7 killed at Ft Hood shooting

[srothstein]

Can someone with more expertise help me out here.
Am I correct in that she was a civilian police officer?
This was on the base itself correct?
If so 1. where were the MPs shooting at the guy? 2. How did she get on the base? I am not understanding how this works.

The Army is in the process of converting from MP's patrolling posts to hiring federal civilian employees for law enforcement duties on base. Officer Munley was one of the Department of the Army Civilian Police on patrol. Since there are so many divisions at Ft. Hood, there were also MP's on patrol and they also responded. She just happened to be the closest unit when the call came in. From what I read, about 40 MP's also responded to the scene, it just took them a little longer to get there from where they were on base (It is a BIG base).

The MP's are switching over to more of their combat role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[stroo]

Purplehood,

You made some good points about whether every soldier should be required to carry 24/7. However they really do not address the issue of say CHL holders being allowed to carry on base or say officers or sargeants while on duty being required to carry.

I have always found odd the position that we can trust certain people to fly planes full of passengers or to fly warplanes, handle machine guns, artillery, etc or even be responsible for nuclear weapons but we can't trust them to carry a sidearm on on a plane or military base. BTW, I am not saying that you espouse those views Purplehood; they just seem to be common among certain elements in our society.

[Purplehood]

Purplehood,

You made some good points about whether every soldier should be required to carry 24/7. However they really do not address the issue of say CHL holders being allowed to carry on base or say officers or sargeants while on duty being required to carry.

I have always found odd the position that we can trust certain people to fly planes full of passengers or to fly warplanes, handle machine guns, artillery, etc or even be responsible for nuclear weapons but we can't trust them to carry a sidearm on on a plane or military base. BTW, I am not saying that you espouse those views Purplehood; they just seem to be common among certain elements in our society.

I don't think you should be able to CHL on base. I don't know how many times I needed to change into PT gear or get down and dirty. How do I secure my weapon? Oh sorry, Sir. I have to run by the Armory first to secure my personal weapon before I do what you want. Carrying a personal weapon in uniform could and would interfere with my Military duties. It is nothing like Civilian life.

If carrying a personal weapon is part of my duties, they issue me one. That is my opinion and other veterans might disagree.

If the powers that be determine that Officers and Senior NCO's should carry loaded firearms in domestic bases while on duty, I have no problem with that. Procedures would be drawn up for that. It would mean a longer day for that Servicemember. Get up and do your PT. Shower and Shave. Go check out your weapon from the Armory. Go to work. Finish work. Go turn in your weapon at the Armory. Set aside time however times a week or day (whatever your command determines) for cleaning the weapon whether it is fired or not. I am willing to bet that a gazillion Officers and NCO's would have various reasons that they don't want to have that additional "duty".

[ErnieP]

Sorry stupid question #2. Why do they have civilians instead of having troopers perform guard duty?

There is a big difference between being a solider and being a law enforcement officer. The training, goals and missions of each is very different. While most police departments like to hire new recruits with military experience, this is because veterans tend to be disciplined, mature, understand chain of command and know how to take orders, not because they are trained in police work, with the exception of MPs of course. This situation would not have been solved by better security. Our troops need to have the same right to carry and defend themselves as the rest of the population. To have trained soldiers gunned down because they don't have access to their weapons is criminal.

I have been reluctant to address this issue, but it has popped-up in regards to the Ft Hood shooting several times. That issue is the concept of allowing the members of our Armed Forces to have constant access to guns.
Now being an advocate of the 2A, and being a veteran of the Marines and Army with a total of 24 years service, I am reluctant to admit that I continue to be in favor of weapons being kept in Armories until needed for training and/or mobilization. Please keep in mind that I mean this only for garrison troops in a non-combat environment, such as bases in the Continental USA only.
Having been in a combat zone (and I don't mean in the rear with the gear), I fully support and agree with every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine carrying 24/7. I even carried my pistol to the shower. You never know when Charlie (or Achmed) is going to crawl into your hooch and try to send you onto the great PCS in the sky.

Back in the USA, we now have the specter of domestic Terrorism as evidenced by the recent events at Ft. Hood. Loud and vociferous statements are being made to the effect that our Men and Women should be carrying their weapons at all times. I beg to differ, and here is why:

In a combat zone (especially the Middle East) the servicemember is subject to a completely different code of conduct than back home. In Iraq and Afghanistan we were all subject to General Order Number One. No alcohol, and no sex (unless you were a married couple, only exception I was made aware of). Period. Besides, you couldnt go to a Bar or a party or a ballgame or whatever that was not a unit-sponsored event only. So the only folks around were us servicemembers and us servicemembers. So we all had our weapons. We were also all sober, knew the members of our units and didn't let anyone leave a weapon lying around forgotten.

In the US it is a world of difference (gawd I love puns). There are dependents (spouse and children) everywhere. There are young servicemembers that are out for the first time in their "adult" lives, couldn't afford college and are now learning to work during the day and party during the night. How do you secure weapons in the barracks, base-housing or worse yet, off-base housing (which is more common than you might think)? Ever seen a barracks on a Friday night or weekend? Crickets and tumble-weeds are floating down the hallways. Anyone with wire-cutters would have a field-day. It ain't like boot-camp where someone is guarding the weapons 24/7. It could be, but it isn't.
Do you want Moms and Dads toting their M-16/M-4 to the Commissary, PX (the mall) or the Base Hospital while carrying a couple of squealing toddlers?

The Military would than have to look at liability issues. How do you provide, inspect and insure that all weapons are secure at a married-couples base or off-base residence? What do we do when Pvt. Such-and-Such goes UA or AWOL with his/her weapon?

As it presently stands, troops (not Troopers) in garrison do not keep their weapons until they are required for training. They are kept in Armories where they are accounted for, clean and maintained. Military Police and Federal Police handle the task of security.

What about my rights as an American Servicemember to carry open or concealed? It is my personal belief that while in uniform you do not enjoy many of the Civil Rights that the typical civilian might enjoy. We do not have the Right to Free Speech. We do not have the Right to unreasonable search and seizure (as compared to a Civilian - it is different but tightly controlled). We do not have the right to simply walk off the job if it no longer pleases us. And we do not have the right to bear arms until and unless it is considered a requirement of our duties. I accepted these infringements on my rights when I enlisted so many moons ago. I don't foresee any radical changes to the idea of Gun Control on Military Bases in the near or distant future until and unless open warfare reaches our shores.

Working under that proviso mayhaps adjutstment such that sergeants, officers, and additional designated personnel be armed (pistol level sidearms).

I can understand your position. However, being off post especially subjects our troops to attack. So, if the military is not going to allow them to carry on post, they should be required to put their uniforms on when they arrive on post, and remove them before leaving.

[Purplehood]

I can understand your position. However, being off post especially subjects our troops to attack. So, if the military is not going to allow them to carry on post, they should be required to put their uniforms on when they arrive on post, and remove them before leaving.

I am not sure what your point is. How are things different now than they were before the attack? Being clothed and being armed are not a mutual requirement as I understand it.

[joe817]

"U.S. Monitored Fort Hood Suspect Before Shooting"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[57Coastie]

"U.S. Monitored Fort Hood Suspect Before Shooting"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The latest from Wall Street Journal.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1108/p02s05-usmi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Army investigators have ruled out a terror plot in the gruesome rampage at Fort Hood, saying that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a veteran psychiatrist, acted alone in the shooting spree last Thursday.
***
On Sunday, the US Army's chief of staff cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions about Hasan's faith. Focusing on the Islamic roots of Hasan could "heighten the backlash" against all Muslims in the military, said Gen. George Casey, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press."
***
That the Army had not picked up on clues from Hasan – in fact, it even promoted him to major last year despite some negative marks on his record – is likely to become a secondary line of inquiry in the Hasan case.
***
His online writings had gotten the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which investigated but took no action against Hasan.

Just watch the public affairs CYA guys come out of hiding any time now. The army is not the only agency sweating it out right now.

Jim

[casingpoint]

Coverup of lax personnel policies.

[Dudley]

Nobody made Hasan do what he did. He acted alone. If we accept that he was somehow controlled, then we have to accept that Right-to-Life forced Eric Rudolph to bomb abortion clinics. I rejected that: both criminals acted as individuals.

Nobody made the 9/11 not terrorists do what they did either.

[A-R]

Purplehood, I have grappled with your post since I read it earlier today. I greatly respect your insights, and can't thank you enough for your 24 years of service to this country.



But I must, respectfully of course, say that many of your answers reminded me of the same answers that antis give when the subject is allowing concealed carry on college campuses, parking lots, and other gun-free zones. Granted, the scenarioes are a bit different as you seem to be specifically discussing military-issued firearms being carried under general order from military command. But some of the basics of your argument fall flat to me either way:

In the US it is a world of difference ... There are dependents (spouse and children) everywhere.

There are spouses and children around police officers' off-duty lives. And many of us CHLers have spouses and children. What makes the military so different that having weapons - treated and stored properly of course - around spouses and wives is more dangerous in a military context?

There are young servicemembers that are out for the first time in their "adult" lives, couldn't afford college and are now learning to work during the day and party during the night. How do you secure weapons in the barracks, base-housing or worse yet, off-base housing (which is more common than you might think)?

Again, how is off-base housing any different from a LEO storing weapons at his/her private residence? Or a CHLer or any citizen with a shotgun? As for the fears of young service members out on their own for the first time, drinking and partying, etc. Well, I have the same answer for you that I gave to the University of Texas president in a letter earlier this year .... in a nutshell, don't let anyone under 21 participate; don't let anyone who has been drinking participate. These are already laws in the civilan world; structure a military carry policy similarly.

Do you want Moms and Dads toting their M-16/M-4 to the Commissary, PX (the mall) or the Base Hospital while carrying a couple of squealing toddlers?

My personal thought on this is military personnel should be carrying holstered sidearms while stateside, not slinging their long guns everywhere they go. For on-base housing, perhaps a secured area for each barraks to keep the long guns etc? (not sure if this is already done?).

The Military would than have to look at liability issues. How do you provide, inspect and insure that all weapons are secure at a married-couples base or off-base residence? What do we do when Pvt. Such-and-Such goes UA or AWOL with his/her weapon?

Again, similar concerns are easily and routinely overcome in the LEO and civilian worlds. As for liability, that is a red herring used by every company that prohibits their licensed employees from carrying.

[marksiwel]

its not uncommon to see people walking around with their Sig 556 in Switzerland on their back going about their day

[ELB]

Nobody made Hasan do what he did. He acted alone. If we accept that he was somehow controlled, then we have to accept that Right-to-Life forced Eric Rudolph to bomb abortion clinics. I rejected that: both criminals acted as individuals.

This is complete nonsense. Right-to-Life did not advocate bombing every abortion clinic out of existence. There are multiple calls from al Qaeda and its philosophical adherents, to kill infidels in general, and US soldiers in particular, wherever they are found. By fanatical muslims "acting alone." This is in fact a coordinated strategy, there is communication from recognized Islamic fanatic authorities -- including that imam in Virginia that Hasan went to -- to their followers to do exactly what Hasan did. (And take notice that that same imam is congratulating Hasan. In our country.) Like what happened at LAX in 2000. Like what happened at the Recruiting station in Little Rock this past summer. Like what happened an the New Orleans airport in 2002. Like the vehicle attacks in San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Chapel Hill. Like at Univ of Oklahoma. LIke Malvo and Muhammad (who is going to be executed tomorrow, inshallah.)

Because there isn't an elaborate command and control system and an Ops Plan and a logistics tail a mile long doesn't mean these things are not related. The "commander's intent" is well communicated, and the details are left up to those who want to act on it. This is not lone madman kind of stuff. I can't believe that in a country where more than half the country still thinks JFK was the victim of a plot refuses to see what Islamic fanatics broadcast daily as one of their strategies. Instead, we get crying and moaning over yet another non-existent "backlash."

We will see more of these, and they will get bloodier and bloodier. Pray we wake up before Beslan comes to America.

[03Lightningrocks]

Nobody made Hasan do what he did. He acted alone. If we accept that he was somehow controlled, then we have to accept that Right-to-Life forced Eric Rudolph to bomb abortion clinics. I rejected that: both criminals acted as individuals.

This is complete nonsense. Right-to-Life did not advocate bombing every abortion clinic out of existence. There are multiple calls from al Qaeda and its philosophical adherents, to kill infidels in general, and US soldiers in particular, wherever they are found. By fanatical muslims "acting alone." This is in fact a coordinated strategy, there is communication from recognized Islamic fanatic authorities -- including that imam in Virginia that Hasan went to -- to their followers to do exactly what Hasan did. (And take notice that that same imam is congratulating Hasan. In our country.) Like what happened at LAX in 2000. Like what happened at the Recruiting station in Little Rock this past summer. Like what happened an the New Orleans airport in 2002. Like the vehicle attacks in San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Chapel Hill. Like at Univ of Oklahoma. LIke Malvo and Muhammad (who is going to be executed tomorrow, inshallah.)

Because there isn't an elaborate command and control system and an Ops Plan and a logistics tail a mile long doesn't mean these things are not related. The "commander's intent" is well communicated, and the details are left up to those who want to act on it. This is not lone madman kind of stuff. I can't believe that in a country where more than half the country still thinks JFK was the victim of a plot refuses to see what Islamic fanatics broadcast daily as one of their strategies. Instead, we get crying and moaning over yet another non-existent "backlash."

We will see more of these, and they will get bloodier and bloodier. Pray we wake up before Beslan comes to America.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

frazzled, et al:

Regarding who Officer Kim Munley worked for, I read some reports that said
she belonged to the "Fort Hood Police Department."

But that source may be no more correct than the source which stated that her
weapon was a "9MM Baretta" (sic).

Atl least we know that it wasn't a "Glock 30 Austria", discussed on a much
earlier thread where the Dallas LEO left his weapon in the throne room
(men's room at the court house). :-)

SIA

[srothstein]

"U.S. Monitored Fort Hood Suspect Before Shooting"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have to wonder about this. A different article I read said that the FBI had monitored the ten attempts of Hasan to contact a radical Imam who had just been released from prison. They felt there was no threat and never notified the Army.

A commissioned officer on active duty in the Army tries to communicate with the enemy and the FBI sees nothing wrong with this. I thought they knew what treason was and would see something to investigate in this area. I would have assumed they are aware of psychological warfare (PSYOPS) since they have used it. The primary duty of this major was to treat soldiers who might be having mental problems from their war, and they saw no problem in his contacting the enemy. Someone has a LOT of explaining to do.