Just work place violence, huh?

[Charcat]

That's what we were all told by you-know-who (he who cannot speak the truth). Still believe it was work place violence?

(CNN) -- The Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people at Fort Hood has written a letter to the leader of ISIS, asking to become a citizen of the Islamic State's caliphate, his attorney said Thursday.

"The letter states that Nadal Hasan wants to become a citizen of the Islamic State caliphate," attorney John Galligan said. "He wrote it in the last few weeks."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/us/isis-fort-hood-shooter/index.html

"The decision to brand the event workplace violence has had profound consequences for survivors of the first Fort Hood shooting, many of whom say they've had difficulty providing for themselves and obtaining medical care due to the lack of benefits."

"The "workplace violence" label has also kept victims of the first Fort Hood attack from being honored for their heroism. Private First Class Amber Gadlin, who was 19 at the time, braved gunfire to drag other soldiers to safety, even after being shot in the back. During the 2009 Fort Hood memorial, the president praised her for her valor. But because of the way the shooting was classified, Gadlin isn't eligible for awards, such as the Purple Heart, or the accompanying benefits, which include extra pay, priority access to medical care, and, in certain cases, free in-state tuition for the honorees' children."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/how-white-house-military-failed-fort-hood-victims

 

[Jen]

That's what we were all told by you-know-who (he who cannot speak the truth). Still believe it was work place violence?

(CNN) -- The Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people at Fort Hood has written a letter to the leader of ISIS, asking to become a citizen of the Islamic State's caliphate, his attorney said Thursday.

"The letter states that Nadal Hasan wants to become a citizen of the Islamic State caliphate," attorney John Galligan said. "He wrote it in the last few weeks."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/us/isis-fort-hood-shooter/index.html

"The decision to brand the event workplace violence has had profound consequences for survivors of the first Fort Hood shooting, many of whom say they've had difficulty providing for themselves and obtaining medical care due to the lack of benefits."

"The "workplace violence" label has also kept victims of the first Fort Hood attack from being honored for their heroism. Private First Class Amber Gadlin, who was 19 at the time, braved gunfire to drag other soldiers to safety, even after being shot in the back. During the 2009 Fort Hood memorial, the president praised her for her valor. But because of the way the shooting was classified, Gadlin isn't eligible for awards, such as the Purple Heart, or the accompanying benefits, which include extra pay, priority access to medical care, and, in certain cases, free in-state tuition for the honorees' children."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/how-white-house-military-failed-fort-hood-victims

I am so sick of having idiots run this country.
Really sick of it.

 

[Zoar]

I am so sick of having idiots run this country.
Really sick of it.

Gee, did you post such an exclamation when Bush The Tard was President????

Answer: Absolutely NOT!!!!!

 

[Jen]

Gee, did you post such an exclamation when Bush The Tard was President????

Answer: Absolutely NOT!!!!!

NOPE.
I did NOT.
Bush did a lot of things that I didn't agree with.
But he wasn't anywhere close to being as inept and always wrong as Obama.
Obama is the bottom of the barrel and so are all the clowns he has appointed to his Cabinet.
Kerry is a Clown. Hillary was deadly. Holder is a Criminal as is Lerner and was Sebelius.

Bush looks absolutely stellar next to Obama and his cronies.

 

[Jen]

Are you fuking serious????!!!!!!?????

If you think you are seek medical attention immediately!

If this is how you respond to people you know in person who dare to disagree with you, then it is you who needs to take a rest in the loony bin.

 

[Caroljo]

Gee, did you post such an exclamation when Bush The Tard was President????

Answer: Absolutely NOT!!!!!

Bush wouldn't have called it workplace violence, he would have made those soldiers hero's, as they should be & Hasan would probably have been executed by now, which he should be.

 

[Charcat]

Bush wouldn't have called it workplace violence, he would have made those soldiers hero's, as they should be & Hasan would probably have been executed by now, which he should be.

Yep, he would have called it what it really was--a terrorist action. And he would have taken care of those soldiers involved. But then Obama couldn't do that because then he couldn't brag about no terrorism attacks in the US on his watch, i.e. the Boston bombing (which also wasn't a terrorist attack).

 

[Arkady]

That's what we were all told by you-know-who (he who cannot speak the truth). Still believe it was work place violence?

(CNN) -- The Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people at Fort Hood has written a letter to the leader of ISIS, asking to become a citizen of the Islamic State's caliphate, his attorney said Thursday.

"The letter states that Nadal Hasan wants to become a citizen of the Islamic State caliphate," attorney John Galligan said. "He wrote it in the last few weeks."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/us/isis-fort-hood-shooter/index.html

"The decision to brand the event workplace violence has had profound consequences for survivors of the first Fort Hood shooting, many of whom say they've had difficulty providing for themselves and obtaining medical care due to the lack of benefits."

"The "workplace violence" label has also kept victims of the first Fort Hood attack from being honored for their heroism. Private First Class Amber Gadlin, who was 19 at the time, braved gunfire to drag other soldiers to safety, even after being shot in the back. During the 2009 Fort Hood memorial, the president praised her for her valor. But because of the way the shooting was classified, Gadlin isn't eligible for awards, such as the Purple Heart, or the accompanying benefits, which include extra pay, priority access to medical care, and, in certain cases, free in-state tuition for the honorees' children."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/how-white-house-military-failed-fort-hood-victims

What was the precedent on this one? It's my understanding that always before Obama, shootings on military bases state-side by American citizens were treated as work-place violence, and that before Obama this was never a controversial designation. Why would sticking with that precedent be controversial now -- other than, of course, because of the identity of the president?

 

[Charcat]

What was the precedent on this one? It's my understanding that always before Obama, shootings on military bases state-side by American citizens were treated as work-place violence, and that before Obama this was never a controversial designation. Why would sticking with that precedent be controversial now -- other than, of course, because of the identity of the president?

I think it's pretty obvious that when a jihadist muslim attacks a group of people, military or otherwise, while screaming "Allah Akbar" is goes beyond workplace violence.

 

[marvin martian]

I think it's pretty obvious that when a jihadist muslim attacks a group of people, military or otherwise, while screaming "Allah Akbar" is goes beyond workplace violence.

Not if you're a liberal Obama bootlicker (see Arkady's post above).

 

[Arkady]

I think it's pretty obvious that when a jihadist muslim attacks a group of people, military or otherwise, while screaming "Allah Akbar" is goes beyond workplace violence.

Perhaps it makes sense to break with past precedent and treat workplace violence driven by religious conservatism differently from workplace violence driven by other motivations. I'm open to the idea. But there is certainly a long precedent of not making that distinction.

How, exactly, would you set up this rule? For example, if some right-wing fundamentalist Christian attacks a women's health clinic in America and shouts "Hallelujah," would this also qualify for special treatment for the victims? I'm just trying to understand better what new rule you're advocating for.

And, just so I understand how this fits in more broadly with approaches to crime, do you also support hate-crimes legislation (which similarly treats two superficially similar crimes differently based on the motivation of the offender?)

 

[marvin martian]

Perhaps it makes sense to break with past precedent and treat workplace violence driven by religious conservatism differently from workplace violence driven by other motivations. I'm open to the idea. But there is certainly a long precedent of not making that distinction.

How, exactly, would you set up this rule? For example, if some right-wing fundamentalist Christian attacks a women's health clinic in America and shouts "Hallelujah," would this also qualify for special treatment for the victims? I'm just trying to understand better what new rule you're advocating for.

And, just so I understand how this fits in more broadly with approaches to crime, do you also support hate-crimes legislation (which similarly treats two superficially similar crimes differently based on the motivation of the offender?)

You're trying to apply civilian standards to a military situation that occurred in a time of war. If you don't understand what's being discussed, just ask for clarification. I'm sure Charcat would be happy to help you out.

 

[Arkady]

You're trying to apply civilian standards to a military situation that occurred in a time of war. If you don't understand what's being discussed, just ask for clarification. I'm sure Charcat would be happy to help you out.

I am asking for clarification. Which part of "how, exactly, would you set up this rule?" did you fail to understand? Are your reading comprehension skills really this poor?

So, what's the rule: any attack on a military base in a time of war gets treated as if it happened in a war zone, even if it's by an American citizen state-side? I'm just trying to get straight how people on the right want to construct this new rule they're envisioning.

 

[Charcat]

Perhaps it makes sense to break with past precedent and treat workplace violence driven by religious conservatism differently from workplace violence driven by other motivations. I'm open to the idea. But there is certainly a long precedent of not making that distinction.

How, exactly, would you set up this rule? For example, if some right-wing fundamentalist Christian attacks a women's health clinic in America and shouts "Hallelujah," would this also qualify for special treatment for the victims? I'm just trying to understand better what new rule you're advocating for.

And, just so I understand how this fits in more broadly with approaches to crime, do you also support hate-crimes legislation (which similarly treats two superficially similar crimes differently based on the motivation of the offender?)

So, you don't consider the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism? The last I heard acts of terrorism are illegal.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2331

 

[Arkady]

So, you don't consider the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism?

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2331

Whether it was an act of terrorism depends on the motives. Was he trying to bring about some political goal? Was he trying to bring down or coerce the government or intimidate civilians? He attacked a military target, so it seems not. I haven't read up a lot on it, so I can't be sure. My understanding is that he was upset about being deployed to Afghanistan. As I understand it, he acted alone, with no links to any terrorist groups. I believe that the prosecutors decided not to charge him with terrorism because his crimes didn't clearly fit the legal definition.

Regardless, it does not appear to fit the definition of "international terrorism" that you linked to, since that requires that it "occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum". In this case we're talking about something that occurred inside the United States, by an American-born US serviceman, without any meaningful foreign assistance

 

[Dawg]

That's what we were all told by you-know-who (he who cannot speak the truth). Still believe it was work place violence?

(CNN) -- The Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people at Fort Hood has written a letter to the leader of ISIS, asking to become a citizen of the Islamic State's caliphate, his attorney said Thursday.

"The letter states that Nadal Hasan wants to become a citizen of the Islamic State caliphate," attorney John Galligan said. "He wrote it in the last few weeks."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/us/isis-fort-hood-shooter/index.html

"The decision to brand the event workplace violence has had profound consequences for survivors of the first Fort Hood shooting, many of whom say they've had difficulty providing for themselves and obtaining medical care due to the lack of benefits."

"The "workplace violence" label has also kept victims of the first Fort Hood attack from being honored for their heroism. Private First Class Amber Gadlin, who was 19 at the time, braved gunfire to drag other soldiers to safety, even after being shot in the back. During the 2009 Fort Hood memorial, the president praised her for her valor. But because of the way the shooting was classified, Gadlin isn't eligible for awards, such as the Purple Heart, or the accompanying benefits, which include extra pay, priority access to medical care, and, in certain cases, free in-state tuition for the honorees' children."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/how-white-house-military-failed-fort-hood-victims[/quote]

nothing 'O' does doesn't surprise me..............that Islamic SOB continued drawing his base pay while waiting for trial...........why hasn't he been executed?
While we're at it, everything is mighty quite on Bowe..............they going to let the Deserter go scott free to cover the illegal trades 'O' made.

 

[Dawg]

If this is how you respond to people you know in person who dare to disagree with you, then it is you who needs to take a rest in the loony bin.

Boar just trying to get the MOJO back in PJ......................
hell, "slut" is bringing it back also................

 

[Dawg]

Gee, did you post such an exclamation when Bush The Tard was President????

Answer: Absolutely NOT!!!!!

You did and when 'O' does the same or worse than Bush you kiss the ass of 'O' and remain silent.........HYPOCRITE solarhead

 

[Dawg]

Yep, he would have called it what it really was--a terrorist action. And he would have taken care of those soldiers involved. But then Obama couldn't do that because then he couldn't brag about no terrorism attacks in the US on his watch, i.e. the Boston bombing (which also wasn't a terrorist attack).

appears the sister of the bomber didn't fall far from the tree either.............no wonder the parents sent them to America.

 

[Dawg]

What was the precedent on this one? It's my understanding that always before Obama, shootings on military bases state-side by American citizens were treated as work-place violence, and that before Obama this was never a controversial designation. Why would sticking with that precedent be controversial now -- other than, of course, because of the identity of the president?

How many of the citizen troops doing the shooting were screaming Allha-Ackar........if an American member of ISIS shoots up your office.........will 'O' call that work force violence?