Fort Hood: a Travesty of Justice



Editor’s Note: In light of the beheading of Colleen Hufford potentially being declared a “workplace violence” incident when it is obviously an act of terrorism, the Sentinel is putting this article back in the limelight to remind people of yet another incident of “workplace violence.” 

This administration just can’t admit radical Islamists exist.

Heroine of the the Ft. Hood massacre, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, said that the Ft. Hood victims have been “betrayed” by the administration. None of the promises to take care of them have been fulfilled. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred.

The Ft. Hood massacre was labeled “workplace violence.”

It was obviously a terrorist attack but it was labeled workplace violence after it was laundered by the PC crowd who follow a policy of appeasement. As a result, the victims are not eligible for full benefits or any medals they earned.

The Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act, which would award both military and civilian casualties of the Fort Hood attack combatant status,” has been re-introduced by Rep. John Carter, R.-Texas. He said, “It became clear early on that the Obama administration was reluctant to officially refer to the November 5, 2009 attack on Fort Hood as a ‘terrorist attack.'” abc News

The Obama Administration continues to mis-categorize the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, seemingly unconcerned about the effects it is having on the victims.

Remember the shout-out from President Obama before announcing the Ft. Hood massacre:

Sgt. Munley appeared with Mrs. Obama during the 2010 SOTU. President Obama has not responded to Sgt. Munley’s comments.

Last October, Pentagon press secretary George Little had no problem lying about the situation and Leon Panetta disingenuously said that the broader term is workplace violence not Islamic terrorism:

via WBTV

…Pentagon press secretary George Little lied when he said that the Department of Defense “will not, at this time, further characterize” the shooting because it is committed to the integrity of the ongoing court-martial proceedings against Hasan. There are concerns that formally changing the designation could affect the legal proceedings. [The victims could be recognized and Hassan could be tried by a military tribunal]

Little said survivors of the shooting are “eligible for the same medical benefits as any service member.” [This is completely untrue]

Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day, said his injuries prevented him from continuing to serve. But he won’t receive the same benefits as those severely wounded on the battlefield because an Army medical evaluation board didn’t deem his injuries to be combat-related, he said.

An October 2011 letter on behalf of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was sent to U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, saying “the department is dealing with the threat of violent Islamist extremism in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence.” [This is absurd. The broader threat is Islamic extremism]

But the National Counterterrorism Center’s 2009 Report on Terrorism called the Fort Hood shooting a “high fatality terrorist attack.” The shooting also was mentioned in the State Department’s “Country Reports on Terrorism 2009.”…


via Newsmax

Read about Autumn Manning, wife of Ft. Hood victim, Shawn Manning here.

We can thank Bill Clinton for the ridiculous requirement that forces military to go unarmed on a military base in the first place.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments