Skip to content
Subscribe

Fort Hood Victims Denied Benefits 4 Years Later

Published:

It's been nearly four years since a radical Muslim Army psychiatrist walked into a processing center on Ft. Hood, shouted "Allah Akbar," and opened fire. The shooter killed 13 people, including a pregnant woman, and wounded another 32.

In the years that followed, much attention has been paid to the gunman. However, after the initial media storm, little attention has been paid to the victims and their families, and this has caused many of them to file suit with the government, the shooter, and his Muslim leader.

In the aftermath of the shooting, the Army and the Obama administration promised to take care of the families of the fallen and the wounded, but according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on November 5, 2011, that hasn't happened. The lawsuit claims the government has done everything it can to protect the shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, and their own interests while marginalizing the victims. The suit is seeking $750 million in damages.One of the biggest bones of contention is the way the incident is classified. Currently, the Department of Defense classifies the incident as "workplace violence," which gives victims a lower priority with regards to care and denies certain monetary compensation that would not be denied if the event was classified as "an act of terror".

According to the lawsuit, many of the victims have had to seek medical treatment outside of the military at their own expense and are struggling to coordinate proper care.

A bill introduced by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), called "The Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act," would award victims the Purple Heart or the civilian equivalent from the Department of Defense and provide all the benefits that come with those honors. The purpose of the bill is to "ensure that the victims and victims’ families of the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas, receive the same treatment and benefits as those Americans who have been killed or wounded in a combat zone overseas and their families."

This is important from a financial standpoint, as those who are killed or wounded as a result of combat are eligible for care and benefits that those who are not killed in combat are not.

The Pentagon has no intention of changing the way this incident is classified which has led some to believe the Pentagon is more concerned about the shooter than his victims.

According to ABC News, a Pentagon position paper issued on March 29 seems to partially confirm this by saying that giving the victims these awards has the potential to "irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration" and "undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan  by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan's ability to receive a fair trial."

Victims had some hope that the classification of the attack would be changed under the new U.S. Secretary of Defense, but those hopes were dashed as well. Secretary Hagel has said the position of the department remains unchanged.

This is not the first time that an issue such as this one has occurred. In fact, the Pentagon victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were awarded purple hearts -- or the civilian equivalent -- and the incident was quickly classified as a terrorist attack. So what's so different about these two incidents?

Both were carried out by radical Islamic terrorists and records go even further to indicate that both had ties to Al Qaeda. Evidence from the Ft. Hood investigation shows that Hasan had extensive contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim Imam and known Al Qaeda leader responsible for new recruitment and operational planning. Hasan even attended his mosque in Maryland while stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

While victims wait for medical and mental health treatments and continue to struggle financially due to the classification, the shooter remains on the Army's payroll, receiving more than $6,000 per month based on his rank.

Jury selection for Hasan's trial is set to begin on May 29.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Fort Hood Victims Denied Benefits 4 Years Later

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us