VIP Treatment For Accused Fort Hood Shooter

NBC 5 Investigates has learned the accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan receives extraordinary treatment in jail while victims of the attack argue they have been forgotten and mistreated by the U.S. Army.

While a prisoner awaiting trial, Hasan is ferried by helicopter nearly every day, complete with an additional helicopter escort and security detail, for the 20-mile journey between the Bell County Jail and Fort Hood, courtesy of the United States Army and American taxpayers.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigation...18145071.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_DFWBrand

I guess this comes out of the defense budget. Not to mention the fact he has been drawing a salary at the rank of major for the last four years or so since the shooting. The fact he gets this treatment and the victims have been neglected is an outrage!

 

His day's comin'...

Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Hasan says he was the gunman
6 August 2013 > A former US Army psychiatrist who killed 13 soldiers at a base in Texas in 2009 has admitted in court he was the gunman and apologised for "any mistakes", as his court martial opened.

See also:

Fort Hood witness on Hasan: 'His punishment will come'
August 6th, 2013 > The court-martial of U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan began Tuesady morning at Fort Hood, Texas. Hasan is accused of opening fire on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009, killing 13 people and wounding dozens more.

 

What interests me is that Hassan's commanding general ruled his killings "work related" rather than an act of terror, which had the effect of denying important benefits and compensation to his victims' families. The explanation, so far as I know, is that Hassan wasn't a member of any official terror group, so he wasn't acting on orders. Yet Hassan's own words, quoted by Waltky above, show that he acted out of solidarity with terrorists, even if he wasn't an official member.

I've read that Hassan signed Army reports and documents for years with his name followed by "Allahu akbar," and that he often made statements advocating anti-American Islamism. Reading this, I wonder what excess of Political Correctness desensitized the Army to the threat within.

 

He should be treated like Bradley Manning.
23 hours of isolation, 1 hour of outside time per day.
Better yet, someone should put him out of our misery.

 

It's probably not much different than the routine practice flights the choppers take around Ft. Hood everyday. The floor of those Blackhawks can be slippery though....someone might fall out

 

Aside from more security then usual, what else is he receiving that could be considered extraordinary treatment? His salary will continue until he's either convicted or if not convicted, when he leaves the armed forces.

 

Obama has killed many more people in terrorist attacks and yet he gets free helicopter rides.

 

I have to disagree. The difference is that terrorists kill the innocent - anonymous civilians chosen at random because they happened to be where a bomb went off. When the US uses drones or other means to go after terrorists, they're going after guilty enemies of the US, those who've already shed innocent blood and plan to shed more.

 

Oy ! Bobov. What would your grandparents think? Look at the innocents killed with the drone target.
The last attack in Yeman included the charred remains of a mother holding her baby. This was not the first time either!
These Drone attacks are, YES THEY ARE, a type of terrorism.


Moi
Too many immoral conveniences for the sake of security today

A copy of this upload is on file at the NSA digital storage site.​

 

How do you know?

 

Modern war always has "collateral damage" - innocent people caught in the fire. Drones do not make this any more likely. When war began to be fought with guns and bombs collateral damage became inevitable because those firing guns or dropping bombs can never be quite sure who'll be hurt, despite their best efforts. When people fought with swords and spears they knew who they were killing. But when a cannon is fired or a bomb dropped from a plane, intelligence may show that the target is military, but civilians may be there too, and they often are. Since the First WW at least, unintended civilian casualties have accompanied every war. You have no reason to associate these tragic deaths with drones.

 

Dude...lay off the Obama cr@p...he is the POTUS and does what each has done for many decades. Yes, he uses current technology to prevent American deaths just as they all have done....kinds what we pay them to do. If Rosevelt had drones....there would have been no WWII.

 

You didn't answer the question. Nobody ever said collateral damage wasn't a part of war.

I asked how you know who the targets are and what they are guilty of or not?

 

Barack Obama told me.

I assume that we (that includes you and me) do not murder the innocent for sport. Yes, there have been incidents in every war for the last century when US soldiers became unhinged and just slaughtered people. But whenever these incidents have come to light they've been prosecuted. (And don't ask me how I know, unless you're advocating terminal nihilism.) Enemies of the US, including domestic enemies, have exploited and publicized such incidents to undermine support for the US.

You should note that every army in every war - not just the US army - has done the same. The difference is that we prosecute our wrongdoers, while other countries take rapine by their soldiers for granted, so only the victims tell the tale. Take young men, arm them, put them in a faraway place, and tell them to kill enemies, and a few will always lose control and commit murder, rape, and torture. That has been true in every war since ancient times. Drone attacks are much less likely to involve this because the drones are operated by people in offices in the US, with supervisors nearby, In such a controlled and normal environment, berserk violence is improbable.

 

P.S.

If you doubt drone operators target high profile enemies of the US, who do you think they target? Mothers with infants? Why? What advantage would be gained by killing the innocent? Terrorize the population?

I doubt it because terrorism is the preferred military tactic of the weak. If you can't meet your opponents in battle, if you have no credible army, then terrorism is the only tactic remaining. The trouble with terrorism, in a military sense, is that it's indecisive. No war has ever been won by terror. Look at the long history of terrorism in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, or anywhere else. Terrorists convey their enmity and their persistence; they solace themselves by picking off a few members of the group they oppose; at most, they hope to make their targets feel uneasy. All this is a poor substitute for victory or for crushing strikes. Terrorists hope that, perhaps in a generation, their enemies will choose to go away. This is not the tactic that anyone would choose who imagined themselves winning.

So no, I doubt we're practicing terrorism. Do you have reason to believe that we are, or you're just expressing general cynicism?

 

This is an appeal to authority. Obama's words may be enough to convince you based on assumption, but they don't substantiate an argument.

Plus your source isn't trustworthy.

Barack Obama lied about the program. For example, he claimed he only targets “It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative, ...it has to be a situation in which we can’t capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States.” We later found out that was an outright lie, as many of the strikes were (and still are) "signature strikes", that is where the designation to target is based merely on "suspicious behavior" and not identification or active intelligence.

Nobody got prosecuted for homicide for people tortured to death in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nobody ever got punished for the Haditha massacre in Iraq. Nobody ever got punished for the Blackwater massacre in Iraq, etc.

Also, how do you explain double-tap drone strikes? Where a target is hit, then they wait, and then some time later, strike again, which kills medics and good samaritans. Why the second strike?

 

My remark about Obama was just sarcastic. He has no more credibility with me than with you.

Much that you say is new to me. I suppose I've been comfortably uninformed, like most people. Still, I just did a Google search on "US torture in Afghanistan," with ambiguous results. I see an Afghan in US employ accused of torture and claiming his employers ordered him to do it. I see several left-leaning organizations accusing the US of torture. Is there any truth to it? I can't say. An Afghan accused of torture has an obvious incentive to blame Americans, and most of the sites merely repeat his claims. Left-leaning organizations (Huffington Post, World Socialist Web Site, etc.) always seek to defame the US. That doesn't mean their accusations are wrong.

The truth is known only to those on the scene. My conclusion is that war is a brutal business that doesn't lend itself to kindness or good manners. People have long sought to impose genteel rules on the conduct of war, but this makes complete sense only to those who've never smelled a field of burning body parts. It would be a good thing if the Geneva Conventions were honored by all. It would be better if there were no war at all. So long as there is, horrors will be unleashed. How much do we read about what the Afghans or Iraqis do in war? We hear only fragments. I question the motives of those who excoriate the US for the unlicensed actions of a few its soldiers, but who never mention the barbarities of their opponents.

Those "double tap" drone strikes sound like conventional combat tactics. My father, who fought in the Second World War, once told me medics were special targets for the enemy because every medic dead meant several others would die for want of his attentions. Medics and "good samaritans" are essential to successful campaigns.

 

He should be treated the opposite of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, who are obviously heroes.

 

YES! Terrorizing the "enemy" is the whole point of our foreign policy; else, how would the Federal government create an enemy with which to violate civil liberties and a crisis with which to subjugate the people?

 

You may have fallen into a conspiracy theory. Such theories offer a satisfying explanation for everything, but they're unprovable, like religion.

 

No he hasn't.
You believe your pablumized news from the corporations and their RepubloCratic government.
Bombing Dresden in it's day was horrific but necessary.
Killing ten innocents for one target ala drone is not acceptable.
I suspect the ratio is even more horrific.

Moi

 

Offer an alternative to my "pablumized" news. Cynicism always seems knowing, but it's self-congratulatory knowledge. Its purveyors look with pity on those denied admission to their charmed circle of enlightenment, but such vanity may be its sole foundation.

 

He should have less, as he's a liar. He has lied about almost everything under the sun.

There is truth to it. An innocent man was tortured to death in Afghanistan, named Gul Rahmn, by the CIA using techniques approved by Bush. Man autopsy reports also show death by homicide of multiple inmates in Abu Ghraib, Baghram and elsewhere, individuals in US custody. Nobody ever got charged. There is no one to blame outside the USA, but no one did get prosecuted. The ACLU has compiled autopsy reports from US army doctors themselves. This is an actual fact, and it is unfortunate. Bush and his rubberstamp congress also granted retroactive immunity for torture by amending the War Crimes Act of 1997, inside the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This legalization was ex post defacto, which is of course unconstitutional. Obama of course did nothing to prosecute anyone either, as we shouldn't look to the past he said. Ultimately, we tortured multiple innocents to death, and the leadership approves. People like to think we weed out the bad apples but it is simply not true. Authorization for torture and other crimes comes straight from the top. With Bush it is obvious, and with Obama it is evidenced by Guantanamo bay, where his hostages continue to get tortured to this day.

People on the scene report having kids, wives, husbands, family destroyed, and report, almost universally, living in constant terror and fear for their lives, wondering when a drone strike will kill their loved ones. Nobody seems to report having a problem with AQ or any bad guys otherwise. They don't talk about an enemy that lives among them, they simply talk about the enemy shooting missiles at them from the sky.

War is hell, but we don't need constant war. We have been attacking country after country all over the world. This only leads to more violence. You can't start unecessary wars, and then use the "war as hell" excuse to justify war crimes for wars you shouldn't be involved with in the first place.

There is simply no indication that there is this major threat to the USA. Just continuous fear-mongering from the leaders. If the feds really wanted to protect American lives, they would invest the trillions in fighting gangs, who kill many 9/11's worth of Americans right here at home.

This is a debate forum. Nobody disagrees that suicide car bombings and mosque bombings and other vile acts of terror from jihadi extremists is wrong. Therefore there's no need for us to tell each other that. Conversely, people make excuses for the USA doing horrible things, or have the wrong idea, thus there is a need to discuss it.

I am American, I love my country, and I want what's best for it. Therefore, I want to stop it from going down this dangerous path, which is breeding more violence and killing people, destroying our economy, and leaving our once valiant and proud reputation in complete tatters. I want my countreymen to vote out the same Republicrats who are dragging us down. Thus I am outspoken.

Exactly and that's the reason why terrorists have secondary explosives on their car-bombs. But this is not WW2. They claim these targets are precise strikes that only target known terrorists. This is the proof otherwise. We were supposed to have moved on from those kind of tactics. How can one condemn terrorists for attacking civilians when they themselves do the same thing? For this to need to be the case today, we would have to be at war with the people themselves. But they claim it's just the terrorists. Then why kill the medics?

 

Name one other president who used double-tap strikes of any kinds (ones that kill medics first responders) in nations not a party to any armed-conflict. Bush has used drone strikes but as far as I know, never a double-tap. Bill Clinton did launch a lot of attacks against non-belligerent countries.

Give one shred of evidence that he has prevented any American deaths by this.

BTW I'm not laying off the Obama crap, until Obama lays off the terrorist crap. If the thread's about helicopter rides for terrorists, I'll mention helicopter rides for the terrorist-in-chief, and dispute all instances of denial.

 

Exactly.. Bomb the hell out of whichever population you want, and then merely claim it's AQ you're bombing. All your targets are top secret, but everyone will believe you as long as you tell them it's really for the purpose of fighting AQ.. They don't have to target AQ, they just have to tell you they are. Everybody trusts their leaders. Well not me though.