No Purple Heart medal for soldier survivors: Outrageous!

It seems that our military is bending over backwards to protect Nidal Hasan from the label terrorist. I believe it was a terrorist attack at Fort Hood. Hasan said he did it for religious reasons. (In fact, he taught soldiers under his command some of those Qu'ran tenets.) We have hundreds of witnesses that saw him spray bullets all over the place at Fort Hood. But...

"Passage of this legislation could directly and indirectly influence potential court-martial panel members, witnesses, or the chain of command, all of whom exercise a critical role under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Defense counsel will argue that Major Hasan cannot receive a fair trial because a branch of government has indirectly declared that Major Hasan is a terrorist -- that he is criminally culpable."

So the survivors of that terrorist attack on soldiers of all ranks at a military facility during a state of war in Afghanistan may not get their medal. I find this heinous. What is worse is that we think we are safe on U.S. soil especially on a military base, but obviously that assumption is not true. Just as the assumption that Hasan would not get a fair trial if those soldiers received the Purple Heart medal.
This Axis of Evil reaches into the hearts and minds of those we believe should be immune. How many other people in positions of power and education are poised to strike as Hasan did both in the minds and to the bodies of his military brethren.

I can appreciate the desire for a fair trial. I can even appreciate the right of Hasan to have a fair trial, but it's been 4 years since he attacked his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. This trial should have occured 2 years ago, not dragging on this long. I believe the term is fair and speedy trial.

What I find even more outrageous is Hasan's attack was labeled "work place violence" rather than what is actually was: Terrorism. Why should the government label this act "work place violence" and not instantly label the attack on the embassy in Benghazi as terrorism? I suppose that was work place violence, too. It wasn't until many days after that act of war against a U.S. embassy that the president spoke out against "acts of terror", never saying the attack in Benghazi was an act of terrorism. 

Why does it matter?
If we sit idly by allowing "the government" to shift and drift into a dictatorship taking over our lives, then we deserve to live as those early colonials did with someone else deciding and dictating how our lives should be lived, ordering us to think as IT requires, giving lip service to protective laws, and making laws in the executive and judicial branches without due process. I see this as the one of the last rungs on a slide into despotism as our lawmakers are edged off the platform in front of the express train of two-legged government.
Wake up America. 

Post a Comment