Hasan’s victims sue government

| November 5, 2012

Today is the third anniversary of Nidal Hasan’s attack on a processing center at Fort Hood, TX. Three years later, the victims are still waiting for a little justice while the military appeals system decides whether they’re going to try a bearded or clean-shaven Hasan who seems to be mocking our justice system.

According to Stars & Stripes, the 148 victims have come together to sue the government as well as the estate of Anwar al-Awlaki who inspired Hasan to commit the act;

The lawsuit alleging negligence by the government said that the Defense Department is avoiding legal and financial responsibility for the killings by referring to the shootings as “workplace violence” rather than as a terrorist attack.

They claim that the government knew four years before the attack that Hasan was a radical Islamist from his thesis which had nothing to do with Psychiatry but everything to do with radical Islam.

Staff Sgt. Shawn N. Manning, who was shot six times by Hasan, said that the terrorism designation which the victims are seeking would cover the cost of the medical services that he requires. The terrorism designation would mean that the wounds the victims suffered qualify as combat-related, resulting in “a huge difference in benefits,” said Manning, who was medically discharged from the military about a month ago.

While I agree with them completely, I don’t see anything coming of the lawsuit, the government and the judicial syatem aren’t very good at admitting their mistakes. But maybe all of that will change tomorrow, or January 20.

Category: Big Army, Terror War

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Just an Old Dog says:

    It was a terrorist attack, the same as the “Green on Blue” attacks overseas. Every military member injured rates a purple heart, which gives them better care through the VA.

  2. DaveO says:

    Designating Major Hasan;s attack as an of terrorism announces:

    1. Terrorists are in, and active, and successful in the US of A. Something that didn’t happen under Dubya – an arguable point.

    2. The most successful terrorist is a Soldier, one of our own.

    Like the accused Bradley Manning, America’s primary existential threat comes from inside, not outside our borders.

  3. OWB says:

    Not usually big on lawsuits, but really must agree that three years is more than sufficient to expect a favorable result from the Army. And more than enough for it to at least be called what it was.

    Hideous. All of it.

  4. Ex-PH2 says:

    If this really is classed as workplace violence and not as terrorism, there’s the thing about employer liability. I know you can’t sue the US government, and you can’t sue the Army per se, but you sure can hold accountable the people who ignored his sociopathic signals and go after them in a civil court.

  5. MCPO USN NYC (Ret.) says:

    As they should.

    The Army, FBI, and CIA knew he was a bad apple.

    Any word on his beard?

  6. DefendUSA says:

    Good. And I hope that the Ambassador/SEALs parents sue, too.

  7. Twist says:

    If you are not in a declared combat zone can you still qualify for the Purple Heart. When I got put in for mine that got denied (rightfully so)we had already redeployed and they had to send the packet back to Iraq to have a combat commander sign it.

  8. Twist says:

    I was talking to #1 in my comment in #7 and also used the wrong punctuation in the first sentence. Damnit Jim, I’m a grunt not an English Major.