DOD Comes to defense of Fort Hood Jihadist receiving fair trial over giving Purple Hearts to victims

This new development further demonstrates at least two realities. First, when the United States was hit on 9/11/01, declaring war on "terror" instead of on the actual enemy, was a grave mistake. Second, that mistake is being grossly exploited with legalese and political correctness, this time coming from the Department of Defense (DOD).

The primary objective of the Federal government - and the DOD by extension - is to defend the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". It's exceedingly ironic that the DOD would stake out a position that does the opposite by overtly denying a self-evident truth while slapping the Fort Hood survivors in the collective face.

If we had declared war on the actual enemy after 9/11 (any and all Muslim Brotherhood groups or governments / entities that fund / support those groups), perhaps the DOD would have long ago admitted that Nidal Malik Hasan committed an act of war on the U.S.

Before murdering innocent people, Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar', just like the 9/11 terrorists did from inside cockpits. Belonging to the religion of Islam is another common trait Hasan shares with those hijackers. It was further learned that while al-Awlaki had ties to Hasan, he also had extensive ties to the 9/11 hijackers.

In hindsight the DOD's treatment of al-Awlaki several months after 9/11, in the form of a plush luncheon served as a foreshadowing of how it has handled Hasan, who was inspired by al-Awlaki.

Via Fox News:

Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart would adversely affect the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan by labeling the attack terrorism, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Fox News. 

The document comes following calls from survivors and their families for the military honor, because they say Fort Hood was turned into a battlefield when Hasan opened fire during the November 2009 attack. Fox News is told that the DOD “position paper” is being circulated specifically in response to the proposed legislation.

Click Here to read the Position Paper referenced above.

Here are some excerpts:

The DoD position is the Purple Heart is awarded to Service members who are killed, or wounded and require treatment by a medical officer, in action against the enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States. Adhering to the criterion for award of the Purple Heart is essential to preserve the integrity of the award. To do otherwise could irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration.

Again, had an actual enemy been identified after 9/11, Hasan would have easily been identified as one of its agents. After all, his own business card confirmed it. It's also beyond egregious to suggest that awarding Purple Hearts to soldiers who were attacked by an enemy of the United States damages the integrity of the award is another slap in the face to Hasan's victims.

Soon thereafter...

The proposed bill alters the long established Purple Heart award criterion contained in Executive Order 11016.

This is perhaps the clearest example of why it was wrong for the George W. Bush administration to identify "terror" as the enemy. A consequence of that decision is that our own soldiers, who are wounded or killed by a member of the enemy don't qualify for Purple Hearts.

As for the criteria for being awarded the Purple Heart...

The criteria have since been modified to include those wounded or killed as the result of being held as a prisoner of war or from an international terrorist attack as determined by the Secretary of the department concerned. This “international” distinction is important because US military personnel are organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign – not domestic – forces or threats.

Uh, what if the unidentified foreign enemy makes it onto U.S. soil and infiltrates our largest Army post? Oh, yeah, that's right. The enemy is unidentified so there's no need to train or equip military personnel for such threats. Besides, there's no Purple Heart for doing so anyway.

Besides, was that an admission by the DOD that our military is not trained or equipped to defend the homeland against attack from within?

Now, how about the reason why the DOD doesn't want Hasan's victims to be awarded Purple Hearts?

The Army objects to section 552 because it would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial.

The murder of 14 and injuring of 32 happened almost three and a half years ago and we're still on "the eve of the trial"?

What more evidence is needed to demonstrate that our response to 9/11 was bungled? The (unidentified) enemy of the U.S. (Hasan) must have a fair trial and in order for that to happen, our soldiers (his victims) must be denied the honor of a Purple Heart?!

The DOD torpedoes its own credibility at the end of the document:

The Government has vigilantly tended to the needs of the victims and their families since the tragic events of November 5, 2009. The Government – as much if not more than other interested parties – very much desires emotional closure for victims and families. Purple Heart legislation, in advance of a finding of guilt or an acquittal, is not the answer to address these most sensitive concerns.

That excerpt directly contradicts the sentiment of one of Hasan's victims.

Via ABC News:

In a report that aired on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline," former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said that President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of. 

"Betrayed is a good word," said Munley, who sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2010 State of the Union address. "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of … In fact, they've been neglected."

There was no comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.
So who's telling the truth, DOD or Munley?

I'll take Munley, hands down.

Documents: FBI knew mentor for Fort Hood jihadist purchased tickets for 9/11 hijackers

Thanks to State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch, it has been learned that the FBI was quite likely aware - as early as September 27, 2001 - that Anwar Al Aulaqi - the man who inspired Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan - had purchased plane tickets for at least three of the 9/11 hijackers before the attack.

Via JW:

According to a September 27, 2001, FBI transcription, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and Federal Bureau of Investigations (No. 1:12-cv-00893)), al-Aulaqi purchased airline tickets for the following 9/11 hijackers:

Mohammed Atta, America West Airlines, 08/13/2001, for a flight from Washington, DC, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida. 

S. Suqami, Southwest Airlines, 07/10/2001, for a flight from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, to Orlando, Florida. 

Al-Sheri, National Airlines, 08/01/2001, for a flight from San Francisco, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida. 

The documents also include material showing that al-Aulaqi was uncooperative with FBI agents investigating the 9/11 attacks and was seemingly a central focus of the FBI investigation and monitoring related to 9/11.

That last part, about al-Aulaqi being uncooperative would seem to suggest that the Feds may have decided to rely more on the carrot than the stick when dealing with him. The thinking also could have been that by giving him such access could bring others out of the shadows.

For example, in February of 2002, al-Aulaqi gave a speech on moderate Islam at a Department of Defense luncheon and was given red carpet treatment. Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was also invited. These newly released (and heavily redacted) documents, acquired by Judicial Watch, provide yet another in an increasing number of examples that the U.S. Government in general and the FBI in particular, knew a lot more about al-Aulaqi than they've been willing to admit.

Later that year, al-Aulaqi was detained at JFK airport and then released, despite there being an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

Whatever the reasons were behind the actions / inaction of the Feds, it's quite possible that the disastrous consequences for the 14 who were murdered and the 32 who were injured at Fort Hood on December 5, 2009 could have been prevented.

More than three years later, justice has not been served and a judge who ruled that Hasan's beard had to be shaved, was replaced by another judge who ruled the jihadist could keep it.

In testimony before a congressional committee early last year, FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was appointed to his position one week prior to the 9/11 attacks, said he was "painfully aware" of what took place prior to the Fort Hood attack with regard to warning signs.

What's more disturbing is the refusal of those in positions like Mueller to admit the truth about the attack and the politically correct culture that helped to facilitate it.

Until that happens, we've learned nothing.

Fort Hood Anniversary: Gross Injustices three years later

On the third anniversary of the Fort Hood jihadist massacre, Nidal Malik Hassan is making a mockery of the judicial process; his victims still are not eligible for purple hearts because they were not officially killed or wounded in combat; a local memorial to commemorate the attacks still lacks funding; the unborn baby of one of the victims is not considered to be among the dead; and the survivors of the attack are being disrespected.

One of those victims has started the 32 Still Standing Foundation.

Via Temple Daily Telegram:

Christopher Royal doesn’t want the memory of the Nov. 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting to fade into history.

On the first anniversary of the shooting, while those who died were honored, the 32 people who were shot yet survived were not even mentioned, said Royal, a chief warrant officer-3 assigned to III Corps. Royal was inside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center and was shot twice.

He called the lack of attention given to those who were shot a “slap in the face.”

To that end, he started the 32 Still Standing Foundation, a support group for survivors of the shooting and their families. It’s one of two groups — both founded by survivors and victims’ families — to form in the three years following the shooting.

The other is Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, which made headlines a few weeks ago when the group released a video calling on the Defense Department to classify the shooting as an “act of terror.”

If you haven't seen that video, it is a must-see:



It's really a shame that the Fort Hood massacre hasn't been brought up by the Romney campaign. The third debate would have been an ideal time to ask Obama why none of the victims have Purple Hearts.

Tyrone Woods took the righteous path that so few ever take

It has been learned that Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods actually disobeyed orders to stand down in Benghazi. At great risk to his personal safety as well as to his career, he went into harm's way to rescue his fellow Americans. In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Tyrone's father Charles talked about his son's decision to ignore an immoral order - if not an illegal one. He then stated that those responsible for not acting are cowards who are guilty of murder.

Via GWP:



At a different point in that interview, Charles Woods said the following:

“I Do Not Appreciate Cowardice, And I Do Not Appreciate Lies.”

It would appear that we have a teachable moment for some of the military's top brass. As the weight of selfless nature with which Tyrone acted really began to take hold, it became blatantly obvious that there are instances - albeit rare - when honor demands not following orders. The Nuremberg trials and the subsequent Nuremberg Defense provide the most extreme and obvious example.

What Tyrone Woods did in Benghazi is unabashedly antithetical to the Nuremberg Defense. Though the order to stand down may not have been illegal, it was at a minimum, quite immoral. Woods understood that and everyone with a sense of right and wrong knows that he exhibited the highest possible level of honor while disobeying an order. He deserves every Military honor that can be bestowed upon him for his bravery. His legacy will endure.

Contrast the actions of Tyrone Woods with those of then Secretary of the Army, General George Casey on November 8, 2009, three days after the Jihad attack on Fort Hood. During an appearance on ABC This Week, Casey said the following about the motivation for the attack:

"I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it's not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse Army; we have a very diverse society and that gives us all strength so again, we need to be very careful with that."

Here is the full interview (relevant portion at the 4:50 mark):



Since then, those words have aged like a very bad wine. They were wrong then and that reality is even more blatantly obvious now. The attack on Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan was an act of jihad and it was an act of war. To this day, the survivors of the attack are under great duress not just because of what they went through but because of what their government refuses to acknowledge. Every soldier killed or wounded that day should be the recipient of a Purple Heart as well as any benefits that come with being killed or wounded in combat. Instead, because Hasan's actions have been identified as 'workplace violence', none are eligible.

With his words on 11/08/09, Gen. Casey helped to contribute to that reality today. Here is a video released earlier this month that features the Fort Hood massacre's survivors:



The question that came to mind as Casey uttered such shameful words was:

Did he believe what he was saying or was he saying what his superior (Barack Obama?) told him to say?

If it was the latter, he was following a directive that ordered him not to be honest with the American people. That is immoral and Casey should have resigned before speaking those words.

One of the questions that needs to be asked about Benghazi is:

Who told U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney to lie to the American people when they pointed to a video as the cause of the attack?

Their doing so would constitute following an order. Following an order to lie is an immoral act. Like Casey, both Rice and Carney should have resigned instead of committing it. Yet, career preservation (or an ideological agenda) was more important.

People like Tyrone Woods don't just subjugate their careers to do what's right; they subjugate their very existence to it. Consequently, their legacies are far more lasting. In this regard, the contrast between him and individuals like Casey, Rice, and Carney could not be more stark.

This video clip illustrates perfectly why so many people don't do the right thing:



Now we're learning that a spokesman for the CIA (David Petraeus) has issued the following statement:

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

One has difficulty believing that this statement is consistent with Obama's wishes, which would mean Petraeus could be ignoring an unlawful / immoral order to either say nothing or accept responsibility for something his agency didn't do so that the president can be protected.

If so, Petraeus is taking the right path.

Time will tell.

Note: If Petraeus has just removed the CIA from the mix of culpability when it comes to orders to stand down, that leaves Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Leon Panetta.

Are Fort Hood survivors 'Swiftboating' Obama?

The survivors of Nidal Malik Hasan's jihadist attack are fed up, as they should be. They're tired of watching their country's leaders tell the world that Hasan's rampage was 'workplace violence'. In essence, a blatantly false motive has been attributed to someone who murdered people who were serving their country. The same dynamic has been at work over the Benghazi attack. As the Obama administration continues to waffle on who / what was behind the attack, it tried to blame a video for motivating those who murdered people who were serving their country.

In 2004, veterans who served with John Kerry called his service and his purple hearts into question. In 2012, the victims of an act of war still don't have purple hearts because Hasan hasn't been identified for what he is - a domestic enemy who infiltrated the U.S. Army.

Via the Washington Times:

Benghazi isn't the first time the Obama administration has struggled with whether to call an attack on a U.S. post a terrorist attack. Nearly three years after the fact, the Defense Department still calls the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, an act of workplace violence, despite the suspect's ties to al Qaeda.

A coalition of 160 victims and family members of the deadly rampage at Fort Hood in 2009 sees similarities in the Obama administration's reluctance to label the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya as a terrorist act and wants government officials to belatedly deem the assault in Texas as terrorism as they now have done with Benghazi.

"To have it not be called terrorism is a slap in the face," said Shawn Manning, who was facing his third deployment the day authorities say Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan shot him six times.

The assault on the army post in Killeen, Texas, was the most lethal terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, leaving 13 dead, more than 30 wounded by gunshots and dozens more injured. Survivors, many who suffered from multiple bullet wounds, have spent the past three years trying to rehabilitate their bodies and rebuild their lives. Maj. Hasan, 42, is awaiting trial and faces the death penalty if convicted. 

For the service members who died and those who were wounded, the terrorism distinction would mean that the military considered that their injuries took place in a combat zone, making them eligible for Purple Heart medals and access to medical care and benefits similar to what soldiers wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan receive.

Civilian victims, such as Kimberly Munley, the civilian police officer employed by the Army who shot Maj. Hasan four times and is credited with bringing him down and helping prevent a bigger massacre, aren't eligible for Purple Hearts. But Mrs. Munley said the designation would recognize the severity of the attack and provide her and others with much-needed closure. 

"To be honest with you, it would just help everyone, including me, start to be able to have closure and start to heal," she said. "To this day, mentally and emotionally, I don't think any of us have started to heal."

The Times report above refers to "13 dead". Perhaps as a consequence of the culture we have allowed to exist for far too long in this country, the number of dead is rarely reported accurately. Francheska Velez was one of those murdered... and she was pregnant. The correct number is 14.

In this incredibly well-done video, the survivors of the attack speak out against those who refuse to identify Hasan for what he is and his act as what it was - an act of war.

At one point in this video, though Velez's name is not mentioned, one of the survivors describes finding her laying on the floor, crying 'my baby, my baby'.

Video: Fort Hood shooting victims speak out

Must-see video. Survivors of Jihad at Fort Hood speak out against attempt to label it 'workplace violence'.

Courtesy of Fort Hood Heroes:



h/t Jawa

Fort Hood Jihadist Attorneys: Military preventing Muslims from being on Jury

If you find yourself wondering why the trial of Nidal Malik Hasan still hasn't so much as completed jury selection after nearly three years since he murdered 14 people, perhaps the latest bit of insane news will help to explain it. Apparently, the defense team thinks the Military is discriminating against potential Muslim jurors.

Via Temple Daily Telegram:

The jury panel selection process for the court-martial of Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal M. Hasan has been described by the defense team as a “highly unusual process” that it wants to know more about.

When pre-trial hearings in the case resume on Friday, look for Judge Col. Gregory Gross to address several points raised by Hasan’s attorneys last week that suggest the military might have screened out Islamic officers in advance.

Army prosecutors in the case say the allegation is simply not true but the defense team wants proof.

They are asking the judge to release paperwork associated with the panel selection so they can better understand the process. In addition, the defense wants to interview Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell, Fort Hood's commanding  general and Staff Judge Advocate Col. Stuart Risch, Campbell's senior legal advisor, to determine if thee was command influence exerted from beyond the gates at Fort Hood.

I fail to see what's so difficult about this. Wives of police officers are not permitted to serve on juries in criminal cases because of an obvious and inherent bias. Muslims should not be allowed to serve on the jury in the Fort Hood Shooter case for the same reason. According to Islam, Hasan was justified.

Instead of taking the position that they're NOT screening out potential Muslim jurors, perhaps the Military / prosecutors should say they did while citing the Qur'an and the Hadith as justification.

Victims of Fort Hood Massacre Denied Purple Hearts

Late last year, the Obama administration decided to identify the Fort Hood massacre as being the result of 'workplace violence,' which put Nidal Malik Hasan on par with an angry postal worker who just snapped, before gunning down his co-workers. Adding to the outrage that coincides with such an absurd comparison is the fact that none of Hasan's victims will receive purple hearts, despite being killed by an enemy of the United States while on duty.

From David Horowitz via Tom Tancredo:

Barack Obama has just done something truly disgraceful! He’s declared the 2009 Fort Hood massacre — where a radical Islamic terrorist killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 29 more — “work place violence,” not a terrorist attack.

This means that these men and women are denied the military medals they are due — like the Purple Heart — for their deaths or injuries during the attack by a radicalized Muslim combatant. The way I see it, these soldiers put their lives and their bodies in harm’s way in defense of our freedom. But instead of recognizing them as heroes, Obama is treating them like they are civil service employees who just happened to be in the way when a random accident occurred!

Once again, Obama has failed to recognize that radical Islamic terrorists have declared war on this nation and our armed forces — our first line of defense against their monstrous actions. That’s why your Freedom Center has launched a nationwide petition campaign demanding that the Fort Hood massacre be categorized as what it was — a terrorist attack — and that medals be awarded to those who suffered in battle that day.

Yet another consequence of not identifying the enemy.

More here.

Feds Withholding Evidence in Fort Hood Jihadist's Trial

Claims by the defense lawyer for Fort Hood Jihadist, Nidal Malik Hasan, that the government is preventing him from seeing a White House Intelligence report on the shooting. Attorney John Galligan's claims that he has been denied access to important evidence appear to be quite accurate at this point. Ironically, this may be the one thing on which Galligan should be able to garner public support. It looks like he's not getting access to all of the emails between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki. This could say quite a bit about what the Feds don't want revealed about them.

Via Fox News:

A new filing in the Fort Hood case shows that a key White House Intelligence report on the Fort Hood Shooting in November 2009 is still being withheld from the defense. The Army also admits it does not have all of the emails exchanged between the accused shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan and the first American on the CIA’s kill or capture list, Anwar al-Awlaki.

The documents, filed on July 14 as part of the Fort Hood prosecution, state:

“Trial counsels (Army lawyers) have produced all electronic communication in their possession between the Accused and Anwar al-Awlaki. On information and belief, trials counsels do not believe they possess all electronic communications between the Accused and the individuals (al-Awlaki.)”

Hasan’s defense lawyer, John Galligan, says he was given nine emails by the military as part of the discovery process. Yet, sources who have reviewed the email exchange between Hasan and Awlaki which began in December 2008 tell Fox News there are at least 18 emails.

Based on the history of our federal government's behavior, there is possibly something in the Intelligence report that is very damaging.

Characterization of the emails exchanged between the accused Fort Hood shooter and the cleric range from benign to clearly concerning in tone. In one email, Hasan reportedly asked if it was okay to kill Americans – though U.S. officials will not comment publicly on the accuracy of those reports or the contents of the emails.

Yet, some former intelligence officials say the mere contact between Hasan and Awlaki – an American citizen who leads the new breed of Digital Jihadists who spread their ideology of hate through the web – should have prompted immediate action. Fox News’ investigative unit, in its special “Secrets of 9/11,” has shown that Awlaki’s contact with three of the 9/11 hijackers was not a series of coincidences but rather evidence of a purposeful relationship.

Cover-up, damage control, and CYA?

Read it all.

Is Obama Administration Delaying Fort Hood Jihadist's Trial?

This is quite the stunning reality, if true. Is the Obama administration actually responsible for delaying the trial of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan? The charge doesn't come from an anonymous or disconnected source. It apparently comes from Hasan's attorney, John Galligan, who likely has his share of nasty emails in his inbox. According to Pamela Geller's piece over at American Thinker she received an email forward from one of her readers in which Galligan pointed the finger directly at the administration in response to a question about all of the requests for trial delays.

Via American Thinker:

Major Hasan, also known as Soldier of Allah, according to his business card, mowed down thirteen U.S. soldiers while screaming Allahu akbar on the Fort Hood military base in Texas a year and a half ago, in November 2009. Yet his trial keeps on being postponed. On March 30, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the outgoing commanding general at Fort Hood, granted a request from John Galligan, Hasan's lawyer, to delay the trial until late April. Galligan, however, disclaims responsibility for all the delays, blaming them on none other than Barack Hussein Obama.

Rick, a reader of my website, AtlasShrugs.com, forwarded to me an email exchange he had with Galligan. Rick wrote to Galligan last Thursday: "The American people are getting pretty upset about all of these delays." On Friday, Galligan responded: "Delays are due to prosecution/White House refusal to disclose evidence. Blame them for the delays."

Whether true or not, such behavior would fall right in line with how this White House does things, especially when it comes to matters related to Jihad.

Read it all.

FORT HOOD MEMORIAL: KILLEEN NEWS REPORT

The Fort Hood Memorial put on by the Forum For Middle East Understanding on November 21st was quite eye-opening to those who attended. The biggest complaint was that there wasn't more in attendance. Though the event was videotaped, a larger crowd would have sent a much stronger message. The fact was not lost on the final speaker, Walid Shoebat, who chastised the City of Killeen as well as a local pastor.

After attending the event, it's obvious that the reason attendance was in the hundreds instead of in the thousands was because of fear. Anyway, here's a local news report from KCEN-TV, the area's NBC affiliate.

FORT HOOD JIHADIST ENDS DEFENSE AFTER FOUR MINUTES

After prosecutors in the Article 32 hearing - which is used to determine if there's enough evidence for a court martial - presented 56 witnesses over several days last month, all with gripping and horrifyingly compelling testimony, the defense mounted by the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, lasted a grand total of four minutes. Such a weak attempt at a defense in an Article 32 is not necessarily uncommon. That said, Hasan's attorney seemed to be conceding to the reality that there will be a court martial.

Via the San Antonio Express:

FORT HOOD — Prosecutors took nine days and 56 witnesses to finish their part of an evidentiary hearing for an Army psychiatrist charged with a shooting spree one year ago, but the defense took just four minutes.

The hearing wrapped up Monday morning shortly after Col. James Pohl, an Army judge who presided over a series of Abu Ghraib proceedings five years ago, asked Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan if he had anything to say.

“No,” Hasan replied.

Pohl, the investigating officer for the Article 32 hearing, will recommend whether a trial should be ordered for Hasan, who is charged with 13 specifications of premeditated murder and could get the death penalty.

A post spokesman said a decision on a trial is expected at the beginning of next year.

If there is anything good to come out of the hearing, it may be the repeated requests made by Hasan's attorney, John Galligan, who has been demanding - rather unsuccessfully - that he receive investigation results of his client's time at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

In light of what has leaked about all the red flags raised by Hasan's behavior, the Department of Defense is not looking forward to being significantly shamed by revelations of what it didn't do to prevent this massacre.



h/t to Weasel Zippers.

FORT HOOD: LOCAL MEDIA PICKS UP ON POLITICALLY INCORRECT MEMORIAL

There will be two primary Fort Hood memorial services one year after the shootings that left 14 dead and 35 wounded on November 5, 2009. One will span two days - November 5 and 6. It will be sponsored by the City of Killeen (Fort Hood). It is sanctioned by the City and the military. Its purpose is to commemorate the fallen and the wounded but the truth about the ideology of the shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan is certain to be ignored.

Enter the other memorial, which is being sponsored by the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association on November 21st. It is being organized by the Forum For Middle Eastern Understanding. The local ABC affiliate there - KXXV News Channel 25 - reported on the story of a letter that was sent out by the Killeen Chamber of Commerce last week.

That letter, as well as several billboards (pictured) that popped up in the area are serving as a source of controversy. One of the billboards is said to be very close to the entrance of Fort Hood. Here is an excerpt from the KXXV report:

The "Fort Hood Memorial" event name is also the same name for the planned Fort Hood memorial structure next to the Killeen Conference Center. Killeen chamber officials wouldn't go on camera but said the letter was straight-forward in making a difference between the two for its members, and not an attempt to take donations away.

Davies still feels it's an attempt to drag his donations down. He also says it's the nature of his speakers that might have some people worried. At least two former Jihadists turned counter-terrorist spokespersons are scheduled to make speeches.

The events are planned on separate days. The Fort Hood memorial unveiling is on November 5th, and the Forum for Middle-East Understandings event is on November 21st.

Here is the video report from KXXV.

BONE CHILLING TESTIMONY IN DAY 2 OF FORT HOOD TRIAL

Day 2 of the Article 32 hearing designed to determine if there is enough evidence to bring a court martial against Nidal Malik Hasan took place yesterday. Witnesses who were shot by Hasan testified about their horrific experience and from whose gun the shots came. The most bone-chilling testimony came from Staff Sgt. Patrick Zeigler.

Via the Dallas Morning News:

FORT HOOD, Texas – The slow, rhythmic thunk of a metal cane was the only sound in a military courtroom for nearly a minute Thursday when Staff Sgt. Patrick Zeigler was called to testify about the attack last November that left him brain-damaged.

The man accused of shooting him, Maj. Nidal Hasan, sat motionless in a wheelchair, his dark eyes blinking as he tracked the sergeant's halting steps. Zeigler did not return the Army psychiatrist's gaze as he made his way to the witness stand.

Ziegler spoke carefully and sometimes paused as he described the horror that left his left side so damaged that he had to relearn to walk and his head so riddled with bullet and bone fragments that 20 percent of his brain had to be removed. His fiancée listened intently from an aisle seat, sometimes biting her lip.

Zeigler said he initially "froze up" when someone near the entrance of the soldier readiness center yelled "Allahu Akbar" just after 1 p.m. Nov. 5. Like most of the 18 other witnesses who have testified in the proceeding, Ziegler said he thought at first that the incident was some sort of drill. He saw a man in a combat uniform pull something from his uniform top – an object he initially thought was a training weapon. Then he registered that the gun had a laser sight and that its red beam was arcing toward him.

"It actually crossed paths with my eyes," Zeigler said. "I have no sense of time, but it felt like somebody hit me in the side of the head with a metal baseball bat."

Hasan is like the alien in Independence Day who allowed people to see the face of evil and the true intentions of the enemy.

Read it all.

TESTIMONY IN FORT HOOD CASE BEGINS

It may have been a good thing that Nidal Malik Hasan wasn't killed on November 5, 2009 because there was some very gruesome and graphic testimony given on the first day of his Article 32 hearing. Perhaps people will begin to wakeup to what we're really facing. The story of Alonzo Lunsford, a Sgt. who was shot five times by Hasan.

Via the Statesman:

The morning’s first witness was Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, a 20-year Army veteran who worked in the soldier readiness processing center, which he said was unusually busy on Nov. 5 with soldiers getting ready to deploy to Iraq. He testified that he saw Maj. Nidal Hasan shout “Allah Akbar” and pull out a gun, shooting toward soldiers using an infrared laser sight.

Lunsford testified that he immediately crouched down and tried to run out a back door.

“When I stood up Major Hasan makes eye contact. I looked at him and he looked at me,” Lunsford said. “I saw the laser come across my line of sight. I close my eyes. I get hit in the head.”

Lunsford said he hit the floor as blood pooled under his left eye. After a few moments, Lunsford said he leaped up and ran out of the building, tumbling to the ground. He later learned he had been shot an additional four times.

During his testimony, Lunsford stood up and identified Hasan as the shooter.

I spoke to someone present at this hearing who said the anger exhibited by Lunsford toward Hasan was so intense, there was concern things might get physical. That didn't happen and Lunsford's discipline is obviously unassailable.

h/t to Jawa

VIDEO: HONORING FALLEN AT FORT HOOD EVENT

On November 21st, 2010 at the Killeen Civic Center, former Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat, Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer, decorated General Jerry Boykin, and former Muslim Kamal Saleem will be honoring the victims of the Nidal Malik Hasan Jihad attack on November 5th, 2009. Killeen is adjacent to Fort Hood and the event will be emceed by syndicated talk show host Lynn Woolley. Check out this short video montage of the various speakers to learn more information about the event.

Via Big Peace

PENTAGON RELEASES FINAL REPORT ON FORT HOOD SHOOTINGS

Keep the timeline in mind here as it is very important. Islamic jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan killed fourteen people on November 5th, 2009 at Fort Hood. In January of 2010, the Report of the DOD Independent Review came out. Nowhere in that report were the words, 'Muslim', 'Islam', or 'Jihad' mentioned. However, in fairness to the bureaucrats who compiled it while on OUR CLOCK, a reference was cited in which the word 'Islamic' was used. Here is the relevant quote:

Researchers and intelligence professionals have been actively engaged in identifying trends in this domain, particularly since September 11, 2001 .

HERE is the reference:

22 Paul K . Davis and Kim Cragin, eds . Social Science for Counterterrorism. (2009); Carol Dyer, Ryan E . McCoy, Joel Rodriguez, and Donald N . Van Duyn . “Countering Violent Islamic Extremism .”

Aside from that, no mention of the origin of our enemy.

Fast forward to August, 20th, 2010 and the DOD Review of that report. It is twenty-three pages and while the word 'terrorism' is used, there is NO USE of the words, 'Islam', 'Muslim', or 'Jihad' in this report either. Apparently, this review was intended to take the results of the January 'report' and outline actionable courses of action relative to that report.

Translation?

Useless crap. Here is an example:

DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1304.28 (Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains for the MIlitary Departments) provides the Department with broad authority to deny recognition to individuals as ecclesiastical endorsers while also ensuring the ability of military members to exercise freedom of religion. Although this policy is appropriate, the Department will review and update existing policy to ensure effective implementation, including periodic reviews of religious organizations seeking to endorse religious ministry professionals as military chaplains.

Seriously, why couldn't they say that based on the fact that Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down fourteen Americans in the name of Islam, the DoD will increase skepticism of the Islamic faith?

More at KWTX

FORT HOOD: A MATTER OF STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

When I read columns like this one from Ken Blackwell - this guy should have been RNC Chairman - my view that political correctness in matters of Islam in this country is reinforced; it's just a nice way of saying, "Stockholm Syndrome". Named after a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden in 1973, the hostages in that robbery actually viewed their captors as their protectors. It's a survival technique that is incredibly delusional and misguided, if not mildly understandable.

It's also very real. While Blackwell doesn't identify it as such when he juxtaposes Gen. Jerry Boykin's treatment in the media with that of Nidal Malik Hasan, the implication is clear; Boykin is an easy target because he's no threat. Conversely, Hasan and other militant Islamists are actual threats media types like NPR's Nina Totenberg don't want to confront.

It's really both disgraceful and obvious what's going on. Via the American Spectator:

Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin knows something about political correctness in the military. Gen. Boykin, a highly-decorated combat veteran was dragged through the mill by the liberal media back in 2003 for expressing his Christian beliefs in Christian churches. They charged the general was calling for a Christian crusade against the Muslims.

"I hope he's not long for this world," said NPR's Nina Totenberg on WUSA's Inside Washington TV talk show. When fellow panelists, mostly liberals, protested, asking whether Totenberg really wanted to issue a fatwa on the offending general, she quickly backtracked. She said: "in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job." Well, that's reassuring. Totenberg only wanted the heroic general fired. She wanted him removed from any role in directing the war on terror. She didn't want him beheaded.

Major TV networks denounced Gen. Boykin as a "Holy Warrior." They ridiculed his Evangelical Christian faith on prime-time television.

Compare that treatment with what we see in the treatment of Nidal Hasan. This man yelled "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "God is great!") even as he squeezed the trigger in the worst case of terrorism here since September 11th. Yet, the media is very hesitant to demand accountability of the military brass. Army Chief of Staff General Casey made the rounds of TV talk shows the first Sunday after Hasan's shootings. He said it would be "a tragedy" if the Army's diversity was a casualty of the Fort Hood murders.

The hero is spat upon by those he attempts to save while the villains are glorified by the countless, shameless, and cowardly knaves.

Read it all.

VIDEO: FORT HOOD REPORT BLASTED BY RALPH PETERS

It's really a shame that there aren't more guys like this who are actually in the highest positions of power inside the military. Col. Ralph Peters (Ret) gets it that the military brass in this country are afraid to identify the root causes of what happened at Fort Hood on November 5th. It may be true that he wouldn't speak this forthrightly if he was active but I have a tough time believing he'd have put his name on a report like the one released by the DOD.



Peters also wrote about this in the NY POST.

HERE is a link to the 86 page report. Feel free to read it if you enjoy ponderous dreck.

h/t to H4A

FORT HOOD SHOOTER: SUPERIORS IGNORED THEIR OWN CONCERNS

This one speaks volumes. This crosses into yet another realm. Not only was Nidal Malik Hasan shuffled through the system because of political correctness (cowardice) but those responsible for doing so weren't just ignorant - they were willfully ignorant. At some point, someone other than Hasan, who is not Muslim and IS in the U.S. military must be identified as having blood on his / her hands.

The AP reports:

A Defense Department review of the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, has found the doctors overseeing Maj. Nidal Hasan's medical training repeatedly voiced concerns over his strident views on Islam and his inappropriate behavior, yet continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving through the ranks.

The picture emerging from the review ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates is one of supervisors who failed to heed their own warnings about an officer ill-suited to be an Army psychiatrist, according to information gathered during the internal Pentagon investigation and obtained by The Associated Press. The review has not been publicly released.

Positive performance evaluations were issued to keep him moving through the ranks? Toward the end of the article, the root of the problem is summed up by juxtaposing two paragraphs.

Between 2003 and 2007, Hasan's supervisors expressed their concerns with him in memos, meeting notes and counseling sessions. He needed steady monitoring, especially in the emergency room, had difficulty communicating and working with colleagues, his attendance was spotty and he saw few patients.

Then 22 words later comes this...

Still, Hasan's officer evaluation reports were consistently more positive, usually describing his performance as satisfactory and at least twice as outstanding. Known as "OERs," the reports are used to determine promotions and assignments. The Army promoted Hasan to captain in 2003 and to major in 2009.

In light of the PJTV video I POSTED earlier, it might be safe to say that the former D.O.D. analyst in the video makes some claims that are bolstered by this news.