For John, BLUF: The Fort Hood shooting, from November 2009, is considered, by the Federal Government, an act of workplace violence, rather than the act of terrorism the rest of us think it is. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Over at Hot Air blogger Ed Morrissey asks about why Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, is not considered a terrorist, but rather a perpetrator of "workplace violence". Mr Morrissey references an item in The Stars and Stripes, linked to here.
Here is the lede from Mr Morrissey's article:
Help me understand this. Nidal Hasan has been held for almost three years after shouting “Allahu akbar!” and opening fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, killing 14 and wounding several others. Almost immediately, evidence arose that Hasan had been in contact with the late and unlamented al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki to discuss the legitimacy of conducting jihad within the American military, a scandal that prompted questions about why the military hadn’t intervened prior to the massacre. Most people assumed that was enough to consider the massacre a terrorist attack, including me.Here is a key point from the 18 October 2012 article in the The Stars and Stripes:
Because the incident is not considered an act of terrorism, the victims do not get combat-related special compensation that provides disability pay for medically retired servicemembers. Manning, who was shot six times, was recently denied such benefits. The victims are also ineligible for Purple Hearts or medals for valor.No Purple Heart? That is a travesty.
Regards — Cliff -0 T2 T2 0