Accused Fort Hood Shooter Paid $278,000 While Awaiting Trial

Accused Fort Hood Shooter Paid $278,000 While Awaiting Trial:

Accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan is receiving full pay while he awaits trail, but some of the shooting victims struggle to pay their bills because the Army will not classify the attack as terrorism.

Hasan has received $278,000 in pay since the Nov. 5, 2009 incident that killed 13 and wounded 32 on the Texas Army base, NBC5 in Dallas/Fort Worth reports. The station obtained the data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Army said the Military Code of Justice prevents it from suspending Hasan's pay unless he is convicted.

If Hasan, a psychiatrist, had been a civilian Defense Department employee his pay could have been suspended after seven days, NBC5 reports.

While Hasan continues drawing his salary, many of the wounded still face medical bills they have trouble paying. Soldiers wounded in combat get pay and medical benefits, but the Fort Hood shooting has been labeled "workplace violence" by the Army rather than a "terrorist attack."

Well, isn't that Special?

I'm all for defending the rights of our brave men in uniform; but this goes beyond the pale of "common sense legislation".

(Oh .. sorry; I'm confusing 2nd Amendment rights with the Federal Government's determination to defend the rights of self-confessed terrorists, as opposed to providing defense of our Military members.)

In case you don't remember, Military personnel on CONUS bases are not permitted to have access to firearms on military bases.  That's how Hasan managed to kill and injure so many warriors.  He broke the law by carrying a weapon; his fellow soldiers observed the law, and they died because they were denied the right to defend themselves.

How is it reasonable to declare military bases a "Gun Free Zone"?  Easy ... it's the Golden Rule.

Those who have the gold, get to make the rules.

Note that this restriction is not uncommon.  In Viet Nam, when grunts came back to their Division Base Camp for a "Stand Down" after walking in danger through the jungles for a week or two .. they were invariably dis-armed.  They were required to turn in all weapons, which were locked in CONEX containers until they armed themselves moments before they began their next mission.

I know; I was a platoon sgt in Vietnam, and it didn't make much sense to me then, except that we (the "grunts") were expected to get drunk and 'let off a little steam'.   I note in passing that none of the military personnel at Fort Hood were drunk when they were busily being murdered by the evil Major Hasan.

So now, Hasan is being paid for being a traitor to his nation, and his victims ... the innocent unarmed soldiers he killed and wounded?

Sorry, Folks.  You're on your own.  Can't defend  yourself against your erstwhile comrades? 

Tough Shit; Man up!

Can't pay your bills while you recuperate from wounds you received on active duty?

Tough Shit; Man Up!

______________________


In the 1932 "Bonus Army Strike",  veterans of WWI gathered at a park in Washington D.C. to demand their bonuses due them from their combat experience.  The Federal Government gathered mounted Calvary troops (including fledgling officers George S. Patton and Dwight David Eisenhower) to drive out the veterans, existing in tents in a D.C. park.  The results of that rout was that two veterans were shot, and later died of their wounds.

This was, at the time, the Federal Government's response to soldiers' demand that they be compensated for their service to their country.   Combat pay?  Never Happen.

Now, today, this same government (different president, same arrogant attitude) refuses to compensate American Soldiers for injuries received while on active duty.  Well, they were in uniform, on the grounds of a domestic Army base, and being paid for their time .. although, admittedly, they weren't being "awarded" Combat Pay at their current station.

Nobody expected Fort Hood to become a combat zone .. perhaps because the troops expected their government to protect them in lieu of providing the means to protect themselves?

Oh, hell.  You can do the rest of the argument in your sleep.  American troops were on-station, on-duty, and forbidden to protect themselves.  Their Commander-In-Chief refuses to intervene to insure that wounded veterans are not compensated for their wounds?

Only a Commander who has no respect for the soldier he leads would fail to insure that they are not supported in their hour of great need.

Did you vote for Obama?  Are you satisfied with his "war record:"?

I didn't, and I am not.  You can expect his lackeys, the MSM, to make as small an issue of this egregious failure to assume responsibility as Commander in Chief as possible.

Your President doesn't respect the men and women who are willing to lay down their lives for their country.

But he expects the respect which they ... not he .. has earned.  Because, after all, he IS "The President".

He has no respect for his office,or for his responsibilities.  As a veteran, I wonder why he continues to be allowed the respect of his high office.