• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Handling of Ft. Hood shooting suspect could bring discipline

Hasan could have made a complaint to the equal oppurtunity board. These officers would have been reviewed by the EO board and the review would have become a permanent part of their record and it goes on that officers command fitness report.

Now, you're a brigade commander and you need to promote a new commander to one of your battalions. Are you going to pick the guy with an EO board review on his record, or are you going to pick another guy that is just as qualified and doesn't have an EO review? Be honest.
To tell you the truth, it depends on the calibre of officer. In a tie break, maybe.

Remember, you're a commander, too. You have a command fitness report to worry about, too. You're responsible for the actions of the men under your command. Are you really going to give command to an officer with an official charge of prejudice behavior?
Depends on the outcome of the board.



They were probably white Christians, too. Am I close?
They were catholic, so yeah. I suppose so. But so were their opposition un the UVF, UDA, etc.
 
To tell you the truth, it depends on the calibre of officer. In a tie break, maybe.

It ain't gonna happen. I bet Boo would even agree with me on that.






They were catholic, so yeah. I suppose so. But so were their opposition un the UVF, UDA, etc.

There ya go. They were white Christians, so it was ok.
 
One thing I liked about being in the military was when people **** up, people whose job was to keep particular **** ups from happening have some explaining to do and heads usually roll. If we had more of this in civilian life with some of our agencies like the Homeland Security we'd be much better off. In the military excuses were only for losers, mistakes get people killed.
 
There ya go. They were white Christians, so it was ok.

I don't understand. Surely an incorrect accusation is incorrect regardless of the religious beliefs of the accused?
Did you not have similar issues when the armed forces were integrated after segregation?
Would it not be handled the same way?

:confused:
 
If you've never been in the service, you can't imagine how easily it is to get pinned with a racism charge and how that can affect your career, especially during a peace time military where the government is getting rid of active duty officers for any little excuse they can find.

Is that what happened to you?

Oh well, matters not to me what they do to them. I hate officers :mrgreen:
 
Thank you for your service.

Then, you understand what it means to have an EO review placed in your 201 file.

And I've seen them placed. The point is, professionals act professionally. When they stop doing so, they should be fired.
 
And I've seen them placed. The point is, professionals act professionally. When they stop doing so, they should be fired.

ok, based on what you know of his behavior and his job performance - prior to the shooting - what charges of unprofessionalism should have been levied and by whom?
 
And I've seen them placed. The point is, professionals act professionally. When they stop doing so, they should be fired.

And, you know was well as I do that an EO complaint is a big red flag concerning a soldier's ability to perform his duties in a professional manner; esepcially an officer.

I've seen leaders and commanders relieved because of a simple EO complaint.
 
I don't understand. Surely an incorrect accusation is incorrect regardless of the religious beliefs of the accused?
Did you not have similar issues when the armed forces were integrated after segregation?
Would it not be handled the same way?

:confused:

It don't work like that in this country. Racism, even some far-out perception of racism is very real.

Is that what happened to you?

Oh well, matters not to me what they do to them. I hate officers :mrgreen:

I was never an officer. I did, however, sit on a couple of EO boards and on several occassions was overruled and had to sit back and watch some poor bastard's career be disembowled over nothing.

I well understand the fears these officers had of reporting Hasan as a jihadist.
 
Last edited:
And, you know was well as I do that an EO complaint is a big red flag concerning a soldier's ability to perform his duties in a professional manner; esepcially an officer.

I've seen leaders and commanders relieved because of a simple EO complaint.

Not a big a flag as failing to do your job. Professionals do their job. There's no way around that. If one doesn't, then one is neither professional or able to defend himself and must be held accountable.

And if you're going to claim this was the reason, you have to show evidence of that. It wouldn't change accountability, but it would lend credence to your concern. You have to show that US military professionals refused to do their job out of a silly fear, something that would be both cowardly and unprofessional.
 
Not a big a flag as failing to do your job. Professionals do their job. There's no way around that. If one doesn't, then one is neither professional or able to defend himself and must be held accountable.

And if you're going to claim this was the reason, you have to show evidence of that. It wouldn't change accountability, but it would lend credence to your concern. You have to show that US military professionals refused to do their job out of a silly fear, something that would be both cowardly and unprofessional.

Not getting rid of a substandard soldier doesn't classify as, "failing to do your job".
 
Not getting rid of a substandard soldier doesn't classify as, "failing to do your job".

That may well be, which means holding them accountable. But as I understand your position, you for excusing them and blaming some unproven political correctness in the system. Professionals get paid to make the hard stands, to do the job they are assigned. If they don't, they hold the responsibility.
 
That may well be, which means holding them accountable. But as I understand your position, you for excusing them and blaming some unproven political correctness in the system. Professionals get paid to make the hard stands, to do the job they are assigned. If they don't, they hold the responsibility.

ok, so i ask you again, based on what you know of his behavior and his job performance - prior to the shooting - what charges of unprofessionalism should have been levied and by whom?
 
That may well be, which means holding them accountable. But as I understand your position, you for excusing them and blaming some unproven political correctness in the system. Professionals get paid to make the hard stands, to do the job they are assigned. If they don't, they hold the responsibility.

The only thing that these officers could remotely be held accountable for, is their failure to bring Hasan up to the Army's standard. They failed to teach him how to better perform in his job. Which, would have kept Hasan in the Army and he still would have committed his jihadist attack. This is nothing but the scapegoating of Amry officers in an attempt to place the blame on them and take it off Hasan. This is political correctness run amuck, denial that the system is flawed and denial that this is an attack perpatrated by a religious fanatic, for religious reasons. If this dude was a white supremist, you can bet you ass that this attack was motivated by Right wing racism.

some of Hasan’s supervisors and instructors had told colleagues that they repeatedly bent over backward to support and encourage him, because they didn’t have clear evidence that he was unstable, and they worried they might be “discriminating” against Hasan because of his seemingly extremist Islamic beliefs.

Walter Reed Officials Suspected Hasan Was Psychotic The American Catholic
 
The only thing that these officers could remotely be held accountable for, is their failure to bring Hasan up to the Army's standard. They failed to teach him how to better perform in his job. Which, would have kept Hasan in the Army and he still would have committed his jihadist attack. This is nothing but the scapegoating of Amry officers in an attempt to place the blame on them and take it off Hasan. This is political correctness run amuck, denial that the system is flawed and denial that this is an attack perpatrated by a religious fanatic, for religious reasons. If this dude was a white supremist, you can bet you ass that this attack was motivated by Right wing racism.

No, that's incorrect. They worried, according to your article, that the process was too difficult. Professionals don't neglect their job because it is tough or difficult.

And nothing about them removes responsibility from Hasan. He is guilty of what he did. No one else. But that fact doesn't excuse others from not doing their job either. Everyone is responsible for their own individual actions. And as is common in life, there is often more than one person who holds a specific responsibility in a terrible event.
 
No, that's incorrect. They worried, according to your article, that the process was too difficult. Professionals don't neglect their job because it is tough or difficult.

And nothing about them removes responsibility from Hasan. He is guilty of what he did. No one else. But that fact doesn't excuse others from not doing their job either. Everyone is responsible for their own individual actions. And as is common in life, there is often more than one person who holds a specific responsibility in a terrible event.

You obviously didn't read the article.
 
ok, so i ask you again, based on what you know of his behavior and his job performance - prior to the shooting - what charges of unprofessionalism should have been levied and by whom?

First, I'm addressing the claim that political correctness is to blame. The claim was that officers could not act due to political correctness. The argument back, by me, was that if there was cause to act, political correctness would not be a excuse. So, you need to know the argument before you can ask for support.

Second, from the artilce posted abve:

Starting in the spring of 2008, key officials from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences held a series of meetings and conversations, in part about Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens of others last week during a shooting spree at Fort Hood. One of the questions they pondered: Was Hasan psychotic?

“Put it this way,” says one official familiar with the conversations that took place. “Everybody felt that if you were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, you would not want Nidal Hasan in your foxhole.”

(snip)

So why didn’t officials act on their concerns and seek to remove Hasan from his duties, or at least order him to receive a mental health evaluation? Interviews with these officials suggest that a chain of unrelated events and factors deterred them.

For one thing, Walter Reed and most medical institutions have a cumbersome and lengthy process for expelling doctors, involving hearings and potential legal battles. As a result, sources say, key decision-makers decided it would be too difficult, if not unfeasible, to put Hasan on probation and possibly expel him from the program. . . . . .
 
From the article:

some of Hasan’s supervisors and instructors had told colleagues that they repeatedly bent over backward to support and encourage him, because they didn’t have clear evidence that he was unstable, and they worried they might be “discriminating” against Hasan because of his seemingly extremist Islamic beliefs.

It can't be any cheesier to say that the reason Hasan successfully launched his attack, is because he was drummed out of the service for being a substandard officer.

I certainly hope that that's not going to be what we depend on to weed out ptentially dangerous service members.
 
Last edited:
From the article:



It can't be any cheesier to say that the reason Hasan successfully launched his attack, is because he was drummed out of the service for being a substandard officer.

I certainly hope that that's not going to be what we depend on to weed out ptentially dangerous service members.

He wasn't drummed out. Nor are their worries an excuse not to do their job. If they had concerns, their job was to act on them, concerns or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom