Video: Fort Hood Victims want Massacre Declared Terrorism

While there is a current controversy over how quickly President Obama called the attack on the US consulate in Libya a “terrorist” act, another similar scandal has simmered for nearly three years.  In November 2009, a gunman yelled Allahu Akbar and opened fire in an Army processing center.  He killed 14 people and wounded more than 30 more.

Despite his motivations and associations, his attack was classified as “workplace violence.”

As a result, the Soldiers wounded in that event and the families of those who were killed do not have access to resources restricted to those wounded or killed in combat or a terrorist event. More than 160 people associated with the event have released a video giving their view of why they believe it was a terrorist attack.

This is not the only domestic event for which people have sought classification as an act of war. For the record, the events of 9/11 were classified as an act of war.


  • Someone saying “Allahu Akbar” is not the legal definition of terrorism.

  • @Donalbain
    Nice non sequitur. Would you like to educate the class as to what the “legal definition” of terrorism is?

    Do you think the ideologically motivated gunning down of more than 40 unarmed people is terrorism?

  • the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
    (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended—
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

    There has been no evidence presented that he intended to do any of the things listed in section (B). Indeed, no evidence for his motivation was offered either by the prosecution or the gunman himself.

  • @Donalbain

    There has been no evidence presented that he intended…

    The law does not require evidence that he intended, only that the acts appear to be intended.

    The victims and their families appear to disagree with you. Regardless, many seem to think it would be good to “do right” by those killed and wounded in the attack. That doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request.

  • The law uses evidence to determine what he appears to have intended. None has been presented. Therefore, it cannot be declared to be terrorism.

  • You seem to have a troll infestation, JD.

  • From the Department of Defense:

    “The [DoD] is committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nadal Hassan and for that reason will not further characterize, at this time, the incident that occurred at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said in the statement…

    From Senator Lindsey Graham:

    “Based upon what we already know, this episode fits squarely into the realm of an act of terrorism,” Graham said in a written statement Tuesday. “I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate to challenge this characterization by the Pentagon…”

  • Thank you. As the DoD said.No evidence has been presented.

  • It’s worth noting that for whatever other shortcomings he may have, Sen. Graham is a former USAF JAG officer.

  • Priscilla Parker

    @Donalbain: DoD didn’t say there was no evidence, they said they were not going to further characterize the act being investigated. Do you just come on here to post in opposition to what JD writes. I wonder if he had argued against it being labeled a ‘terrorist act’ if you would then question him on his stance in favor of it being labeled so.

    I do think it needs to be redefined but not as an act of war per say. Terrorist, absolutely.

  • What evidence do you have that it meets the legal definition of terrorism?

  • Donalbain, you already cited USC, Title 18, Ch. 113B, Sec. 2331 (5). If you can’t figure out that by walking into an SRC site and opening fire was indeed intentional and “intimidating,” and that it affected the conduct of government personnel from being able to conduct business because they were being shot at in an intentional attempt to kill or assassinate them, there’s not much one could say to you to make you get it. Your just arguing to argue.

  • Pingback: God and Country » Guard Wounded in Terrorist Attack, Soldiers in Workplace Violence

  • Pingback: God and Country » Fort Hood Massacre Victims Sue US Government