The fight to get Fort Hood shooting victims Purple Hearts clears a hurdle
|
Version 0 of 1. Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan ambushed fellow soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, Tex., on Nov. 5, 2009, unloading more than 200 rounds of ammunition and killing 13 people. He argued later that he was waging jihad against the United States because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and its aggression against Muslims. He offered no apology for his actions, and was sentenced to death. Despite the horror of the shooting and Hasan’s stated intentions, the dozens of people wounded and killed in the attack have gone without an honor that might have been bestowed upon them in similar circumstances in a war zone: the Purple Heart. The medal is one of the military’s most recognizable decorations, and typically awarded for wounds in a war zone. But the Army’s criteria for the award says it can be authorized in some other scenarios, including in international terrorist attacks against the United States. Five years after the assault at Fort Hood, the Army has declined to award any of the victims the Purple Heart. It has also declined to call the attack terrorism — a decision that has remained an emotional flashpoint with victims and their families and prevented those under fire at Fort Hood to receive combat-related benefits. Legislation that passed in the House on Thursday could force the Pentagon into considering the case once more, however. As noted in USA Today, lawmakers led by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) included language in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act that would require the Defense Department to review the Fort Hood case for Purple Heart recipients. The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation soon. “As a country, we must ensure that the dead, the wounded, and the families of the victims receive the full honors and benefits bestowed upon soldiers who are wounded or killed in overseas combat zones,” the senator said in a statement. “Unfortunately, we have not yet lived up to that commitment. To date, no Purple Hearts or the civilian counterpart, the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom, have been awarded to the victims. Many of the benefits associated with serving in combat zones have been similarly withheld. This is wrong, and it requires our immediate attention.” For Cornyn and others, there is little question that the attack in Fort Hood meets the criteria for a Purple Heart. Unlike some other shooters in recent attacks on military bases, Hasan’s plan was to wound as many soldiers as possible because they were “going against the Islamic Empire,” according to testimony in his trial. Before the attack, Hasan also had communicated numerous times with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born cleric who served as one of the chief propagandists for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates from Yemen. The administration has previously treated the Fort Hood as a “workplace violence” incident. Last year, the Pentagon said that adhering to “the criterion for award of the Purple Heart is essential to preserve the integrity of the award.” “To do otherwise,” it said in a position paper, “could irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration.” Awarding the Purple Heart to those killed and wounded at Fort Hood would raise questions about what military benefits they deserve and haven’t received. But the Pentagon has made exceptions to its typical policies before. As outlined in this Army news release, for example, service members who were injured during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks received the Purple Heart for actions on U.S. soil. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced the decision within days of the attacks, saying it was appropriate given the unprecedented nature of the attacks. |