TexasCHLforum.com

Pawpaw wrote:

philip964 wrote:I am a proponent of the death penalty. However, I would hope in this case they wait a really long time before they carry out sentencing.

Are you volunteering for them to send you the bill for his incarceration?

I agree with the long, drawn-out incarceration with the sentence of death. I would prefer to see the guy die on death-row because of old age. My taxes go to enough other crazy stuff that his incarceration wouldn't bother me a bit.
I simply do not want this poor example of humanity to get his wish for martyrdom.

What really irks me is that the court is considering allowing Hasan's "defense of others" as his defense.
He specifically states that he was attempting to protect the "leadership of the Taliban".
How in the world can he be allowed to do this while the government of the US declines to recognize this as an act falling under the Global War on Terrorism?

flechero wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Resurrecting an old thread with a bit of new news...

Difficult to condone that this .... guy.... is still getting paid.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/21/[abbreviated profanity deleted] ... -massacre/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

U.S. Department of Defense officials confirmed to NBCDFW.com that Maj. Nidal Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty in the Nov. 5, 2009, shooting in Texas, citing the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Jury selection in his trial is scheduled to begin May 30.

The family members of his victims should file suit and get an injunction placing all of his earnings into escrow until the wrongful death lawsuits can be settled.

Or, the Army should pass some new code that if convicted, all earnings paid during incarceration and trial should be applied to the cost of housing and trying said individual.

Again, the 'Army' can't do that. Congress has to make that happen and pass it on down through the Department of the Army.

Response from Senator Cornyn:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the horrific attack that occurred at Fort Hood, Texas on November 5, 2009. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

My thoughts and prayers remain with the victims and their families during this difficult time. Fort Hood is one of our nation’s finest and largest military installations, and a place that has long been a source of pride for Texans, and for all Americans who value the selfless service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

The federal government has a fundamental duty to our men and women in uniform to safeguard them against avoidable harm in the course of their service. We must protect the protectors whenever and wherever we are able, especially at home in the United States. Our government failed the brave Americans who were killed and wounded at Fort Hood. The devastation inflicted on them was preventable, and it is of paramount importance that we ascertain exactly where the system broke down.

To this end, I have written to President Barack Obama to express my deep concern at the Administration’s reluctance to recognize the events at Fort Hood as an act of domestic terrorism. There are a myriad of investigations underway, and I appreciate the importance of ascertaining the facts before making any judgments; however, it is increasingly apparent that Islamist terrorism is to blame for this senseless attack.

Islamist terrorism represents one of the single most dangerous threats to the national security of the United States. As you may know, this enemy seeks the complete and total destruction of our nation, our government, and our entire American way of life. As additional facts surrounding the Fort Hood attack surface, it appears increasingly probable that Major Nidal Hasan, who has been charged in the attack, heeded terrorist calls to violence, compelled by a fanatical religious ideology. If Islamist terrorism was the driving force behind the senseless violence at Fort Hood, as it appears to be, this attack must serve as a call to action for the federal government. Federal agencies must follow every lead and look into every possible threat, regardless of whose particular sensitivities might be offended in the process. We must never allow the safety of those who defend our freedom to be made a secondary priority to political correctness.

Furthermore, whether in Central Iraq or Central Texas, when Americans serving our country come under terrorist attack, they should be eligible for the same level of benefits and recognition. Therefore, I have introduced the Fort Hood Victims and Families Benefits Protection Act (S. 2807). This legislation would ensure that the victims of the Fort Hood massacre and their families are entitled to the very same benefits that are afford to Americans who have been injured in overseas combat zones and the families of those who have been killed in action. Additionally, S. 2807 would provide recognition of the tremendous physical sacrifices made by these brave Americans by making affected service members eligible for the Purple Heart medal and Department of Defense civilian employees eligible for the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom. S. 2807 has been referred to the Armed Services Committee for further consideration. I am hopeful that the committee, and subsequently the full Senate, will expeditiously consider and pass this important legislation, which is the very least we can do for the victims of the Fort Hood shootings.

As investigations into this attack move forward, you may be certain that I will continue to stand with the families of the 13 killed, the many wounded, and the countless others affected. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

Dragonfighter wrote:Here is the letter I sent to Representative Burgess:

Mr. Burgess,

In the wake of the terror attack on our troops at Ft. Hood, there has been very little, if any dialogue addressing the eligibility for the Purple Heart for those fallen soldiers and their wounded comrades.

I know that the administration would rather foist the health care debacle on us than deal with the reality of what occurred at Ft. Hood, but I would appreciate your opening the dialog in the house as they are the victims of international terrorism on U.S. soil, irrespective of the level of infiltration accomplished by Maj. Hasan.

To do this we must either admit that Hasan was a terrorist and that the act was terrorism, or introduce a bill that expands the eligibility for Purple Hearts to include an attack on soldiers by class, I.E. if soldiers are targeted because they are soldiers either by those that are violent protesters or to prevent them from engaging in deployment, then they would be eligible for a Purple heart...retroactively to include the attack at Ft. Hood.

I would also like to see actions taken to re-arm our troops during station keeping. This was done away with during Viet Nam, but had the soldiers had their issued weapons the attack never would have happened as these cowards always chose soft targets. If it had, then three long minutes of unbridled carnage would have been stopped in seconds. We trust them with millions of dollars in tanks, aircraft, artillery and high capacity weapons when deployed, why are they less trustworthy here, protecting our native soil?

Thank You,
Name Removed

Commendable letter.

Just watched a Fox News analyst (Bill Cowan Colonel Retired?). He stated that the Red Flags that should have popped-up and didn't were due to Political Correctness. He stated that if a skin-head radical Soldier had made similar inflammatory statements to colleagues about White Supremacy he would have immediately been Red Flagged by the FBI and Army.
I tend to agree.

New buzzword: Red Flag

srothstein wrote:On a different note, I have a request. I was talking with some people on another forum and found that the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood and the ones killed in Arkansas are not eligible for the Purple Heart. It requires that the act be international terrorism, which is defined as having occurred outside the US. I think this is wrong so I sent the following to both John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison:

I recently found that the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood will not be eligible for the Purple Heart medal since the terrorist attack occurred inside the US.

I think these soldiers and the ones killed in Arkansas recently both deserve to be properly recognized. Could you sponsor a change to the law to make them eligible for the Purple Heart. It could be one simple line to add persons injured as a result of acts of domestic terrorism after Sep. 11, 2001 (many of our awards started on that date).

I kind of sidestepped whether or not this is a terrorist act by assuming it was. Even this change may not make them eligible if people continue to deny this was terrorism. But there is no way anyone could truly deny the Arkansas recruiting station incident. I think this change should be implemented even if this incident does not get ruled terrorism.

So I am asking all of you to also send notes to the Senators if you agree. I did not send it to my representative since I don't think he would support it anyway, but you could add your representative if they would support it.

They would have to define Hasan as a Terrorist and they don't want to do that.

marksiwel wrote:

bdickens wrote:Purplehood is 100% correct about the dirtbags one finds in the Army. The very guy who is supposed to be covering your flank is going to be the first one to steal from you. There's still a lot of soldiers in the Army under the "join the Army or go to jail" program. I even had one of those guys working for me.

I thought they werent allowed to do that anymore (the jail thing)?

They legally are not (and it has been that way for a number of years), but any Recruiter with a little initiative can get around it.

A little note on that also...dirtbags don't have to necessarily be those avoiding jail sentences. A Recruiter rarely comes across a qualified candidate for enlistment that sticks out as a potential thief, rapist, murderer or the like. You simply don't know them. (I was a Recruiter for 3 years also)

All of these statements coming out of the woodwork regarding Hassan and his fitness, yet he made Major in 8 years? Was the Army afraid to say, "He is not qualified for advancement" for some particular reason?

In the Marines we ran in Cammies and we ran in PT gear. Just depended on the situation. In the Army we strolled alot.

Back on topic, just read this on MSNBC:

Poor evaluations
Several officials told NPR that supervisors had repeatedly given Hasan poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work during his training at Walter Reed.

The sources told NPR that both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan's behavior, which they variously described as disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent and "schizoid.

They described him using these terms and still allowed him to be a psychiatrist for returning combat vets?

Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide, like the Muslim U.S. Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who killed 14 fellow soldiers in 2003 by setting off grenades at a base in Kuwait.

Seems like not only the FBI let us down, but the Army appears to be willing to delude itself.

stroo wrote:Purplehood,

You keep talking about how difficult it would be for a CHL to take care of a gun on post. Would you be willing to undergo the type of personal screening you go through when going to court or going on a flight with correspondingly thorough vehicle searches everytime you came onto base?

Let me be totally frank here. I realize that I am espousing a double-standard here. From my perspective I am sure that I could handle carrying with a CHL on base with all of the difficulties that would arise. So to answer your question, Yes, I would be willing.
But what I have experienced living on and off base while both single and married has led me to believe that you cannot treat each Military member fairly and equally.

Single, living on base
How do you secure your weapon in the barracks while asleep or in the shower? Do we need to leave a guard in each squad-bay to watch over folks weapons? Small safes and locking cables will not work in the barracks. They would simply walk off. Theft is always a problem.

Single, living off base
Now you are an NCO or Junior Officer and allowed to live off base. Lets assume that you are of age for a CHL. Your weapon at your residence is your personal responsibility and I accept that. Now assume that having a CHL on base means being able to carry it on base.
How much extra time are you willing to allow yourself for screening entering the base? I don't know how many times as a young jarhead that I got silly-drunk, slept for an hour and had to be up at 0430 hours for PT on base. Wow, I need to modify my lifestyle. Say I am not a party-dog and I have no problem with getting places on time and getting up a little early to go through screening.
Most of the "real" services (LOL) require you to attend unit PT. No matter how skilled you are, I guarantee you are not going to be able to carry while doing a typical PT session. Period. Now you have to turn your weapon into the Armory, which means more time getting their early and more time picking it up again and being able to return to duty in a timely manner. (This would also apply to every servicemember, married or not, living on base or not)

Married, living on base or off-base
The Military can and does specify what you can and cannot do in your residence, more so on base than off, but they are legally able to do so in either case. If CHL were authorized on base, the CO would without a doubt have to establish regulations on the care and safekeeping of the weapon in your residence. What safe or other security measures would be specified. Inspection protocols would have to be established. Inspectors would have to be assigned. All of this can be accomodated, but the biggest issue that is always going to pop-up is cost-effectiveness. Does the Commander with a finite-budget want to assign personnel (Military or Civilian) to conduct inspections? I wager that the CO would be extremely hard-pressed to do so. And realize this: Nothing in the military can be done on an ad hoc, just take care of it basis. Everything has to be codifed and regulated. People and dollars have to be provided to ensure that regulations are followed.

The intangible problem.
This one is going to set folks off, but in my view it is a grim reality. There are a lot of dirtbags in the military. They eventually get weeded out (but not always) but create hate and discontent for those willing to follow the rules. Because everybody pays in the Military when someone screws up.
Barracks thieves are rampant. Fights and drunks are common. Young newbie troops and grizzled veterans forget to secure their gear all the time. In a military environment where everyone knows your business, this can lead to a potentially fatal mistake when a loaded weapon gets lost or stolen.
One thing about a base and firearms that I have noted is this: If you are carrying a weapon you are on duty, doing training with it or are Military Law Enforcement. An MP can quickly figure out who should be handling a Military firearm and who is doing something that they shouldn't with a private firearm. You don't see private weapons unless they are being transported to and from the Armory and/or the Range. Someone carrying one around is a warning sign.

Arming Officers and NCO's. I tend to agree with this idea. I know that it would cause great hate and discontent for many of those assigned these tasks to do so in a peacetime garrison environment (for example, Ft Hood). See my previous examples above about checking in or out weapons from the Armory, securing them during PT, and the extra time and effort involved in an already busy duty day.

I will admit that from time to time over the years I thought it necessary to improve security on a personal level in garrison. But I also realize that it would take a fundamental change in procedures and time and personnel and ultimately unit budgets to accomodate. And I am willing to bet that that is not going to happen easily.

austinrealtor wrote:With all this talk on my mind about certain military personnel who really cannot be trusted with guns, except when training or facing the enemy, I ran across this quote today. Speaks VOLUMES ...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
George Washington

Now, I'm not saying you strap an M9 onto the hip of every 18-year-old private. Heck, they wouldn't qualify for a CHL, much less be capable of competently open carrying a loaded sidearm. But personnel of a proper age, maturity, discretion, and ability (to be determined by DOD) should be allowed to open carry a sidearm on post during their daily routine. Perhaps some should even be required to do so, but again I would leave that up to DOD to decide particular policy. And those with a CHL should be allowed to keep their personal firearms on base, secured (behind "double locks" and subject to inspection) in their residence or private vehicle at all times until off base.

Anyway, reading that quote from ol' George just really struck a chord with me.

Many of those folks you describe live in the barracks and don't have POV's. Who are you going to appoint to do all this inspecting? Sorry, I will stop.

ammo two wrote:I am sure that there are Commanders at many levels assessing what happened at Ft Hood, and looking to make changes in an attempt to prevent it or something like it from happening again. We (the Amy) have always re-acted this way in the past, so I have no reason to believe that they aren't actively researching a solution. Having retired from the Army AND having had a CHL while on active duty, I can see both sides. As I see it there will continue to be sacrifices, particularly, in regards to the carrying of POWs by CHLs while on post.

I think their only viable solution for prevention is to arm certain individuals. Possibly allowing Cdr's, CSM's, 1SG's maybe even Platoon Sergeants/Leaders to carry their assigned weapon during the duty day while in Garrison AND they would also need to at least consider the MSG's and SGM's for the staff side.

OR continue to plus up (even further) the ever growing number of DoD Civilian Police on bases. This would be the more costly measure.

In regards to military CHL holders...not all leaders will qualify for a CHL, based upon one thing or another however some will. As a result, that could mean there are not enough CHL holders at assigned levels for there to be a uniform measure of security. Which leads me to believe that it would need to be their assigned weapon.

Just my thoughts. YMMV. IANAL.

Good thoughts.

mr surveyor wrote:what in the world is a "Challenge coin", and what is the significance of challenging anyone in uniform that has already sacrificed so much? I just don't understand all this symbolism and PC stuff that's been going on for the last 20 years or so.


surv

Challenge coins are a big thing to collect in the Army (didn't see them much in the Marines). I would imagine the best you could get would be a Presidential one. They are totally unofficial.

marksiwel wrote:I guess I'm gonna sound defensive, but here we go

I guess I cant understand why being in the military would give me an in site to why it would be okay to leave Thousands of people at Military Bases, known terrorist targets (Remember NJ?), defenseless. Not only people who are active military, but military families and civilians too.
I have a father who is a former Marine and Sister who is active an Airforce Pilot (and officer) who just back from Afghanistan who also dont get why military bases are left as such "Soft" targets for crazys and evil doers.

But I guess I never served in the military so what does my opinion count right?

All of our opinions "count". It is what we choose to do with someone else's opinion that may or may not make a difference. I have no problem with someone giving me a totally rational (in my mind) explanation of why things should be different and thereby convincing me to change my mind. It could even be a civilian!