Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Posts Tagged ‘Fort Hood’

A dry straight razor

Posted by Dana Pico on 2012/10/18

John Hitchcock has informed me that Lee DeCovnick of the American Thinker picked up and referenced my article, The Fort Hood Massacre victims: no Purple Hearts for them!, published on TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR. It was published on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL as well, but the link was to the article on Mr Hitchcock’s site.

It’s interesting that that link came today; Sister Toldjah tweeted:

Here’s the story:

Army appeals court rules Fort Hood shooting suspect can be forcibly shaved before trial

Published October 18, 2012 | Associated Press

FORT HOOD, Texas – An Army appeals court has ruled that the Fort Hood shooting suspect can have his facial hair forcibly shaved off before his murder trial.

The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion issued Thursday upheld the military trial judge’s decision to order Maj. Nidal Hasan to appear in court clean shaven or be forcibly shaved.

It also ruled that Col. Gregory Gross, the judge, properly found that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn’t give Hasan the right to have a beard while in uniform at trial.

Hasan has said the beard is an expression of his Muslim faith. His attorneys say they’ll appeal the ruling.

I wonder: do they have to use lather and hot water, or is a dry straight razor acceptable? 🙂

Of course, I’m sure that they will use an electric razor on this fine example of the religion of peace.

I suspect that Major Hasan’s insistence on wearing a beard is less “an expression of his Muslim faith” than it is of doing what little he can to spite the Army and the United States again. If it were truly his Muslim faith, after having launched a martyrdom attack, he would proudly plead guilty and ask for a sentence of death. Perhaps he thinks that he’ll be able to use his court martial to issue some kind of grandiose statement, but the presiding officer will quickly squelch that.

I don’t recall discussing the death penalty much on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL, but readers of my old site will recall that I am opposed to capital punishment. Major Hasan could be sentenced to death if found guilty, and part of me would like to see that, just so we could see how the brave Islamist warrior shrinks from such a fate and appeals the sentence. But, in reality, the best sentence would be life in prison, deprived of all of his religious materials, with a crucifix hanging on his wall, forever out of his reach, and a promise to throw his body to the pigs when he finally dies. Let him languish, remembering every day as he urinates and defecates in his diaper¹ that while he may have killed fourteen people who were better than him, he is really a small and unimportant man creature, headed only for Hell.
_______________________________
¹ – Major Hasan was paralyzed from the waist down by fire from the security guards who finally stopped his rampage.
_______________________________
Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Posted in crime, Islam, Law, military, Religion, terrorists, war, We Won't Miss You | Tagged: , , , | 8 Comments »

The Fort Hood Massacre victims: no Purple Hearts for them!

Posted by Dana Pico on 2011/12/11

There may be another reason why the Administration sees the Fort Hood Massacre as simply a bad case or “workplace violence.” From Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), 11 December 2006: Purple Heart¹:

Paragraph 2-8 (b) 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 the 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 the 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 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 the result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States
    as part of a peacekeeping force.

In addition, Paragraphs 2-8 (k)(3) and (4) state:

    (3) Each approved award of the Purple Heart must exhibit all of the following factors: wound, injury or death must
    have been the result of enemy or hostile act; international terrorist attack; or friendly fire (as defined in paragraph b(8)
    above) the wound or injury must have required treatment by medical officials; and the records of medical treatment
    must have been made a matter of official Army records.
    (4) Recommendations for award of the Purple Heart based on alleged international terrorist attacks must be
    accompanied by a written evaluation from the MACOM security and intelligence staff officer indicating that international
    terrorist activity was involved. Should any enclosures be classified the prescribed security measures will be
    followed. This requirement is in addition to the other eligibility criteria. HQ, USAHRC (AHRC–PDO–PA) will
    confirm the international terrorist report with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G–2 (ODCS, G-2) prior to
    forwarding the Purple Heart recommendations to the Secretary of the Army for final decision.

In simpler language, the Secretary of the Army has the authority, upon written evaluation, to determine that the attack at Fort Hood meets the criteria for an “international terrorist attack.” He has not yet done so.

The victims of the Fort Hood massacre are not eligible for the Purple Heart, because the attack is not considered to have been made by the enemy, or an “international terrorist attack.” The Department of Defense seemingly does not want to consider Major Nidal Malik Hasan as acting as part of the enemy, because that might bring all Muslim soldiers under suspicion of being considered the enemy.

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has introduced S. 316, the Fort Hood Victims and Families Benefits Protection Act, a companion bill to H.R. 625, introduced by Rep John R Carter (R-TX 31), “To ensure that the victims and victims’ families of the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas, receive the same treatment, benefits, and honors as those Americans who have been killed or wounded in a combat zone overseas and their families.”

The bill notes that, “In the wake of the brutal September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, the Federal Government set a historical precedent when it awarded the victims of those attacks who were members of the Armed Forces with the Purple Heart medal and the victims of those attacks who were civilian employees of the Department of Defense with the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom.” But, thus far, the Department of Defense has not classified the Fort Hood massacre as enemy action which would qualify the dead and wounded for the Purple Heart. (maybe they’re still trying to figure out if Major Hasan, who was wounded by security personnel, is eligible.)

Both the Senate and House bills were referred to the Armed Services Committees, where they have languished since last February.

Your editor would not have thought that such action would be controversial in the least. The bills are short and uncomplicated, and can be read, in their entireties, in just a couple of minutes. This should be a voice vote bill, but neither the Republican-controlled House nor the Democrat-controlled Senate has taken any action to report the bills out of committee. Is it simple laziness holding it up, or are there some other considerations?

___________________________________
¹ – Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), 11 December 2006: Purple Heart (Note: .pdf file), pp. 19-21.
___________________________________
Cross Posted on The First Street Journal.
___________________________________
UPDATE October 18, 2012: Linked by American Thinker

Posted in Character, military, Obama, Politically Incorrect, politics, Religion, terrorists, war | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

 
<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: