Ft Hood victims to receive combat status and benefits?

**nonsqtr** · 17th November 2009 03:12 PM

(WASHINGTON, DC) – Army and civilian personnel who were wounded or killed in the shooting attack on Fort Hood would be granted the same legal status as combatant casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, if bipartisan legislation introduced today by U.S. Representative John Carter (R-TX31) passes into law. Carter was joined by U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX10) for a news conference unveiling the bill in the House Radio-TV Gallery in the U.S. Capitol this afternoon.

“Our Fort Hood casualties should receive the same benefits and recognition as other combat casualties,” says Carter, who represents the Fort Hood area in the House, “as this was a planned terror attack on U.S. military personnel. It should make no difference in our care for the wounded and the families of the slain whether it occurred on an Army base in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Texas.”

While many military and survivor benefits are the same regardless of the status of the casualty, combatant status allows military personnel to receive the Purple Heart, and civilians to receive the equivalent award, the Secretary of Defense Medal of Freedom. Combatant status would also guarantee that the beneficiaries of all military personnel who lost their lives in the attack would receive the maximum life insurance available, extended family housing privileges, and other benefits.

“This bill is not about investigations or assigning blame,” says Carter. “It is about taking care of our troops and their families first. That’s why we have such strong support from both sides of the aisle, and why we hope and expect this to move quickly.”

Summary: Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act

Combat Status Codified – military casualties classified as combat zone. Civilian casualties classified as terror attack or contingency operation.

Recognition – military casualties eligible for the Purple Heart, civilians for the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom.

Life insurance – guarantees all military beneficiaries receive maximum benefits

Civilian expenses – allows the Secretary to pay certain death expenses

Military bonuses – eliminates repayment of unused bonuses due to service members inability to fulfill duties as a result of injuries from the attack

Expanded recuperation benefits

Expanded survivor housing benefits

Taxes – extends combat casualty state and federal tax benefits

http://patriotroom.com/article/30-bi...se-legislation

**Chief** · 17th November 2009 04:28 PM

I am not sure if its the exact right way to do it, but it is the right thing to do for these soldiers and civilians who were involved.

**Forplay** · 17th November 2009 04:35 PM

[quote name='nonsqtr' date='17 November 2009 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1258492367' post='61677']

(WASHINGTON, DC) – Army and civilian personnel who were wounded or killed in the shooting attack on Fort Hood would be granted the same legal status as combatant casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, if bipartisan legislation introduced today by U.S. Representative John Carter (R-TX31) passes into law. Carter was joined by U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX10) for a news conference unveiling the bill in the House Radio-TV Gallery in the U.S. Capitol this afternoon.

“Our Fort Hood casualties should receive the same benefits and recognition as other combat casualties,” says Carter, who represents the Fort Hood area in the House, “as this was a planned terror attack on U.S. military personnel. It should make no difference in our care for the wounded and the families of the slain whether it occurred on an Army base in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Texas.”

While many military and survivor benefits are the same regardless of the status of the casualty, combatant status allows military personnel to receive the Purple Heart, and civilians to receive the equivalent award, the Secretary of Defense Medal of Freedom. Combatant status would also guarantee that the beneficiaries of all military personnel who lost their lives in the attack would receive the maximum life insurance available, extended family housing privileges, and other benefits.

“This bill is not about investigations or assigning blame,” says Carter. “It is about taking care of our troops and their families first. That’s why we have such strong support from both sides of the aisle, and why we hope and expect this to move quickly.”

Summary: Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act

Combat Status Codified – military casualties classified as combat zone. Civilian casualties classified as terror attack or contingency operation.

Recognition – military casualties eligible for the Purple Heart, civilians for the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom.

Life insurance – guarantees all military beneficiaries receive maximum benefits

Civilian expenses – allows the Secretary to pay certain death expenses

Military bonuses – eliminates repayment of unused bonuses due to service members inability to fulfill duties as a result of injuries from the attack

Expanded recuperation benefits

Expanded survivor housing benefits

Taxes – extends combat casualty state and federal tax benefits

http://patriotroom.c...use-legislation

[/quote]

Obama, Reed and Pelosi won't like this and will somehow try and shout it down. I mean how could they get combat status when it was just a nut case murdering people. According to them he was not a terrorist or a combatant nor are we engaged in a war on terrorism, there is no such thing as a terrorist or terrorism or anything related to terror, it does not exist.

**Chief** · 17th November 2009 04:41 PM

[quote name='Forplay' date='17 November 2009 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1258497354' post='61746']

Obama, Reed and Pelosi won't like this and will somehow try and shout it down. I mean how could they get combat status when it was just a nut case murdering people. According to them he was not a terrorist or a combatant nor are we engaged in a war on terrorism, there is no such thing as a terrorist or terrorism or anything related to terror, it don't not exist.

[/quote]

I don't agree that President Obama would treat his troops this way.

I am not sure that the people involved in this attack should get combat status, purple hearts, etc... I believe that they should get appropriate recognition for their service and what they went through. But getting shot while standing in line inside of the US is not the same as traveling to some foreign nation, being on patrol, and injured in the line of duty. It's just not the same.

Yes, help them.

Yes, recognize what they have been through.

But don't call it what it's not.

**Djinn** · 17th November 2009 04:47 PM

[quote name='Forplay' date='17 November 2009 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1258497354' post='61746']Obama, Reed and Pelosi won't like this and will somehow try and shout it down. ...[/quote]

I agree. We should be proactive when it comes to blaming Pres. Obama for decisions and actions that he hasn't yet made.

That said, I feel that the fallen soldiers should receive the same benefits etc. families of Hasan Akbar's victims received.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Akbar_case

**Forplay** · 17th November 2009 05:10 PM

[quote name='gabebrooks' date='17 November 2009 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1258497699' post='61748']

I don't agree that President Obama would treat his troops this way.

I am not sure that the people involved in this attack should get combat status, purple hearts, etc... I believe that they should get appropriate recognition for their service and what they went through. But getting shot while standing in line inside of the US is not the same as traveling to some foreign nation, being on patrol, and injured in the line of duty. It's just not the same.

Yes, help them.

Yes, recognize what they have been through.

But don't call it what it's not.

[/quote]

You say you do not agree Obama would treat his troops this way. In what way are you talking about? I said Obama does not believe there are terrorist, or terrorism or that they are enemy combatants. So this being the case he could not approve of these troops getting the same benefits of our troops in combat. If he does agree to giving the Ft Hood troops the same status that will go against his belief that the Ft Hood killing was just another murderer.

It also seems you agree with Obama. I say this was a terrorist attack and an act of war against our troops and they deserve all the same benefits and recognition as our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan or anyplace else in the world.

**Bluesguy** · 17th November 2009 05:43 PM

[quote name='gabebrooks' date='17 November 2009 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1258496881' post='61740']

I am not sure if its the exact right way to do it, but it is the right thing to do for these soldiers and civilians who were involved.

[/quote]

It's a tough call. Purple Hearts are for wounds that occur during combat caused by a member of the enemy forces.

a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States. Hasan was not an enemy of the United States

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged. Maybe here, it doesn't state the person how wounded or killed the soldier has to be a member of that opposing force.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. Nope, different circumstance

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces. Hansan is not member of an opposing force

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force. Hansan is not member of an opposing force

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack. It wasn't an international terrorist attack

So maybe a long stretch on number 2.

**Chief** · 17th November 2009 05:47 PM

[quote name='Forplay' date='17 November 2009 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1258499447' post='61766']

You say you do not agree Obama would treat his troops this way. In what way are you talking about? I said Obama does not believe there are terrorist, or terrorism or that they are enemy combatants. So this being the case he could not approve of these troops getting the same benefits of our troops in combat. If he does agree to giving the Ft Hood troops the same status that will go against his belief that the Ft Hood killing was just another murderer.

It also seems you agree with Obama. I say this was a terrorist attack and an act of war against our troops and they deserve all the same benefits and recognition as our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan or anyplace else in the world.

[/quote]

I don't believe that Obama hates America, as I see in some extremist Right posts. I think that he does the best he can, with what he believes is right. Whether his strategy is the best one is debateable. Regarding the attack on our troops... I am not sure exactly how to classify it. A terrorist attack should have a terrorist agenda. Did the Major attack civilians in a shopping mall? Did he post demands? To me it's more like he is a traitor and he made war against the United States, than him being a terrorist. Are everyone we fight terrorists? Or is it just every Muslim we fight that are terrorists? I think we are using that word too much and the world is not always that simple.

**Bluesguy** · 17th November 2009 05:54 PM

[quote name='Forplay' date='17 November 2009 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1258499447' post='61766']

I said Obama does not believe there are terrorist, or terrorism or that they are enemy combatants. So this being the case he could not approve of these troops getting the same benefits of our troops in combat. If he does agree to giving the Ft Hood troops the same status that will go against his belief that the Ft Hood killing was just another murderer.

[/quote]

Yes by treating terrorism as a criminal act it would preclude ANY awards for service. Obama may back himself into a corner trying to do that for if he does award them something then it is tacit admittance that the war against terrorism is a war.