$278,000 Tax Dollars, Fort Hood Shooter Jihadist Still Getting Guv-ment salary

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Fri May 24, 2013 9:27 am

What The He!!? - Wake Up America!!

$278,000 Tax Dollars - Fort Hood Shooter Jihadist Still Getting Government Salary After Terrorist Act....

Who says crime doesn’t pay? Whoever said that wasn’t an accused mass murder, who also happens to belong to an untouchable religion, who also happens to be a federal employee. For Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood back in November 2009, the wait in prison has been profitable – he doesn’t pay rent, he doesn’t buy food, he doesn’t pay for insurance or clothing, and he collects a salary that has added up to $278,000.

Meanwhile, again because of the federal government’s inflexibility (allied with inefficiency), those who were wounded during the Fort Hood shooting are still struggling to get combat pay. The problem is that the military refuses to call an “Allahu Akbar attack in the middle of a war against Islamist extremists an “act of war or “combat-related situation. Instead, it insists that it was just an ordinary bit of workplace violence, akin to the man who freaks out when he discovers his wife having an affair.

Fort Hood Shooter Has Been Paid $278,000 Of Your Tax Dollars While Awaiting Trial // Mr. Conservative

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri May 24, 2013 9:29 am

What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty" ?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Fri May 24, 2013 9:52 am

LarsMac;1427892 wrote: What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty" ?

Huh??? Do you have another suspect in mind??? You think he didn't kill 13 innocents and wound 32 others while shouting “Allahu Akbar??

Really? Who else might be guilty besides this POS? I am curious...

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri May 24, 2013 10:25 am

How about a speedy trial, court marshal?

Three and a half years and nothing. That is bull.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Fri May 24, 2013 10:37 am

tude dog;1427901 wrote: How about a speedy trial, court marshal?

Three and a half years and nothing. That is bull.

I agree...but he is playing the game...and quite well

About his guilt:

Department of the Army Civilian Police Sergeant Kimberly D. Munley encountered the gunman exiting the building in pursuit of a wounded soldier. Munley and the gunman exchanged shots; Munley was hit two times: once in her thigh and once in her knee, knocking her to the ground. In the meantime, Sergeant Mark Todd, also of the DACP, arrived and fired at the gunman. The gunman was hit and felled by shots from Todd. Todd approached the gunman and kicked a pistol out of his hand. Hasan was placed in handcuffs as he fell unconscious. The incident lasted about 10 minutes...

Yaw...He just may be innocent...Poor thing.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri May 24, 2013 10:40 am

tude dog;1427901 wrote: How about a speedy trial, court marshal?

Three and a half years and nothing. That is bull. How about Immediate death ?

Good to see you posting BTS

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 24, 2013 10:59 am

The problem would appear to be with your judicial system

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Fri May 24, 2013 11:16 am

Bruv;1427908 wrote: The problem would appear to be with your judicial system

Yip...PC correctness run a muck!!!

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri May 24, 2013 12:22 pm

BTS;1427909 wrote: Yip...PC correctness run a muck!!!

No PC. It is a lack of leadership. Our president who is the Commander in Chief with a word could get this moving. Seems he has more important things to do.

As far as 'innocent till proven guilty', that applies to those actually in the injustice system. Judges, jurors.

Only those in the system to determine if a crime was committed are bound to that concept. The rest of us are free to assess available information and speak on it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri May 24, 2013 1:34 pm

BTS;1427889 wrote: What The He!!? - Wake Up America!!

$278,000 Tax Dollars - Fort Hood Shooter Jihadist Still Getting Government Salary After Terrorist Act....

Who says crime doesn’t pay? Whoever said that wasn’t an accused mass murder, who also happens to belong to an untouchable religion, who also happens to be a federal employee. For Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood back in November 2009, the wait in prison has been profitable – he doesn’t pay rent, he doesn’t buy food, he doesn’t pay for insurance or clothing, and he collects a salary that has added up to $278,000.

Meanwhile, again because of the federal government’s inflexibility (allied with inefficiency), those who were wounded during the Fort Hood shooting are still struggling to get combat pay. The problem is that the military refuses to call an “Allahu Akbar attack in the middle of a war against Islamist extremists an “act of war or “combat-related situation. Instead, it insists that it was just an ordinary bit of workplace violence, akin to the man who freaks out when he discovers his wife having an affair.

Fort Hood Shooter Has Been Paid $278,000 Of Your Tax Dollars While Awaiting Trial // Mr. ConservativeWhy is it you believe this to be an act of terrorism as opposed to workplace violence?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri May 24, 2013 1:36 pm

I suppose you would find little comfort in the fact that when he is found guilty he has to give all that money back.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri May 24, 2013 1:44 pm

BTS;1427896 wrote: Huh??? Do you have another suspect in mind??? You think he didn't kill 13 innocents and wound 32 others while shouting “Allahu Akbar??

Really? Who else might be guilty besides this POS? I am curious...

I'm just saying, like it or not, we do have that pesky little thing called the Constitution to deal with.

Lest he is found guilty by a jury, he is to be presumed innocent.

Therefore, he still collects his paycheck as a major in the US Army. I don't think he is getting a chance to spend much of it, but he is still on the payroll.

Don't know why he has not been to Courts Martial, yet. Is he being tried in civilian court?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri May 24, 2013 1:49 pm

LarsMac;1427928 wrote: I suppose you would find little comfort in the fact that when he is found guilty he has to give all that money back.Maybe. His family is probably living off the money. I suppose it's possible that the victims and their families can go after his assets in civil court after a conviction.

It's all Obama's fault. He's made the entire military think like a bunch of bleeding heart liberals. Where's John McCain and Lindsey Graham been all this time?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri May 24, 2013 1:50 pm

LarsMac;1427933 wrote: I'm just saying, like it or not, we do have that pesky little thing called the Constitution to deal with.

Lest he is found guilty by a jury, he is to be presumed innocent.

Therefore, he still collects his paycheck as a major in the US Army. I don't think he is getting a chance to spend much of it, but he is still on the payroll.

Don't know why he has not been to Courts Martial, yet. Is he being tried in civilian court?

Exactly. You are correct Sir.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri May 24, 2013 1:59 pm

snopes.com: Nidal Hasan Has Earned $278,000 in Salary Since the Fort Hood Shooting

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri May 24, 2013 2:15 pm

I wonder why they haven't charged him with terrorism.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri May 24, 2013 2:25 pm

SnoozeAgain;1427946 wrote: I wonder why they haven't charged him with terrorism.Why should they, because he's a Muslim?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri May 24, 2013 2:44 pm

LarsMac;1427933 wrote: I'm just saying, like it or not, we do have that pesky little thing called the Constitution to deal with.

Lest he is found guilty by a jury, he is to be presumed innocent.

Therefore, he still collects his paycheck as a major in the US Army. I don't think he is getting a chance to spend much of it, but he is still on the payroll.

Don't know why he has not been to Courts Martial, yet. Is he being tried in civilian court?

Not true. Has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's all about Manuel for Courts Marshal

RCM (Rule Court Martial) 1003(c)(2)(A)(i):

A commissioned or warrant officer or a cadet or midshipman may not be reduced in grade by any court martial. However, in a time of war, or natl. emergency the Secretary Concerned {Sec. of the Army in this case} or such undersecretary or asst. secretary as may be designated by the secretary concerned may commute a sentence of dismissal to reduction to any enlisted grade.

Rules change for enlisted personnel.

If Hasan had been a civilian defense department employee, NBC 5 Investigates has learned, the Army could have suspended his pay after just seven days.

Accused Fort Hood Shooter Paid $278,000 While Awaiting Trial | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Hasan asks to represent himself at trial

FORT HOOD — With one week left until the start of accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan’s death penalty court-martial, Hasan fired his lawyers and asked to represent himself at trial.

The Killeen Daily Herald: Hasan Trial

That'll be fun.:wah:

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri May 24, 2013 2:49 pm

All that, along with a better informed explanation, is in the snopes link I posted

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri May 24, 2013 3:10 pm

Ahso!;1427952 wrote: Why should they, because he's a Muslim?

Yes, that's all it takes for me to conclude he's a terrorist.

Jerkoff.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri May 24, 2013 3:31 pm

tude dog;1427959 wrote: Not true. Has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's all about Manuel for Courts Marshal

Rules change for enlisted personnel.

Accused Fort Hood Shooter Paid $278,000 While Awaiting Trial | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

The Killeen Daily Herald: Hasan Trial

That'll be fun.:wah:

Oh, good. The media should be so happy. I guess that is why they wrapped up the trial of that Arias woman.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri May 24, 2013 4:57 pm

SnoozeAgain;1427946 wrote: I wonder why they haven't charged him with terrorism.

You haven't heard? There is no terrorism in the US

Obama: No 'Large Scale' Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Since I Became President

President Barack Obama said today that there have been no "large scale" terrorist attacks on the United States since he became president.

The statement comes less than six weeks after the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon, which killed 5 people, injured 280 people (including 16 police officers), and forced the city to shut down while police conducted a door-to-door search for the terrorists.

Obama: No 'Large Scale' Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Since I Became President | CNS News

That Hasan guy murdered 13, injured 30+.

Who, especially in the Army, wants to challenge the President?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 24, 2013 5:27 pm

tude dog;1427959 wrote: Not true. Has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's all about Manuel for Courts Marshal

Rules change for enlisted personnel.

Not for nuttin, but Hasan was a commissioned officer, not an enlisted man. Minor difference maybe, but an important distinction to us enlisted people.

Lars is speaking the most sense in this thread. When we start bleating about the judicial system, we have to remember that it's an umbrella that protects us all from tyrannical abuse. If we start poking holes in it without careful consideration we risk doing far more harm than good. For proof, we need look no further than the "Patriot" Act. *spits*

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri May 24, 2013 5:41 pm

SnoozeAgain;1427965 wrote: Yes, that's all it takes for me to conclude he's a terrorist.

Jerkoff.Don't be a jerkoff then and explain why you're surprised.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Fri May 24, 2013 10:34 pm

I can't agree AC though you make a very good point about justice I think this case is cut and dried. We need provisions for things like this. Just shoot the bastard and get the money back.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 25, 2013 5:26 am

Scrat;1427995 wrote: I can't agree AC though you make a very good point about justice I think this case is cut and dried. We need provisions for things like this. Just shoot the bastard and get the money back.In cases like this you're probably right. The guy was caught on site in the act, and we have a good chain of custody so that there's no doubt about his guilt. But we have to allow it in all such cases, not just this one. Are we as a society okay with summarily executing crazy people? Personally, I am, but I don't think I'm in the majority.

And no, I'm not calling this guy crazy, but crazy people would get caught in the net if we changed the process.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun May 26, 2013 4:13 am

Accountable;1428005 wrote: Are we as a society okay with summarily executing crazy people? Personally, I am, but I don't think I'm in the majority.

I have lost a lot of the respect I had for your arguments

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 26, 2013 5:01 am

Bruv;1428069 wrote: I have lost a lot of the respect I had for your arguments
I'm sure you mean you've lost respect for me, but you're very nice. I pointed out that changing laws based on emotion risks consequences that our society would not find acceptable. If I had argued that we should make a special case of this one guy, would that make my arguments, or me, more respectable?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun May 26, 2013 5:39 am

Accountable;1427983 wrote: Not for nuttin, but Hasan was a commissioned officer, not an enlisted man. Minor difference maybe, but an important distinction to us enlisted people.

I don't know where I minimized the difference between Commissioned Officers and enlisted personnel.

Accountable;1427983 wrote: Lars is speaking the most sense in this thread. When we start bleating about the judicial system, we have to remember that it's an umbrella that protects us all from tyrannical abuse. If we start poking holes in it without careful consideration we risk doing far more harm than good. For proof, we need look no further than the "Patriot" Act. *spits*

Bleating or not, no reason to ignore a stink.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 26, 2013 6:46 am

tude dog;1428076 wrote: I don't know where I minimized the difference between Commissioned Officers and enlisted personnel.You equated the two! I work for a living. Okay, I worked. Now they call me sir. Point is he's not enlisted so I don't want his taint.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun May 26, 2013 8:09 am

Accountable;1428073 wrote: I'm sure you mean you've lost respect for me, but you're very nice. I pointed out that changing laws based on emotion risks consequences that our society would not find acceptable. If I had argued that we should make a special case of this one guy, would that make my arguments, or me, more respectable?

I know next to nothing about this case, any laws must be changed calmly and unemotionally, but summarily executing crazy people ? Isn't that a tad emotional ?

Who says anyone is 'crazy' ? And can you summarily make that judgement without emotion entering the equation ?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun May 26, 2013 8:24 am

Bruv;1428084 wrote: I know next to nothing about this case, any laws must be changed calmly and unemotionally, but summarily executing crazy people ? Isn't that a tad emotional ?

Who says anyone is 'crazy' ? And can you summarily make that judgement without emotion entering the equation ?

We always seem to have those who what to make "an exception" to the Rule of Law.

I know there are times when I would almost agree, but then the Law is there to protect us all from exactly those kinds of circumstances.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun May 26, 2013 8:35 am

Accountable;1428078 wrote: You equated the two! I work for a living. Okay, I worked. Now they call me sir. Point is he's not enlisted so I don't want his taint.

I did state that there are different rules. So I didn't expand on that. For example Commissioned Officers can not go before a Summary Courts Marshal, must be General Courts Marshal. I suppose also they can't opt for, or be offered and Article 15 (if it's still called that), Nonjudicial Punishment.

As far as working, one of the benefits of being a NCO is supervising others doing the dirty work. Rough duty indeed.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun May 26, 2013 9:27 am

Nobody wants to explain why this case should be treated as terrorism?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun May 26, 2013 9:46 am

LarsMac;1428086 wrote: We always seem to have those who what to make "an exception" to the Rule of Law.

I know there are times when I would almost agree, but then the Law is there to protect us all from exactly those kinds of circumstances.It's evidence and the interpretation of that evidence and then applying the law when it comes to whether or not this person's actions were a case of workplace violence or an act of terror.

Apparently, the evidence in the prosecutor's possession convinces them that this is indeed workplace violence so far. The OP makes the accusation that the prosecution is choosing to either ignore the evidence or misapply the law in order for this to be a workplace violence case instead of a terrorism case because Barack Obama is president, and at least one other person in the thread appears to agree with this conspiracy theory. That's what this thread is about to my understanding. Not whether or not the person is enlisted or commissioned and therefore deserves different conditions of arrest and treatment.

This thread starter once again raised another strawman argument and it appears to be working. The idea of this thread is to piss everyone off and make it Obama's fault. I'm no Obama fan but this is just downright ridicules.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun May 26, 2013 10:25 am

Ahso!;1428094 wrote: It's evidence and the interpretation of that evidence and then applying the law when it comes to whether or not this person's actions were a case of workplace violence or an act of terror.

Apparently, the evidence in the prosecutor's possession convinces them that this is indeed workplace violence so far. The OP makes the accusation that the prosecution is choosing to either ignore the evidence or misapply the law in order for this to be a workplace violence case instead of a terrorism case because Barack Obama is president, and at least one other person in the thread appears to agree with this conspiracy theory. That's what this thread is about to my understanding. Not whether or not the person is enlisted or commissioned and therefore deserves different conditions of arrest and treatment.

This thread starter once again raised another strawman argument and it appears to be working. The idea of this thread is to piss everyone off and make it Obama's fault. I'm no Obama fan but this is just downright ridicules.

We know all that. Not sure what point you are trying to make by responding to my post with all that.

While off the original topic, I was following the spin-off regarding the desire to just off this guy because we all know he's guilty.

As to the OP, while these folks are not getting combat pay, and they won't get any purple hearts for getting shot by this clown, they ARE still getting paid, and the gummint is paying all the medical bills.

Everything else goes back to the Rule of Law, both civilian and military.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun May 26, 2013 10:28 am

Ahso!;1428092 wrote: Nobody wants to explain why this case should be treated as terrorism?

You are correct.

The guy's a nutcase. Just like the guy at Newtown, and the one at Aurora, and the one in Arizona.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun May 26, 2013 10:34 am

LarsMac;1428100 wrote: We know all that. Not sure what point you are trying to make by responding to my post with all that.

While off the original topic, I was following the spin-off regarding the desire to just off this guy because we all know he's guilty.

As to the OP, while these folks are not getting combat pay, and they won't get any purple hearts for getting shot by this clown, they ARE still getting paid, and the gummint is paying all the medical bills.

Everything else goes back to the Rule of Law, both civilian and military.I responded to your post because even though your argument is sound, it's a deviation of what the thread is, a strawman argument which nobody seems to want to label as such. Though you appear to have acknowledged it in your first sentence.

Strawman arguments are as easy as anything to prove wrong IF they're recognized for what they are.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun May 26, 2013 10:40 am

LarsMac;1428101 wrote: You are correct.

The guy's a nutcase. Just like the guy at Newtown, and the one at Aurora, and the one in Arizona.I don't know if this is what happened to this person but i could imagine myself being a member of a military in another country where that military at some point invades the country of my people killing many innocent people and me flipping out eventually.

I think that qualifies as a workplace environment case.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 26, 2013 11:55 am

Bruv;1428084 wrote: I know next to nothing about this case, any laws must be changed calmly and unemotionally, but summarily executing crazy people ? Isn't that a tad emotional ?No, because the crime isn't being crazy.

Bruv;1428084 wrote: Who says anyone is 'crazy' ?No one.

Bruv;1428084 wrote: And can you summarily make that judgement without emotion entering the equation ?There would be no need to, because that judgment would not be necessary.

The conversation is about a mass murderer (capital criminal) who was arrested on the scene and does not dispute that he committed the crime.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 26, 2013 12:07 pm

Ahso!;1428106 wrote: I don't know if this is what happened to this person but i could imagine myself being a member of a military in another country where that military at some point invades the country of my people killing many innocent people and me flipping out eventually.

I think that qualifies as a workplace environment case.
That explains all the German & Japanese in the 1950s. /sarcasm

I think GMC said it in another thread that the police should hands domestic issues of this nature. I tend to agree.