Home › Posts tagged Fort Hood
Fort Hood Shooter: "I was defending the Taliban"
Posted on June 6, 2013 by bcse
Editor's Note – When a shooter yells "Allah hu akbar" while killing Americans it is obvious to everyone what motivated the shooter, yet the Obama Administration chose to call it 'workplace violence'. This prevented the assignment of Purple Hearts to those in the military who were training to fight those at war with us who do so under the mantle of Islam who were wounded or killed. How ironic!
By not designating the act as terrorism, the families of those slain had their rights removed from them and the proper attribution of heroism was denied those soldiers who deserve to be recognized with a Purple Heart. Why this was approached in the fashion it was indicates a political motivation rather than a legal one, especially now since the perpetrator said himself said that it was in defense of a terrorist group, the Taliban.
The administration should forthwith amend their stance to properly reflect the facts, sans political rhetoric. This shameful chapter MUST be closed and we need to make the administration and its sycophants and surrogates see fact. We must eschew the propaganda of the Islam apologists, we must know thine enemy!
Fort Hood Shooter Blasts Obama Admin Story
'I was defending Taliban' in attack Washington called 'workplace violence'
From WND Exclusive
For years, the Obama administration has maintained that the victims of the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, for which Islamist Maj. Hidal Hasan is charged, simply were in the crosshairs of a situation of "workplace violence."
The victims – 13 people were killed and nearly another three dozen were injured when, according to witnesses, Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" and started firing at people – have been denied benefits and combat honors because the government insisted there was no link to terror.
Now, however, the defendant himself is taking that off the table.
As part of his defense, he has demanded to represent himself in his still-unscheduled trial, and this week asked for a delay of several months so that he could prepare his defense which will be built on the idea he did the shootings "in defense of others."
When asked by the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to identify those he was "protecting," Hasan said, "The leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban" and its leader, Mullah Omar.
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, is accused of walking into the Soldier Readiness Center on the base Nov. 5, 2009, and opening fire on his fellow soldiers.
The attack didn't stop until Hasan himself was shot and paralyzed.
A survivor reported Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar," or "Allah is greatest," a phrase commonly uttered by jihadists prior to carrying out an attack. The Fort Hood attack was the worst shooting on an American military base.
Hasan had been on federal officials' radar screen for at least six months prior to the shooting over postings he made on the Internet. He likened a suicide bomber who kills women and children to a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to give his life in a "noble cause."
Intelligence officials also intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and the radical American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan told al-Awlaki in one of the emails, "I can't wait to join you" in paradise. He also asked al-Awlaki whether it was appropriate to kill innocents in a suicide attack, when jihad was acceptable and how to transfer funds without attracting government notice.
In spite of this, Attorney General Eric Holder declined to press terrorism charges against Hasan. Instead the government has labeled the shooting as a case of "workplace violence." During a memorial service for the victims, President Obama never once used the word terrorism.
The designation has prevented survivors and the victim's families from receiving Purple Hearts and being able to obtain combat-related special compensation.
Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning was shot six times in the attack, yet he is denied the same benefits a soldier shot in a similar action overseas would receive.
Fellow soldiers that day "were killed and wounded by … somebody who was there that day to kill soldiers, to prevent them from deploying," Manning said. "And if that's not an act of war, an act of terrorism, I don't know what is."
Survivors and their family are forced to watch while Hasan continues to receive a paycheck and medical benefits from the military – closing in on $300,000 already.
Neal Sher and Reed Rubinstein, who are representing the Ford Hood victims and their families, said Hasan's statements change the picture.
"Now the government's 'workplace violence' lie has been fully exposed," they told the Washington Times. "By his own admission, Hasan was a jihadist who killed innocent Americans to defend the Taliban."
The lawyers said the Army should simply admit the Fort Hood attack was terrorism and then give the victims, the survivors and their families "all available combat-related benefits, decorations and recognition."
Earlier, a judge who was going to require Hasan to shave – to comply with military regulations, was removed from the case and replaced with Osborn, who allowed Hasan to make his own decisions about grooming.
The dispute over the beard and other issues have caused some to say Hasan is making a mockery of the military legal system.
"If he were not a Muslim and murdered 13 people in cold blood he would long since have been tried and convicted by now," said Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch. "This ridiculous haggling over his beard is part of the general policy of the United States government not to offend Muslims and accommodate them in every way possible."
Spencer went on to say the Army's deference to Hasan on the beard issue is particularly appalling because it was his own piety that led him to kill his fellow soldiers.
"This accommodation is particularly unconscionable because Hassan said he has to have the beard because of his Muslim faith. But he also by his own account murdered 13 people because of his Muslim faith," Spencer noted. "Because of this why should we be giving him any accommodation because of his faith? This would be like making sure a Nazi guard at a concentration camp in prison was later supplied with a copy of Mein Kampf along with a swastika emblem."
Some have questioned why Hasan had no problems being clean shaven before the shooting and why it only became an issue later. Spencer explained the reason is Hasan wants to make himself a martyr in the eyes of the Muslim world.
"The martyr goes into paradise in the condition in which they die. A beard is a sign of a Muslim's piety, and if he doesn't have it, it is a serious mark against him," Spencer explained. "He will consider himself to be an Islamic martyr if he is executed for his crimes or even if he dies in prison for his crimes. This is why he has attempted to plead guilty on several occasions."
Under military law, an individual is not allowed to plead guilty in any case involving the death penalty.
WND Founder and CEO Joseph Farah, in a commentary, said, "Did you hear about Barack Obama's Defense Department characterizing the execution-style shooting slayings of 13 and wounding of 29 at Fort Hood in 2009 by a crazed Islamist Army officer as 'workplace violence'? … The reclassification of one of the worst terror attacks ever on domestic U.S. soil came in a strategic plan on battling 'violent extremism in the United States' focused on engaging local law enforcement and communities, and on countering 'extremist propaganda.' It pledged to put together a 'task force of senior officials' to work with local communities that could be targeted for recruitment and radicalization."
But, he wrote, the report never mentions "radical Islam."
"This is akin to reclassifying the 9/11 attacks as 'pilot error,'" wrote Farah.
Also commenting recently was William Murray, author of "My Life Without God."
"President Barack Hussein Obama refuses to designate Hasan's assault on Fort Hood as terrorism even though Hasan referred to himself as a 'soldier of Islam.' As a result of Obama's refusal, the families of the dead and the injured have been refused combat compensation.
"President Obama will not even issue Purple Hearts to the victims – not to the families of the dead, and not to those who were wounded," he wrote. "Barack Obama and his Department of Defense insist Hasan's attack was mere 'workplace violence' and was 'isolated' and therefore not terrorism or combat."
But, Murray pointed out, "Obama ordered the assassination of Hasan's jihadist partner and instructor in the attack, American-born al-Qaida collaborator Anwar al-Awlaki. A CIA drone killed al-Awlaki and several others in Yemen in September 2011. It was the first execution ever of a U.S. citizen without trial by our government.
"If Maj. Nidal Hasan acted alone and the jihad attack at Fort Hood was mere 'workplace violence,' why was retribution required on al-Awlaki? Because the killing wasn't retribution at all; it was because Obama needed to shut al-Awlaki up and stop his bragging about the attack on Fort Hood. With al-Awlaki taking credit for the shooting, Obama could not classify it as 'workplace violence.' All those involved other than Hasan had to be eliminated," he said.
In an exclusive interview with WND's Greg Corombos, former U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the successful prosecution against the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, said the military judge had no choice but to allow Hasan to represent himself at trial and probably couldn't stop Hasan from turning the courtroom into a platform for his radical Islamic views.
"I don't see how the judge could avoid it. As the Supreme Court has held, if you make a knowing and intelligent decision before the trial starts that you want to represent yourself, you have an absolute constitutional right to do that," McCarthy said. "I think that the objections that people have or the fears they have that by representing himself he's going to turn the proceedings into a circus are a little bit overblown. Let's face it, even if he weren't representing himself he could try to turn the case into a circus if that's what he was determined to do.
"Whether he'll be able to do that or not is really going to be a function of how strong the judge presiding over the trial is, not whether (Hasan's) just a defendant at the table or the defendant who represents himself."
McCarthy said Hasan's strategy is most likely to lay the grounds for an appeal of a likely death sentence.
"What a defendant is always trying to do is sow error into the record because that's the best chance you have of getting the outcome reversed on appeal. I think what he's really trying to accomplish here is get the death penalty off the table one way or the other. This is a way that makes the trial a little bit more chaotic," said McCarthy, who argued that if Hasan is convicted and sentenced to death he has a good chance of finding a sympathetic appellate court that could save his life.
Another issue in the case is what discovery evidence Hasan will have access to as he prepares his defense. McCarthy said the government's cautious charges in this case should limit the amount of sensitive information provided to Hasan.
"It would concern me more if he were being accused as an al-Qaida operative because then there would be an argument that he should be given the discovery about the overall al-Qaida conspiracy," McCarthy said. "The way the prosecution has a way of regulating how much or how little a defendant is entitled to in terms of discovery is how you plead the case.
"In this case, the prosecution has plead the case narrowly. They've gone out of their way not to accuse him of terrorism, which I think is a mistake, but I think they have made it a simple, straightforward homicide case. Therefore, I would say that he should not be entitled to any discovery about our enemies," said McCarthy, who noted the only al-Qaida-related content the prosecution will likely mention is Hasan's relationship with radical cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki.
Hasan is also asking for a delay in the start of the trial because of his intent to pursue a new, "defense of others" strategy. When asked by Judge Osborn who he was defending, Hasan mentioned the leadership of the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. McCarthy said he would not delay the trial any further and hopes the judge will rule that way.
Listen to the radio interview between WND and Andrew C. McCarthy here.
Posted in Politics-DC
Tagged with Fort Hood, Islam, Maj. Hidal Hasan, Nidal Hasan, Obama, Purple Heart, Taliban, terror
'Would I want this man with me in combat?'
Posted on October 31, 2012 by bcse
DISARMED FORCES – OBAMA'S DANGEROUS EMASCULATING OF OUR MILITARY
Ret. Gen. Patrick Brady asks, 'Would I want this man with me in combat?'
By Patrick Brady, Maj. Gen., U.S. Army (ret.) Originally posted at World Net Daily (WND)
In an election climate that reeks of economic chaos, we may be overlooking a greater threat to our future. Economically, President Obama, all by himself, is a target-rich environment. Voters just need to ask a few simple questions. Would I want this man to invest my family funds or run my family business – for another four years? Or would I trust my family's money to Mitt Romney? That should do it – but economics pales in the face of Obama's emasculation, socialization and feminization of our military, which, although related, I believe is a greater threat to our future than economic miseries.
Patrick Brady, Maj. Gen., U.S. Army (ret.)
For veterans and those interested in the security of America, the question is: Would I want this man with me in combat? Could he be trusted to lead a military squad let alone be commander in chief? Can you picture Obama in a duck blind – or even holding a gun? Has he ever held a gun? (Be assured he will assault the Second Amendment if he gets a second term.) Can you see him as a fighter pilot a la the Bushes? Or commanding a PT boat as did John Kennedy? This is not a man I would want with me in combat and neither should America.
For me and many veterans, President Obama's military priority was initially evident at his Inauguration. One of the inaugural balls honors veterans, including Medal of Honor recipients. For the first time in memory a president, Obama, snubbed that ball. His ignorance and disdain for the military continued when he put victory in the hands of the enemy in Afghanistan by announcing the date we would quit. Weak leaders often try to project an image of toughness by "kicking ass." Accordingly, he fired a senior commander for a revealing story in that paragon of journalistic integrity – Rolling Stone.
In the meantime, his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, a fellow faculty-lounge lizard and weak ass kicker, fired the surgeon general along with his deputy and the secretary of the Army for a story in the Washington Post on mice and mold at Walter Reed. Gates would then fire another service secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who disagreed with homosexual conduct in military barracks – illegal at the time. Gates' chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Michael Mullen, would actually boast of covering for homosexuals in the Navy – illegal at the time.
It is easy to see why the leadership of our military is so intimidated and quickly cowered to Obama's demand for a quad-sexual (LGBT) military. Like lemmings they worried that the terrorist massacre at Fort Hood would hurt diversity and even formed an office to promote diversity in the military – which is already as diverse as any organization in America. (It is reported that those people wounded at Fort Hood and the families of the dead are being denied military benefits in an effort to deny it was a terrorist attack but rather work place violence!) Military leaders actually denounce retired military voices who criticize their boss – except Colin Powell, who supports their boss. They are now busy bowing to Obama on women in combat – they want to teach our sisters, daughters and mothers to kill. I wonder if Obama or Gates would want their daughters in a unit half full of women fighting an enemy unit all full of men?
Under the leadership of the Obama/Gates/Mullen trinity, our military has suffered as never before. Gates supervised the waste and fiscal incompetence at the Pentagon (millions of dollars lost). He instituted an insane op tempo (60 out of 80 months deployed is not unusual), causing unprecedented suicide and PTSD rates among soldiers and depression and anxiety in their families. Military pay cuts are coming, and the administration actually lost graves and urns at Arlington. There is an effort to raise health insurance premiums for retirees. The number of stolen top-secret documents is unmatched in our history. On the silly side, Gates' Pentagon actually considered giving medals to soldiers for not shooting!
On the battlefield, they have stripped the premier combat life saver, Aeromedical Evacuation, from the medics. This is the first time a medical resource has been so usurped since the Civil War, and I have heard horror stories from the battlefield on delayed reaction times. (I actually had a soldier from Iraq turn his back on me when I told him I was a Dust Off pilot in Vietnam; he said forces had failed to react in time to save his friend's life.) It may be a surprise to Vietnam veterans that the Congress authorized a program to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War and honor its veterans; but it will be no surprise that Gates drastically cut its funds. We will soon be longing for the "hollow military" of the '70s.
Just as frightening is the lack of military experience or expertise in Congress. When you mix all this with a population that consists of a significant number of liberals and a media that dislike the military and have never served (nor would they), along with the specter of sequestration budget cuts, the jeopardy of our military is evident.
The recent terrorist attack on American soil in Libya and the murder of four Americans, including our ambassador, should be a forewarning of things to come. It is a culmination of the cataclysmic calamity that is the daily currency of a White House governed only by politics. American corpses were barely cold, and the president was off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. The fundraiser was followed by endless misinformation, distortions and outright lies equaling one of the most scandalous cover-ups in our history. (Obama also went on vacation after committing our military to help liberate Libya. Compare that to President George W. Bush who quit playing golf after we went to war in Iraq.) Watergate pales in comparison with the Benghazi massacre – and a majority of the media are complicit in the cover-up.
Obama's replacement for Gates, Leon Panetta, had an astonishing response in answer to a query concerning why we ignored the plea for help from the Americans about to be slaughtered in Benghazi: "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what is going on." Excuse me. Did we not know that Americans were under attack and pleading for help? What else do you need to know? By his standard you would never go. In combat and chaos you are never sure of what is going on. Is it the standard of this administration that American should never risk lives to save lives? Risking lives to save lives is the essence of our wars! Our firefighters and police do it every day. In Vietnam, my only experience in combat, Dust Off pilots went every day into harm's way without knowing exactly what was going on – only that some one was hurt and needed help. That should be enough – and refusing to at least give it a shot is scandalous.
America is impotent without a strong military – and so is American policy. Our military strength is the one sure force for peace in the world. It deters the bad guys – not only from attacking us but others as well. Weakness emboldens evil, and ultimately we will be drawn into some disaster whether we like it or not. All the sheep and chickens in the world – and many liberals – would like for everyone to be vegetarians – won't happen, there are too many wolves out there. Yet how could any objective, informed person not see the deliberate dismantling of our military? Obama personally authored sequestration, which will bench us from the field of world affairs. But why?
I believe that Obama has no knowledge of or interest in military matters. Nor does he have the capacity to deal with crisis – the reason for a military – and he knows it. A feeble military would give him cover. A lack of resources is the perfect excuse for doing nothing, an Obama hallmark. And there are no votes in military spending – this man lives for votes. In a world aflame with uncertainty and violence, watch the president's campaign media. You will never hear a word about increasing or preserving our military strength, only that the troops are coming home. Ignorance of military matters is one thing and can be overcome, but ignorance of the importance of military might in promoting peace worldwide and protecting America is deadly.
Get the full account of Gen. Brady's Vietnam rescue operations in his book, "Dead Men Flying," a riveting tale from America's most decorated living soldier – autographed!
Tagged with Banghazi, Fort Hood, Gates, Leon Panetta, LGBT, MG Patrick Brady, Michael Mullen, Mullen, Obama, Patrick Brady, quad-sexual
Blind as a nation due to intelligence failures
Posted on April 29, 2012 by bcse
Editor's Note – Are we blind as a nation due to intelligence failures? Are we blind concerning Iran?
Admiral Lyons does a great job describing how broken our intelligence community is and where it is evolving. He does mention failures, but perhaps the biggest failure is who is appointed and by whom. In the current administration, the proof is as clear as a sunny day in May – political ideology has cheapened the quest for true security in the homeland.
Just like the failures of 1983 – Iranian backed – What are we missing or not reporting up today?
This issue is similar to one of an NSA intercept of the Iranian ambassador in Damascus reporting back to the foreign ministry in Tehran on instructions he had given terrorist groups in Beirut to concentrate their attacks on the Multi-National Force but undertake a "spectacular action" against the U.S. Marines. This intercept was issued by the NSA in a highly classified message on Sept. 27, 1983, almost four weeks before the Marine barracks bombing.
SUA has been pointing out these failures – Janet Napolitano, General Clapper, Eric Holder, and ultimately, a President who has an agenda that defies explanation, from a patriotic American and Constitutional perspective. Islam seems more important than traditional American values and is ruled by an extreme politically ideological Progressivism.
Politics trumps national security.
LYONS: How smart is intelligence bureaucracy?
Post-9/11 reform still results in erroneous threat assessments
By Adm. James A. Lyons – Washington Times
Adm. James A. Lyons
The 9/11 Commission concluded in its final report in 2004 that the U.S. intelligence community (IC) organization, as it was structured then, had contributed to a failure to develop a management strategy to counter Islamic terrorism. The report concluded that the traditional existing IC agencies' stovepipes had to be eliminated and a position should be established for an administrator who would have powerful oversight authority.
To accomplish this urgent task, one of the commission's principal recommendations was establishment of the position of director of national intelligence (DNI), which would be separate from the director of the CIA.
There were many arguments against establishing the position of DNI. Some asserted that had it existed before the Sept. 11 attacks, it would not have prevented them. That remains an open question. It should be recalled that the 9/11 Commission staff discovered just before its final report went to the printers in July 2004 a six-page National Security Agency (NSA) analysis summarizing what the intelligence community had learned about Iran's direct involvement in the attack.
Was this information collected before or after the attacks? As of now, we don't know because there has been no follow-up investigation by any congressional committee or the newly established DNI.
I was the deputy chief of naval operations then and did not get to see this critical message until two days after the bombing. Most key decision-makers have never seen this message.
Would a DNI have ensured that such a critical message was brought to the attention of key decision-makers? That also remains an open question. The bottom line is that personnel performance at all levels must recognize the critical nature of key intelligence and not worry about who gets the credit.
Interviews of former 9/11 Commission members showed they thought the structure of the DNI's support should remain small, but it has evolved into essentially a new intelligence agency. It has expanded rapidly, with many large offices and a staff of at least 1,600 (as of 2010), plus untold numbers of contract personnel.
The question has to be asked: Has the establishment of the DNI improved the performance of the intelligence community? Aside from Islamic terrorist attacks such as the massacre at Fort Hood, the nation has been kept safe from Sept. 11-like attacks since the establishment of the DNI. However, it is believed that the difference can be attributed to the added investment in IC resources rather than to more centralized or cogent management of the community by the DNI.
The DNI organization has evolved into an oversight bureaucracy for much broader intelligence activities, in which it has not been entirely effective. For example, the DNI wrongly claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "largely secular" organization in spite of the fact that its creed is to topple the U.S. government and replace our Constitution with Shariah law.
There was a failure to predict and keep pace with the "Arab Spring" uprisings and their rapid evolution. During the Libyan uprising, the DNI specifically stated that he thought Moammar Gadhafi would prevail. We all know how that came out.
There also have been wrong assessments on key stages in the development of Iran's nuclear weapon program. On Feb. 16, the DNI released a questionable gap-laden threat assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee. It failed even to mention the terrorist group Hezbollah or any of Iran's asymmetric "acts of war" against the United States for more than 30 years, led by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
These obviously wrong assessments raise questions about the validity of other DNI assessments in critical areas that affect not only the United States but our allies. The DNI and the IC are facing a number of major intelligence challenges involving the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea, and also China's aggressive military expansion program. Immediate concerns involve China's clear assistance to North Korea's nuclear weapon program, which highlight the folly of the Six Party talks, which should be terminated immediately. China's assistance to Iran's nuclear weapon program – either directly or through third parties – needs to be uncovered.
The American public needs to have confidence in the DNI's and intelligence community's capability of providing accurate intelligence that is not politicized.
At the end of the day, having a DNI does not guarantee that there will be no more Sept. 11s.
Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
Posted in Homeland
Tagged with 1983, 9/11, 9/11 Commission, Adm. James A. Lyons, arab spring, DNI, Featured, Fort Hood, hamas, hezbollah, iran, Marine Barracks, Marine barracks bombing, Muslim Brotherhood, NSA