Fox: Lawmakers Blast Administration For Calling Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence'

[nonniey]

The real issue for me in this case is that the DOD basically screwed over those killed and wounded in the Fort Hood and Arkansas attacks by saying these actions were not enemy actions when clearly they were. The Purple Heart is a big deal and the soldiers that were killed and wounded in these attacks deserve that medal, they won't get it for now.

I'm sure at some point a future President will reverse the decision and apologize to the families and soldiers involved but that doesn't excuse the current decisions by the DOD.

"Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam".

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/#ixzz1fzIIdxUE

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/

[Corcaigh]

How have other shootings on home soil within a military facility been classified?

EDIT: say the shooting last year at Fort Bliss, as one example.

I don't know the answer, I'm curious.

And if we decide to offer Purple Hearts for terrorist attacks on home soil, should victims of, say, the Oklahoma City bombing be similarly treated?

[Bang]

Hmm,, during wartime, a professed enemy soldier kills American soldiers deploying for the battlefield.

Sounds like enemy action to me.

Give them their medals and their respect.

~Bang

[nonniey]

How have other shootings on home soil within a military facility been classified?

EDIT: say the shooting last year at Fort Bliss, as one example.

I don't know the answer, I'm curious.

And if we decide to offer Purple Hearts for terrorist attacks on home soil, should victims of, say, the Oklahoma City bombing be similarly treated?

I'd say they need to be awarded for terrorist attacks conducted in support of our external enemies or their goals, directly or indirectly. We are at war with Al Qaeda (undeclared or not makes no difference). Both the Arkansas and Fort Hood attacks were conducted in support of Al Qaeda, or it's goals and in the case of the Fort Hood attack, Al Qaeda's direct encouragement. The Oklahoma City bombing would not fall into this catagory.

[Madison Redskin]

I agree they should get medals, but the title of the article is a little misleading, no? Is the DoD really "the Administration"? I'm stunned a reputable, fair, balanced, and objective news outlet like Fox News would try to portray President Obama as belittling the tragedy.

[Hitman21ST]

I agree they should get medals, but the title of the article is a little misleading, no? Is the DoD really "the Administration"? I'm stunned a reputable, fair, balanced, and objective news outlet like Fox News would try to portray President Obama as belittling the tragedy.

Commander-in-Chief.

That's Obama's title, along with POTUS.

Yes, he is as much at fault as everyone else who isn't giving the fallen their due respect.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Ex-Army here. And stationed at Fort Hood actually. I'm not sure about the Purple Heart thing. When I think Purple Heart, I think on the battlefield, in combat. I don't know. I wanna talk to some people and give it some more thought.

[Madison Redskin]

Commander-in-Chief.

That's Obama's title, along with POTUS.

So, it's fair to claim the Obama Administration called the Fort Hood Massacre "Workplace Violence" solely because Obama oversees the DoD? In other words, the actions of any member of any department of the federal government are the actions of the POTUS. Right?

In that case, I suppose it's fair to say "the Bush Administration intentionally killed Iraqi civilians" because a tiny handful of American soldiers intentionally killed Iraqi civilians during Bush's term. Right?

Yes, he is as much at fault as everyone else who isn't giving the fallen their due respect.

I think the guys who actually made this call bear just a tiny bit more responsibility.

[frostyj]

The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after April 5, 1917, has been wounded or killed. Specific examples of services which warrant the Purple Heart include any action against an enemy of the United States; 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; 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; as a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces; or as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force. 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. 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.

So they do deserve it.

Do we go back and give Purple Hearts to the Reservists and Nat. Guardsmen who die at the WTC and all at the Pentagon?(Or did they get it?) What about state side training mishaps during war time, if Tillman got one for being hit by friendly fire, then should training incidents should count?

If Tillman got one and doesn't qualify buy the rules, these guys should get it because they qualify.

[Dan T.]

The shooter was an active U.S. military officer, correct? So then you have to delve into motive and mental state. Doesn't that make the case not quite so cut and dried?

[Hitman21ST]

So, it's fair to claim the Obama Administration called the Fort Hood Massacre "Workplace Violence" solely because Obama oversees the DoD? In other words, the actions of any member of any department of the federal government are the actions of the POTUS. Right?

In that case, I suppose it's fair to say "the Bush Administration intentionally killed Iraqi civilians" because a tiny handful of American soldiers intentionally killed Iraqi civilians during Bush's term. Right?

I think the guys who actually made this call bear just a tiny bit more responsibility.

The commander is responsible for the actions of the subordinates. There have been countless times that a platoon (or company, regiment, division) commander has taken the fall when his subordinates have done something wrong.

In Bush's case, you could say that, but Bush also came out and denounced and (via the chain of command) enacted punishments against the soldiers. I haven't seen similar actions from the current POTUS.

By calling this "workplace violence" and not what it was, the current administration has given its stance.

---------- Post added December-8th-2011 at 09:48 PM ----------

The shooter was an active U.S. military officer, correct? So then you have to delve into motive and mental state. Doesn't that make the case not quite so cut and dried?

The shooter, Major Hasan, was shown to have had continued communication with Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim cleric involved with planning operations for al-Qaeda.

[Teller]

Hmm,, during wartime, a professed enemy soldier kills American soldiers deploying for the battlefield.

Sounds like enemy action to me.

Give them their medals and their respect.

~Bang

I don't need to say anything else. Thank you, John. So simply, yet eloquently, said by you, sir.

[nonniey]

Do we go back and give Purple Hearts to the Reservists and Nat. Guardsmen who die at the WTC and all at the Pentagon?(Or did they get it?) What about state side training mishaps during war time, if Tillman got one for being hit by friendly fire, then should training incidents should count?

If Tillman got one and doesn't qualify buy the rules, these guys should get it because they qualify.

Those wounded and killed while on active duty during the 9-11 attacks did get purple hearts. I don't think Tillman got the award as it wasn't enemy action (or in response to enemy action).

[Wrong Direction]

I agree they should get medals, but the title of the article is a little misleading, no? Is the DoD really "the Administration"? I'm stunned a reputable, fair, balanced, and objective news outlet like Fox News would try to portray President Obama as belittling the tragedy.

I suspect Obama will step in and change this. Not all decisions in the bureaucracy make it to the president, after all. However, if he doesn't, it's 100% on him.

[Madison Redskin]

The commander is responsible for the actions of the subordinates. There have been countless times that a platoon (or company, regiment, division) commander has taken the fall when his subordinates have done something wrong.

In Bush's case, you could say that, but Bush also came out and denounced and (via the chain of command) enacted punishments against the soldiers. I haven't seen similar actions from the current POTUS.

The POTUS is personally responsible for every wrongful act committed by any member of any arm of the federal government, except to the extent he denounced and directly or indirectly punished those responsible for committing the wrongful acts. Is that right?

By calling this "workplace violence" and not what it was, the current administration has given its stance.

Again, are you seriously arguing that a bureaucrat in the Pentagon is the "current administration?" I have yet to hear anyone, outside of Fox News, make the absolutely ridiculous claim that the "Administration" includes every single person working for the federal government. I must have swallowed a bunch of crazy pills because I cannot believe we are debating whether the headline is misleading.

[Wrong Direction]

Again, are you seriously arguing that a bureaucrat in the Pentagon is the "current administration?"

This has been in the news for several days, has it not?

The president needs to change this decision.

[Madison Redskin]

This has been in the news for several days, has it not?

The president needs to change this decision.

Perhaps. In my view, the victims of the Fort Hood shootings deserve to get the medals. However, my view isn't based on military regulations or precedent governing the issuance of the medals. As others have pointed out, there may be some reasonable explanations as to why they were denied the medals. I can see the POTUS leaving the matter to the members of the military charged with making such decisions.

Regardless, what I find more interesting is the claim the "Administration" was "calling the Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence.'" I think it utterly absurd to claim a bureaucrat in the DoD is a member of the "Administration." The title of the article is pure partisan BS and I can't believe that's even in question.

[Hitman21ST]

Perhaps. In my view, the victims of the Fort Hood shootings deserve to get the medals. However, my view isn't based on military regulations or precedent governing the issuance of the medals. As others have pointed out, there may be some reasonable explanations as to why they were denied the medals. I can see the POTUS leaving the matter to the members of the military charged with making such decisions.

Regardless, what I find more interesting is the claim the "Administration" was "calling the Fort Hood Massacre 'Workplace Violence.'" I think it utterly absurd to claim a bureaucrat in the DoD is a member of the "Administration." The title of the article is pure partisan BS and I can't believe that's even in question.

The bureaucrat in the DoD is a member of the administration because he was appointed by POTUS.

And yes, POTUS is responsible for the actions of any member of any branch of federal government. Especially those he appoints.

If he can take credit for bin Laden's capture/kill, then he needs to take responsibility for this.

[Madison Redskin]

The bureaucrat in the DoD is a member of the administration because he was appointed by POTUS.

How do you know he/she was appointed by POTUS?

And yes, POTUS is responsible for the actions of any member of any branch of federal government. Especially those he appoints.

If he can take credit for bin Laden's capture/kill, then he needs to take responsibility for this.

Apples and oranges. Obama personally made the decision to launch the mission to capture/kill bin Laden. He had no personal involvement here.

[Wrong Direction]

How do you know he/she was appointed by POTUS?

Apples and oranges. Obama personally made the decision to launch the mission to capture/kill bin Laden. He had no personal involvement here.

Are you arguing that decisions related to the Ft. Hood massacre and with potential ramifications regarding whether those killed get medals are being made at low levels of the bureaucracy? It's more likely that Obama made the decision himself than some low level manager made the decision. Once you get to certain levels, this stuff does become part of the administration, regardless of whether Obama had personal knowledge.

Regerdless, we're debating the title of an article rather than a decision. Obama should have the ability to change the decision. If he wants to, he will. Time will tell.

[Hitman21ST]

How do you know he/she was appointed by POTUS?

We're in year three of Obama's Administration. He's got his people in the places he can appoint people to.

Apples and oranges. Obama personally made the decision to launch the mission to capture/kill bin Laden. He had no personal involvement here.

It's not apples and oranges. If he can take credit for the military action, he needs to take responsibility for this. He can't just take the good and ignore the bad. He gets (or at least should get) to be responsible for whoever called it the "workplace violence"

[Madison Redskin]

We're in year three of Obama's Administration. He's got his people in the places he can appoint people to.

You claimed the article title is fair because Obama appointed the person who made the call. Yet, you don't know who made the call or whether Obama appointed them. It sounds like you're making assumptions in order to defend Fox News. Is there any other reason why it's fair to call an unnamed person in the military a member of the "Administration"?

It's not apples and oranges. If he can take credit for the military action, he needs to take responsibility for this. He can't just take the good and ignore the bad. He gets (or at least should get) to be responsible for whoever called it the "workplace violence"

I made a very clear distinction between the two situations, which you are totally ignoring. Obama had a number of meetings about and personally approved the raid on the bin Laden compound. There is no evidence whatsoever Obama discussed, approved, or is even aware of the decision to deny the Fort Hood victims Purple Hearts. Yet, Obama's culpability for the two decisions is equal? Do you care to explain why the distinction I made has no bearing on Obama's responsibility?

[Thiebear]

Then there are no such thing as battlefield medals either as everything is workplace violence with the Military.

its a beautiful thing they do, lets not nitpik their deaths down to every day 'who cares' categories.

[NavyDave]

How have other shootings on home soil within a military facility been classified?

EDIT: say the shooting last year at Fort Bliss, as one example.

I don't know the answer, I'm curious.

And if we decide to offer Purple Hearts for terrorist attacks on home soil, should victims of, say, the Oklahoma City bombing be similarly treated?

Very poor example of moral relativism.

Should I point out the left wing nut at the Discovery building, the Arizona shooter, The DC sniper if you want to go there?

[TimmySmith]

My guess is that "workplace violence" goes into a far different column than "enemy attack on US soil". People forget the reluctance to label these people as "enemy combatants".