers, washing machines, furnished by the sponsors in return for the good plug, to the delight and gratification of sobbing women in homes all across America of the 1950's, who carried on, certain in the belief that miseries endured would have their reward.

stevie_d_64 wrote:For the record...I submit that these deaths and injuries do fall under the provisions for the award/decoration...It should never have been questioned or debated...I have a very good feeling that the chain of command did submit their recomendations, and those efforts were eventually applied to a political template...And considering the overall process to get this person through the legal proceedings is indicative of how this particular aspect was handled...

Something political is/has occur-ed-ing...And that political effort is an insult to these servicemembers...Something that is near and dear to me...

It is a very humbling experience...

Well, as a former serving officer and now lawyer for many years, my guess is that you have it backwards, the political template got stopped in the chain of command. These are not "combat" injuries, and no emotional heart tugging will make them so. You don't get a medal for getting shot while standing in a clinic when some lunatic cuts loose unexpectantly.

Many of us ridiculed John Kerry for his 3 Purple Owies, seemingly trivial injuries that might not even have gotten a band-aid in civilian life, but since they were facing combatants, and Kerry was a constant self-aggrandizing resume burnisher, 3 Purple Owies.

The legal process has a great many frustrations. The wheels of justice sometimes turn awfully slowly, but the product we accentuate is not efficiency, but justice. Contrast this to the main stream media whose emphasis has become speed, not truth. Get it first, and if you get it right so much the better, but if not, ohh, well!! with so many tragi-comic results.

We demand discipline and obedience to regulations from our military officers, and allow freedom of religion, even those peculiar to us. Here is where those two concepts collide. Hassan will be just as dead, eventually. There is no rush, and we dare not make a mistake that results in a miscarriage of justice and he walks.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What I don't know about military "law" would fill volumes. If the report is correct and it would have even the slightest chance of providing a defense to this mass murderer, then I agree with the decision, if the medals can be awarded after his trial.

Chas.

Charles, I get the logic, but wouldn't it also extend to his appeals? If that's the case, then you couldn't award the medals until he had exhausted all his appeals and been executed. Otherwise he would have grounds for a new appeal asserting that the entire case against him was a fraud designed to make it possible to convict him. (I'm assuming they will execute the scumbag. They'd better.)

Execute him? They can't even make him shave to show up in proper uniform. Army Regs prohibit beards etc, and he refuses to shave, on religious grounds.

gthaustex wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Here is the criteria:

...........

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

I think the problem might be that the deaths and wounds were inflicted by a US Army officer. If he had been just some religious loon who somehow got on base, it might be different.

I think one ought to be eligible if the services of a psychiatrist are furnished, but that is just me and not the policy of the government.

So you are saying that #6 above would not apply in this case, even if Hasan were declared as an international terrorist working at the behest of al-Qaeda or some such? His communications before the attack and his actions during would indicate that he was IMHO.

Apparently the incident has not been "recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack." If the perp were an imposter, pretending to be a military officer but really a enemy combatant, that might affect how they are looking at it.

That fact that the perp is a serving Army officer makes it a bit muddled. Suppose he were a Jehovah's Witness, or a Presbyterian instead? I think that is significant. Despite the fact that the perp is a military officer and the victims were all military or employees, it is apparently deemed a crime under UCMJ rather than military action contemplated by the regulations.

I don't think anyone thought when drafting the regs that it might be awarded for "blue-on-blue" incidents.

Here is the criteria:

. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

I think the problem might be that the deaths and wounds were inflicted by a US Army officer. If he had been just some religious loon who somehow got on base, it might be different.

I think one ought to be eligible if the services of a psychiatrist are furnished, but that is just me and not the policy of the government.