Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army to Punish Nine Officers in Connection With Fort Hood Shootings
FoxNews ^ | 10 Mar 2011 | By Justin Fishel

Posted on 03/11/2011 8:58:24 AM PST by US Navy Vet

Edited on 03/11/2011 9:00:18 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: coverups; officers; usarmy
"In order to protect the due process rights of the officers involved, the Army will not identify them or provide details of the administrative actions at this time." = Officer COVER-UP!
1 posted on 03/11/2011 8:58:31 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Scapegoats. Just CYA by the brass who should have been on the ball.


2 posted on 03/11/2011 8:59:59 AM PST by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Maybe they’re just going to let the word get around. That is disgraceful.


3 posted on 03/11/2011 9:00:15 AM PST by Past Your Eyes (I'd get it myself but I don't have any thumbs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

...and if they singled out the muzzie as a potential terrorist they would have been punished worse for that.


4 posted on 03/11/2011 9:01:10 AM PST by rsobin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rsobin

Bingo.


5 posted on 03/11/2011 9:02:17 AM PST by Tax-chick (Nadie me ama como Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rsobin

You nailed it. It was a lose-lose situation, since the Commander-in-Chief is such a chickensh*t.


6 posted on 03/11/2011 9:04:22 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

This is impossible because the MSM and Democrats claim at Congressional hearings today that there is no Jihad by Muslim Americans.


7 posted on 03/11/2011 9:04:22 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (Allah sucks pig teat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
The result of PC. Did these officers really have a choice??

It was Obama himself who, after the "In the Name of Allah" shooting said: "Let's not come to any conclusions".

Enough with the PC. MUSLIM is not a religion...It is a political system aimed at world domination and total servitude.

Their cry is STILL: "Kill all the Christians and Jews".

8 posted on 03/11/2011 9:04:22 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

It is a CYA and cover up. Congress, if they had any guts or principles,would hold the bastard who occupies the White House responsible.


9 posted on 03/11/2011 9:04:39 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Bush would have been the SAME way. Remember US Army COS “General” Casey is a BUSH appointee.


10 posted on 03/11/2011 9:05:43 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Exactly Right! Scapegoats for the “political correct” and “diversity” crowd who forced these Officers to not report or comment on Muslims who appear to exhibit threatening or terror supporting remarks.

Just look at the Rep. Peter King's hearings on Muslim radicalism and the uproar over just discussing the problem!

Please support these Officers with prayer and phone calls to your congressmen!!

11 posted on 03/11/2011 9:08:13 AM PST by paratrooper82 (We are kicking Ass in Afghanistan, soon we will be home to kick some more Asses in Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

They would have been punished for “diversity” crimes had they called attention to Hassan before the shooting.


12 posted on 03/11/2011 9:08:27 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

- Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey


13 posted on 03/11/2011 9:09:53 AM PST by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

They are being punished for being too PC, while a president who refuses to accept that muslims want to kill Americans is commander-in-chief of the military. Go figure.


14 posted on 03/11/2011 9:10:08 AM PST by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

They were screwed either way.


15 posted on 03/11/2011 9:10:26 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

The Navy has more of a record of making scapegoats out of heroes. The Army is more prone to cover up and watch out for their own. Any good officer of any branch would have acted like LTC Oliver North, and would have at least covered his ass with paper and reported that Muslim didn’t seem right.


16 posted on 03/11/2011 9:12:53 AM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Republicans need to have a congressional investigation into this obvious cover-up. I’m not holding my breath until that happens though.


17 posted on 03/11/2011 9:15:51 AM PST by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

You left out the i (sarc)


18 posted on 03/11/2011 9:15:57 AM PST by mortal19440
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

“The Navy has more of a record of making scapegoats out of heroes” I actually AGREE with you on this(think USS Indianapolis/WW II).


19 posted on 03/11/2011 9:16:04 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

It’ll be interesting to hear their side of the story. Somehow, I’m thinking some of them wanted to elevate this issue, but were rebuffed in the name of multiculturalism.

If that’s the case, I so hope it’ll come to light.


20 posted on 03/11/2011 9:16:33 AM PST by ScottinVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

This is just rich considering that the whole U.S. Military is illegally supporting a Usurper.

The top brass should be held accountable.

I still can’t believe this is the same America I grew up in.


21 posted on 03/11/2011 9:17:23 AM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

The real problem is that our troops aren’t allowed to carry sidearms.

Not sure I understand the point of that....


22 posted on 03/11/2011 9:17:32 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ConservaTexan
while a president who refuses to accept that muslims want to kill Americans is commander-in-chief of the military

Owebama accepts that "muslims want to kill Americans" and he supports them fully if they want to "bring a gun to a knife fight" with Republicans.

23 posted on 03/11/2011 9:18:16 AM PST by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Which spineless coward was it that answered the question of whether Fort Hood was terrorism with "I'm not even going to go there?"

Can't remember for sure.

24 posted on 03/11/2011 9:19:38 AM PST by mykroar (I believe in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
"Pour encourager les autres" -- "to encourage the others."

Said ironically after the Brits hanged Admiral John Byng for losing the Battle of Minorca.

These officers will be hung out to dry for failing to buck the same policy of Muslim-coddling and diversity-mongering that their superiors will continue to ram down the throats of the military. I'm glad I hung up my uniform years ago. Ugh.

25 posted on 03/11/2011 9:21:15 AM PST by joe.fralick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

####

So Casey, as an exploitative white male, why don’t you take a bullet to the brain yourself, clearing the way for a “person of color” to take your place, thus helping to further your sham god of “diversity”.


26 posted on 03/11/2011 9:22:32 AM PST by EyeGuy (Gimme Shelter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
MUSLIM is not a religion...It is a political system aimed at world domination and total servitude.

Your comment assumes the existence of facts not in evidence. What makes you think these two spheres of human activity and belief are inherently separate? That if a religion has political aspects it stops being a religion?

There is no reason, other than our own cultural orientation, to assume that a religion must be separate from politics. In fact, for most of the life of Western Civilization religion was almost as intimately entwined with politics as it is now in Islam.

There is no real reason to assume that a political/ideological system cannot also be a religion.

27 posted on 03/11/2011 9:41:13 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
Unfortunately, this ISN'T the America you grew up in.
28 posted on 03/11/2011 9:50:30 AM PST by Pecos (Liberty and Honor will not die on my watch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan

and in the meanwhile, when will they get around to calling Hassan a terrorist?


29 posted on 03/11/2011 9:52:36 AM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I had been involved in church activities long enough to experience that church laws are not part of civil laws. It is a fact that that within the usual activities of church law(s) there result action(s) to make/change the civil laws. In my experience the church(s) have recognized the supremacy of our civil law apart for the general public from their church laws. This is structured on our Constitution for separation of religious authority from civil authority, which seems to be be clouded by some church events. However, until the events/intentions are transferred to public laws our Constitution still holds. In very distinct contrast to and against our historical environment of church and state the Muslim culture would impose the Sharia law. It is seen today when/where Muslims are openly and adamantly proclaiming the right to a social environment based on their Sharia law. From my reading and understanding of Sharia law it is a total package, civil and religious, for the people in that society and the nature of the law makes it extremely difficult to partition. As for me, as long as any person claims to have any binds to Sharia, civil or religious, they cannot be taken as supporters of our Constitution and should not be Citizens of the USA.


30 posted on 03/11/2011 11:17:09 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

I don’t disagree with anything you say, with one exception.

Having a government agency or court decide who is or is not to be considered a citizen based on their beliefs is a really bad idea. Whatever a citizen’s beliefs, he has the right to them without it impairing his status as a citizen.

Once he crosses the line from thought to action, that’s another matter.

Also, I do not believe there is any mechanism to strip citizenship from a native-born American, and removing citizenship from a naturalized citizen is quite difficult. As it should be.


31 posted on 03/11/2011 11:41:49 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Beliefs are one thing and oaths of allegience are another thing. My contention is that no person can without turpitude take an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution with It’s civil laws and religious allowances and at the same time swear any allegience to Sharia law. I need to know more about what is necessary to remove citizenship in cases of sworn disparity/conflict. Of course with birth citizenship it becomes more a matter of conscience as to which prevails as the societal guide. At that stage the beliefs and actions become a choice of patriot or traitor.


32 posted on 03/11/2011 5:54:47 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Beliefs are one thing and oaths of allegience are another thing. My contention is that no person can without turpitude take an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution with It’s civil laws and religious allowances and at the same time swear any allegience to Sharia law. I need to know more about what is necessary to remove citizenship in cases of sworn disparity/conflict. Of course with birth citizenship it becomes more a matter of conscience as to which prevails as the societal guide. At that stage the beliefs and actions become a choice of patriot or traitor.


33 posted on 03/11/2011 5:55:02 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson