The house recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2015 that would provide combat benefits for Fort Hood’s and other military victims of terror attacks on American soil.

The victims of the attack have been denied benefits because of the "workplace violence" tag. The bill is expected to pass the Senate but Obammy has threatened to veto the entire bill based on this one provision.

So Obammy is willing to throw these American soldiers under the bus (nothing new here) if only to continue the sham that Fort Hood was not terrorism.

What a guy.

(12-12-2014 01:35 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  The house recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2015 that would provide combat benefits for Fort Hood’s and other military victims of terror attacks on American soil.

The victims of the attack have been denied benefits because of the "workplace violence" tag. The bill is expected to pass the Senate but Obammy has threatened to veto the entire bill based on this one provision.

So Obammy is willing to throw these American soldiers under the bus (nothing new here) if only to continue the sham that Fort Hood was not terrorism.

What a guy.

I hope he does. Nothing like showing true colors.

It appears the rationale of the threat was that we couldn't convict terror suspects in American courts (which begs the question, WTF is it with wanting to close Guantanamo?).

Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Unfinished Business of Fort Hood - WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/dorothy-rabi...1418342456 Wrote:The provision is now given a good chance of passing the Senate. The question remains whether President Obama will veto it as he has, in the past, threatened to do with any such bill.
...

Despite last week’s promising House vote on benefits for the Fort Hood survivors, there is no indication of any planned change in the “workplace violence” classification. In the years since the attack, the official reason has been that there was no evidence of a terrorist motivation in Hasan’s assault. Further, that for the government to call it terrorism might leave his prosecution open to charges of prejudice and thus undermine chances of a conviction.

To argue for this rationale is to accept that no terrorist who carried out a plan to murder Americans can be tried for what he clearly did without risk of tainting his trial. It is to accept, as well, the suppression of truth as a core requirement of a successful prosecution.