Erroll 80 #1 November 18, 2009 From CNN : QuoteMilitary victims of the Fort Hood massacre will be eligible to receive the Purple Heart if Congress passes a bill introduced Tuesday. Quote"As far as I'm concerned, this was an attack by an enemy upon American troops on American soil," Carter said Tuesday at a Capitol Hill news conference. I suppose the passage (or otherwise) of this bill should settle the argument? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #2 November 18, 2009 Political posturing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #3 November 18, 2009 Quote Political posturing. Exactly! Since when does military command need micro managing over purple hearts? There is already a medal that Congress has purview over. If they don't think that is appropriate (and clearly it isn't) then they should stick to their knitting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #4 November 18, 2009 I'm all for giving the victims in that attack purple hearts which they are currently not eligible for unless this is deemed a terrorist act. My question is what benefits do purple heart recipients receive that they otherwise wouldn't?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #5 November 18, 2009 QuoteExactly! Since when does military command need micro managing over purple hearts? There is already a medal that Congress has purview over. If they don't think that is appropriate (and clearly it isn't) then they should stick to their knitting. I agree that is it political posturing, but I don't understand the rest of your statement. My understanding is that you are either entitled to a purple heart or you are not. It is not a medal you are recommended for. As such, and I don't know how this works, is the military authorized or able to change those criteria themselves? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #6 November 18, 2009 I'm curious, what was the objects that President Obama was shown placing in front of the portrait of each victim at the memorial service? It looked like a coin or medal but judging from the camera angle and distance I couldn't be sure."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,488 #7 November 18, 2009 QuoteMy question is what benefits do purple heart recipients receive that they otherwise wouldn't? The Military Order of the Purple Heart awards scholarships. The Military Order of the Purple Heart Scholarship Program is exclusively for MOPH members, their spouses and their direct descendants. Scholarship funds can be used for tuition, books, incidental fees, room & board, and other direct associated costs of higher education. http://www.purpleheart.org/Default.aspxNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #8 November 18, 2009 Quote Quote My question is what benefits do purple heart recipients receive that they otherwise wouldn't? The Military Order of the Purple Heart awards scholarships. The Military Order of the Purple Heart Scholarship Program is exclusively for MOPH members, their spouses and their direct descendants. Scholarship funds can be used for tuition, books, incidental fees, room & board, and other direct associated costs of higher education. http://www.purpleheart.org/Default.aspx Thanks! www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #9 November 18, 2009 The Military Order of the Purple Heart is a private organization. There are government benefits that go along with being awarded a Purple Heart. For one thing, your classification at the VA is raised, meaning you get priority of care over people who were not wounded in combat. Burial rights are also affected IIRC. The history of the Purple Heart is very interesting, and the criteria has changed over the years. I do not believe those individuals killed or wounded at Ft. Hood should be awarded a Purple Heart. The current criteria requires being wounded by enemy action. Although many soldiers may see Field Grade Offficers as the enemy, last time I checked they weren't officially recognized as such. Awarding the Purple Heart to these victims will just serve to further dilute awards such as what's happened to the Bronze Star. If you award the PH to these victims, you'll have to give it to everyone killed while on duty, regardless of circumstances. This was murder, not combat. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #10 November 18, 2009 QuoteThis was murder, not combat. I think that remains to be determined because I wouldn't be surprised if in the end the act was considered to be terrorism which would make the victims eligible.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #11 November 18, 2009 I guess I should have said that it is my opinion that this act was murder, not terrorism. I am very leary of labeling an act terrorism. In fact, since the target was a military installation, if the shooter is later determied to have acted on orders from a foreign combatant, then this act would be combat, not terrorism. The label terrorism, in my opinion, should be restricted to acts against civilian targets with no military value, and intended to cause fear in the civilian population. Guys shooting at soldiers with the intent to do military damage are not terrorists. But, like I said, I really think this was an act of mass murder by a disturbed individual. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #12 November 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThis was murder, not combat. I think that remains to be determined because I wouldn't be surprised if in the end the act was considered to be terrorism which would make the victims eligible. Here are the current criteria for a Purple Heart: http://www.usmcvta.org/pheart/phcriteria.htm Based on this, if it turns out that Hasan acted alone, out of no more motivation than whatever he may have conjured up in his own head, then you would not be correct. Simply giving the criminal act the label "terrorism" does not necessarily cause it fall within these guidelines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #13 November 18, 2009 I'm not saying it is or isn't a terrorist act or enemy action. I'm just saying we don't know yet. If they don't get the Purple Heart because it doesn't fall with in the required criteria then I'm fine with that. Also if they do receive the award because either they do fall with in the criteria or Congress approves it then I am also fine with that.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #14 November 18, 2009 I have the greatest respect for those who put their lives at risk to protect my democracy, and I strongly believe they should be rewarded in any way possible for their service. OTOH,I am a civilian and will leave determinations of military awards up to the proper authority. The one person to determine if this event qualifies for the purple heart as an act of international terrorism is the Secretary of the Army John McHugh. That is clearly stated in Executive Order 12464. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #15 November 19, 2009 QuoteI'm not saying it is or isn't a terrorist act or enemy action. I'm just saying we don't know yet. If they don't get the Purple Heart because it doesn't fall with in the required criteria then I'm fine with that. Also if they do receive the award because either they do fall with in the criteria or Congress approves it then I am also fine with that. Based on the latest reports released from Walter Reed, it sounds like he was just another nutter with a gun.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d16842 0 #16 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuote Political posturing. Exactly! Since when does military command need micro managing over purple hearts? There is already a medal that Congress has purview over. If they don't think that is appropriate (and clearly it isn't) then they should stick to their knitting. Three of my friends died on EOD teams, two from IED's. Since it was "peacetime" and in the US, none were eligible for Purple Hearts, even though any idiot would consider IED's a terrorist weapon. I hardly think where one is standing when injurerd should be a factor in that award.Tom B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #17 November 19, 2009 Just curious, did your friends die in a training accident? I'm not aware of any IEDs being deployed in the US. No disrespect to their service, I just don't understand what you mean. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #18 November 19, 2009 QuoteAwarding the Purple Heart to these victims will just serve to further dilute awards such as what's happened to the Bronze Star. If you award the PH to these victims, you'll have to give it to everyone killed while on duty, regardless of circumstances. If this is classified as a terrorist attack... I think they should be eligible for the PH. If it is classified as a crime... Then no. Honestly, from what I have heard so far... I consider it a terrorist attack by a lone wolf."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #19 November 19, 2009 QuoteI think that remains to be determined because I wouldn't be surprised if in the end the act was considered to be terrorism which would make the victims eligible. What are the determining factors in the decision whether this is terrorism or murder? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #20 November 19, 2009 QuoteBased on the latest reports released from Walter Reed, it sounds like he was just another nutter with a gun. Do you have a link? I had dinner last night with a group of friends from my church that included a surgeon who very recently returned from a deployment to Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center. One of the comments he made, when he brought up the Ft Hood shooting (I left it to him to speak about it if he wanted to/initiated) was the shortage of folks with medical capabilities across all fields in the Army. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #21 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteI think that remains to be determined because I wouldn't be surprised if in the end the act was considered to be terrorism which would make the victims eligible. What are the determining factors in the decision whether this is terrorism or murder? Some guidance may be seen in the link I inserted in post #12. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #23 November 19, 2009 QuoteSome guidance may be seen in the link I inserted in post #12 That just said the Secretary of the Army gets to decide, didn't see where it said what would differentiate murder from terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #24 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteSome guidance may be seen in the link I inserted in post #12 That just said the Secretary of the Army gets to decide, didn't see where it said what would differentiate murder from terrorism. It does define the type of terrorism that qualifies for the award, even if it, alone, does not provide the full answer to his question. That's why I called it "some guidance." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #25 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteSome guidance may be seen in the link I inserted in post #12 That just said the Secretary of the Army gets to decide, didn't see where it said what would differentiate murder from terrorism. In this post from a while back, I provided some of the USG definitions of terrorism, including the DoD's (per JP 1-0): “terrorism -- The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. [emphasis mine] “terrorist -- An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives. “terrorist group -- Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying relationship, or are organized for the purpose of committing an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives.” W/r/t the Fort Hood shooting relevant portions, imo, include reference to political, religious, or ideological objectives as motivation [has to be shown]; it excludes criminal acts [that has to be eliminated, which may be a judgement call by someone/multiple someones], and the reference to “unlawful” violence, which other USG definitions, e.g., FBI, DHS, CFR, do not necessarily include. While the majority of terrorist acts are committed by non-uniformed individuals (non-state actors), the DoD definition does not, however, exclude the possibility that states & uniformed military can act as terrorists if they commit “unlawful violence.” I suspect when it was written the thought was other state's uniformed military, but that is a speculation on my part. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
