OK, let's just call it a terrorist attack!

1. 71

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   No, not another Libya based thread.  Let us discuss the incident at Fort Hood that the administration has still failed to call a "terrorist attack"!
   
   Why is this important, why is it relevant?
   
   
   Fort Hood Victims Demand Attack Be Deemed 'Terrorism'
   
   Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre released a new video this week calling on the government to classify the November 2009 shooting as a terrorist attack rather than "workplace violence," a change that would make them eligible for specific combat-related benefits.
   
   "[The Fort Hood victims] were killed and wounded by a domestic enemy -- somebody who was there that day to kill soldiers, to prevent them from deploying," another victim, Army Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning says in the video. Manning was shot in the chest. "If that's not an act of war or an act of terrorism, I don't know what is."
   
   Army spokesman George Wright told ABC News that "the victims who were allegedly killed at Fort Hood in November 2009 did not meet the criteria of the award of the Purple Heart as outlined in the Department of Defense Manual of Military Decorations and Awards."
   
   Some of the victims in this week's video point to Hasan's online correspondence with American-born radical cleric and major al Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaki, who at the time was based in Yemen, as a reason the Fort Hood shooting should be treated as a terrorist attack. Before his death by drone strike in September 2011, some government officials considered al-Awlaki the greatest individual threat to America.
   
   As ABC News reported in the weeks following the attack, Hasan exchanged at least 18 e-mail messages with al-Awlaki within a six month period between December 2008 and June 2009, in which he asked al-Awlaki questions including when jihad is appropriate and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.
   
   ABC News also reported that U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months before the Fort Hood shooting that Hasan was attempting to make contact with Awlaki, a fact that Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, said should have raised red flags. The emails were monitored by the FBI, but at the time the bureau "did not assess this guy as a terrorism threat," according to a lengthy FBI review of the case.
   
   
   http://www.masoncountydailynews.com/new … -terrorism
   
   
   
   
   
   Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed by a drone attack in Yemen, he was killed due to the fact that he was labelled by the American government to be involved in terrorist activity.  The Fort Hood shooter (Nidal Hasan )was in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki eighteen times before he committed his "act of terrorism".
   
   Act of terror?
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD6zHHde4FA
   
   So it is not new for the current administration to fail in their duties to inform the American people of the details of an incident.  This time however, there are American soldiers that are unable to receive benefits from their government due to the fact that their president has not properly called the incident a terrorist act.
   
   I am sure that Mr. Obama will have the opportunity to explain his inaction to the members of the military and their friends and family tonight!

   replyreport
   1. 55

      Shinkickerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      US drones are the most deadly terrorism in the world at the moment. 'Double-tap' is twice as criminal

      replyreport
2. 59

   Bubba Jones 111posted 12 years ago

   Not many takers. I guess people are tired a weirdo garbage like this.

   replyreport
3. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   If I recall correctly, he was screaming 'Alahu Akbar!', which is probably Arabic for
   
   'I'm so tired of these stupid memo's from the bureaucrats that think they know better than we do! NO MORE MEETINGS ON THURSDAYS!'
   
   So yeah, makes sense. Workplace violence.

   replyreport
4. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   So, serious question: is there an objective reason why being shot by a crazy workmate on a domestic military base should get you more benefits than being shot by a crazy workmate at a Walmart?
   
   In any case, I suspect these definitions are pre-determined by the statute, not at the whim of the President.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The reason would be if it were an act of terrorism against the country. That is the point of this discussion, and the events explained in the article linked to this discussion.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         And to know whether it fits the definition for getting those benefits, I would need to know exactly what that definition is.  The law sits above the President.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think us "little people" have access to what defines terrorist groups. I would personally consider this (topic) an act of terrorism.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I am sure anyone has access to the criteria for getting benefits.  You would compare how terrorist acts are described in there to what happened.  If there is no match, then it doesn't matter what Obama does, they are outside the criteria.
               
               This is a bureaucracy we are talking about, after all.

               replyreport
5. 82

   kathleenkatposted 12 years ago

   Hmm. My best guess: I think terrorism has been brushed under the rug a lot, at least in this most recent administration. Bush is very well known for his war on terrorism, and also, incorrectly stating the location of some "weapons of mass destruction." I think the government is trying to do a better job not overreacting, since the war was unappreciated by many American citizens. I think they are underplaying it way, way, way too much, though. Not to bring Libya up again, but there is record of the ambassador asking for help months up until the day of the event.
   
   I agree, terrorism has been very downplayed as of late.

   replyreport
6. 58

   taburkettposted 12 years ago

   The Obama administration repeatedly avoids any mention to terror activities because they do not want to spark crticism from the Muslim communities internal and external to the country.
   Everyone knows that the Fort Hood activity was a terrorist act.
   The Obama Administration is terrified that if they admit that error acts occur in the military community that they will need to expand the military to identify many of the Muslim members as potential risk to the nation.
   The internal chaos created by the refusal to identify terror activities within the military forces is a huge risk to the nation.  This is obvious as the number of incidences continue to increase and have been swept under the rug as the leadership refuses to accept their terror background.
   The Fort Hood incident is just a drop in the bucket.  The expansion of radical terrorists within the nation continues to grow as the Obama administration balks at fixing the internal problems created by the radicals.
   This risk will continue to grow until the Patriots of the nation confront this situation.
   Make sure you are ready for the battle brewing on your community borders.

   replyreport
7. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   Apparently it would need to be (QUOTE)premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents(UNQUOTE).
   
   And a noncombatant is a person who is not (QUOTE)a member of the armed forces(UNQUOTE)
   
   And, well, it wasn't that.  If people want that definition changed they need to call their local representative and get the law changed.
   
   IMHO it would be far more scary to have a President who changes the law at whim than it is to have one who doesn't.
   
   http://www.nctc.gov/site/other/definitions.html

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, it would be scary. Like a President(whose oath is to see that the Laws of the land are upheld) who issues an executive order telling government officials NOT to execute existing laws.
      
      Oops, that was Obama.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         So clear this up for me.  In this particular occasion do you want him to meet your expectations and break the law, or not meet them and abide by it?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            1 - It's not just law, it's the constitution.
            
            2 - I DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT EVER! want my POTUS to act contrary to the constitution.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I was talking about the subject of this thread.  Strangely enough. Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) when compared with your comment implying that Obama was wrong not to call it terrorism under the law.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Not sure specifically what you mean.
                  
                  1 - The definitions in Section 2656f apply only to that section, which applies to the report the Secretary of State makes every year.
                  
                  2 - That being said, what law is/would be broken?

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     It is the legal standard applied in qualifying for purple hearts, which is what this story is all about.
                     
                     So... you seemed to think Obama should ignore that legal standard... because?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        First, source please? I've never studied the criteria for a Purple Heart.
                        
                        Second, it doesn't matter if they were considered non-combatants, and it appears that they would be considered non-combatants.

                        replyreport
   2. 82

      kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I wonder, if they were on leave, if they count as being combatant. And what if the target was combatant, but citizens ended up being injured/killed?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No, they wouldn't. A combatant is someone who is engaged in combat. Troops at a domestic base are not in combat.
         
         If that were the case, they would have said member of the military instead of combatant.

         replyreport
      2. 77

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Then they would be covered and it might be a terrorist act--I guess.

         replyreport
8. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   I found this for you.
   
   "Attacks against civilians and against military personnel, who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged as terrorist attacks."
   
   www.state.gov/documents/organization/31932.pdf
   
   They borrow the definition from the code you referenced, but clarify what noncombatant means:
   
   "For purposes of this definition, the term noncombatant is interpreted to include, in addition
   to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty."

   replyreport
   1. 77

      psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's nice, but it isn't the definition that applies to purple hearts.  He would have to use the statute that relates to the decision being made, not some other statute.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ok, what is the statute for Purple Heart consideration?
         
         The key term we are looking for is combatant, or non-combatant.

         replyreport
9. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   It is in the article OP linked to or the ABC article on the same topic (I can't remember which now).
   
   It is nice to see this getting onto argument points of fact, you know.  Not just whether or not you think Obama is an ass.
   
   Because whether he is or not, he should define the event correctly under the relevant laws and regulations--not just bend in the wind of media attention and public opinion.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I agree he should follow laws and the constitution. That's why I was so upset when he acted contrary to the constitution.

      replyreport
10. 0

    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

    Ok, they didn't meet the criteria according to the Department of Defense Manual of Military Decorations and Awards.
    
    "The manual states that the Purple Heart is awarded to service members who are killed or wounded "in action against an 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, provided the Secretary of the military department concerned recognizes the attack as an international terrorist attack."
    
    As defined by U.S. law, a terrorist act must be "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents," and for it to be an international terrorist act, it must involve "citizens or the territory of more than one country." All of those killed and a majority of those wounded in the attack were either active duty or reserve military personnel. "
    
    So, no it doesn't count as an INTERNATIONAL terrorist attack... that doesn't disqualify it as a terrorist attack.

    replyreport
11. 0

    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

    Also, the article incorrectly cites the section of US law that you quoted. That section specifically says the definitions only apply to that section, it is not the definition for all US law as the article claims.

    replyreport
12. 71

    Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

    Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful replies.  Perhaps we can expand the conversation by looking at how the Patriot Act defines "domestic terrorism".
    
    How the USA PATRIOT Act redefines "Domestic Terrorism"
    
    Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism.   A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to:  (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.  Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.
    
    Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism.  However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating ""terrorism.""   The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.
    
    The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism. 
    
    One recent example is the Vieques Island protests, when many people, including several prominent Americans, participated in civil disobedience on a military installation where the United States government has been engaging in regular military exercises, which these protesters oppose.  The protesters illegally entered the military base and tried to obstruct the bombing exercises.  This conduct would fall within the definition of domestic terrorism because the protesters broke federal law by unlawfully entering the airbase and their acts were for the purpose of influencing a government policy by intimidation or coercion.
    
    The act of trying to disrupt bombing exercises arguably created a danger to human life - their own and those of >>>military personnel<<<.
    
    Using this hypothetical as a starting point, we will go through the USA PATRIOT Act and explore the new governmental powers that could be brought to bear on Vieques Island protesters whose conduct falls within the overbroad definition of domestic terrorism.   
    
    Thus, domestic terrorism could include acts which ""cause serious physical injury or death"" rather than all acts that are ""dangerous to human life.""
    
    
    http://www.aclu.org/national-security/h … -terrorism
    
    So it seems that causing harm to military personnel should be classified as an instance of "domestic terrorism"?

    replyreport
    1. 72

       livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Depends on the nature of harm... when I was in the Army I had a Captain take his company on a forced road march through the desert in full chemical gear.  I was the medic assigned to this "training mission" and I'll add that it was already 104 degrees outside.  30 minutes into the mission I was pumping I.V.'s into a few soldiers, and then they started to drop every 5 minutes or so.  I had to evacuate dozens at a time by ambulance and by the time I would make it back dozens more had fallen to the heat.  I had to call in a medivac for 2 soldiers that had heat stroke and that is when the base commander showed up and verbally thrashed the Captain... who ended up losing his command of a Mobile Infantry company and was more or less given a desk job in Headquarters.  Pretty much a slap on the wrist... 2 weeks later one of my fellow medics shaved his head and ended up with a pretty bad sunburn... on his time off... but it was considered harmful to government property and he was given and Article 15, a demotion in rank and loss of pay.  One guy gets a sunburn and loses rank and pay, another causes Heat Stroke on 2 soldiers, dehydrates at least 50 others, causes $20,000 in damages and Army services and gets a pat on the wrist. 
       
       IMO  the Fort Hood shooting was an act of Treason and not an act of Terrorism and it was an act of cowardice because the Major did not want to be deployed overseas.  Both are acts punishable by death under UCMJ which he rightly deserves.  But to label it an act of terror just so the victims can get a medal or other service recognition is pretty much a slap in the face to those that actually earned their medals and service recognition in combat.

       replyreport