4
4
0
The Purple Heart discussion
Jonn Lilyea | May 13, 2015
On May 1st, the Armed Services Committee sent the Defense Budget to Congress for a vote. In the bill, in section 583, the committee submitted that the Purple Heart should be awarded to the six active duty members of the military who died in Oklahoma when terrorists bombed the Murrah Federal Building;
SEC. 583. AWARD OF PURPLE HEART TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF THE OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, BOMBING.
Notwithstanding section 571(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3387), the Secretary of the military department concerned shall award the Purple Heart pursuant to section 1129a of title 10, United States Code, to the following members of the Armed Forces who were killed in the bombing that occurred at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19, 1995:
(1) Sergeant First Class Lola Renee Bolden, United States Army.
(2) Sergeant Benjamin Laranzo Davis, United States Marine Corps.
(3) Captain Randolph Albert Guzman, United States Marine Corps.
(4) Airman First Class Lakesha Racquel Levy,United States Air Force.
(5) Airman First Class Cartney Jean Mcraven, United States Air Force.
(6) Master Sergeant Victoria Lee Sohn, United States Army.
The Military Order of the Purple Heart has expressed their displeasure in a press release;
While the MOPH is sympathetic to the loss suffered by the families and friends of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, and especially those who were serving at the time in the Armed Forces of the U.S. it cannot support or condone award of America’s oldest and most venerated combat decoration for an act of pure domestic violence. The attack on the Federal Building which killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others on April 19, 1995 was carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols solely in retaliation for a perceived Federal Government mishandling of the 1993 siege of Ruby Ridge, and was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the deadly fire that ended the siege in Waco, TX.
The criteria for award of the Purple Heart medal has been constant and clear – it is awarded only to those who are killed or wounded in combat. In recent years the criteria has been extended to accommodate a change in warfare that has brought the battlefield to our own shores in the form of international terrorism. The MOPH has fully supported award of the Purple Heart to victims in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and the 2009 Ft. Hood, TX, and the Little Rock AR Recruiting Station shootings because these incidents were clearly inspired or motivated by international terrorist organizations. The Oklahoma City bombing had nothing to do with combat on the battlefield or international terrorism.
The MOPH urges all Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, especially those who serve on the Armed Services Committees, to reject this amendment that would cheapen the intent and importance of the Purple Heart medal and denigrate its meaning for those who have received it for their sacrifices to protect the freedoms that all Americans enjoy.
While I agree with the MOPH to some degree, I disagree that it was merely an instance of domestic terrorism, or that should be the sole reason that they oppose the award. The Fort Hood attack could be accurately described as a case of domestic terrorism – an American member of the military attacks other American members of the military to make a political statement about the war in the middle east.
Sergeant James Goins was awarded a Purple Heart on April 30th, 1986 for the injuries he sustained when Libyans bombed the West Berlin LaBelle Disco – he died a few weeks later after losing both legs to the surgeons. But he was out on the town, drinking and dancing when he got clobbered by terrorists.
I’m still not sure why Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, I don’t think they were clear on their reasons either. But the list of members of the military above who lost their lives that day were at their duty station and engaged in daily duties when they lost their lives. Just like my wife’s friend, Captain Maria Ines Ortiz who lost her life while she was doing her daily PT run inside the Green Zone in Iraq. She was awarded the Purple Heart posthumously.
I guess my point is that in this day and age, just doing your duty, just being where you’re supposed to be, no matter where that is, no matter how mundane your job is, that’s enough to get you killed in the war against terror. Ask Private William Long and Private Quinton Ezeagwula who happened to be on hometown recruiter duty and on a smoke break in Little Rock when Carlos Bledsoe decided to shoot them and resulting in Private Long’s death on June 1, 2009.
In my opinion, MOPH should be lobbying for Long’s and Ezeagwula’s awards of the Purple Heart for the same reasons that they oppose the award to the deceased from the Murrah Building.
Jonn Lilyea | May 13, 2015
On May 1st, the Armed Services Committee sent the Defense Budget to Congress for a vote. In the bill, in section 583, the committee submitted that the Purple Heart should be awarded to the six active duty members of the military who died in Oklahoma when terrorists bombed the Murrah Federal Building;
SEC. 583. AWARD OF PURPLE HEART TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF THE OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, BOMBING.
Notwithstanding section 571(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3387), the Secretary of the military department concerned shall award the Purple Heart pursuant to section 1129a of title 10, United States Code, to the following members of the Armed Forces who were killed in the bombing that occurred at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19, 1995:
(1) Sergeant First Class Lola Renee Bolden, United States Army.
(2) Sergeant Benjamin Laranzo Davis, United States Marine Corps.
(3) Captain Randolph Albert Guzman, United States Marine Corps.
(4) Airman First Class Lakesha Racquel Levy,United States Air Force.
(5) Airman First Class Cartney Jean Mcraven, United States Air Force.
(6) Master Sergeant Victoria Lee Sohn, United States Army.
The Military Order of the Purple Heart has expressed their displeasure in a press release;
While the MOPH is sympathetic to the loss suffered by the families and friends of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, and especially those who were serving at the time in the Armed Forces of the U.S. it cannot support or condone award of America’s oldest and most venerated combat decoration for an act of pure domestic violence. The attack on the Federal Building which killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others on April 19, 1995 was carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols solely in retaliation for a perceived Federal Government mishandling of the 1993 siege of Ruby Ridge, and was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the deadly fire that ended the siege in Waco, TX.
The criteria for award of the Purple Heart medal has been constant and clear – it is awarded only to those who are killed or wounded in combat. In recent years the criteria has been extended to accommodate a change in warfare that has brought the battlefield to our own shores in the form of international terrorism. The MOPH has fully supported award of the Purple Heart to victims in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and the 2009 Ft. Hood, TX, and the Little Rock AR Recruiting Station shootings because these incidents were clearly inspired or motivated by international terrorist organizations. The Oklahoma City bombing had nothing to do with combat on the battlefield or international terrorism.
The MOPH urges all Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, especially those who serve on the Armed Services Committees, to reject this amendment that would cheapen the intent and importance of the Purple Heart medal and denigrate its meaning for those who have received it for their sacrifices to protect the freedoms that all Americans enjoy.
While I agree with the MOPH to some degree, I disagree that it was merely an instance of domestic terrorism, or that should be the sole reason that they oppose the award. The Fort Hood attack could be accurately described as a case of domestic terrorism – an American member of the military attacks other American members of the military to make a political statement about the war in the middle east.
Sergeant James Goins was awarded a Purple Heart on April 30th, 1986 for the injuries he sustained when Libyans bombed the West Berlin LaBelle Disco – he died a few weeks later after losing both legs to the surgeons. But he was out on the town, drinking and dancing when he got clobbered by terrorists.
I’m still not sure why Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, I don’t think they were clear on their reasons either. But the list of members of the military above who lost their lives that day were at their duty station and engaged in daily duties when they lost their lives. Just like my wife’s friend, Captain Maria Ines Ortiz who lost her life while she was doing her daily PT run inside the Green Zone in Iraq. She was awarded the Purple Heart posthumously.
I guess my point is that in this day and age, just doing your duty, just being where you’re supposed to be, no matter where that is, no matter how mundane your job is, that’s enough to get you killed in the war against terror. Ask Private William Long and Private Quinton Ezeagwula who happened to be on hometown recruiter duty and on a smoke break in Little Rock when Carlos Bledsoe decided to shoot them and resulting in Private Long’s death on June 1, 2009.
In my opinion, MOPH should be lobbying for Long’s and Ezeagwula’s awards of the Purple Heart for the same reasons that they oppose the award to the deceased from the Murrah Building.
Posted in these groups: 
Purple Heart
Government
Purple Heart Government
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
6
6
0
Well this is an interested debate. As an actual PH recipient I kinda have a dog in this race. I'm sure that the focus of the honor of the Purple Heart comes from the definition in why it exists. It exists to give a small piece of honor and respect to a serviceman or servicewoman injured or killed while fighting the enemies of the United States. It represents sacrifice while in Combat/ War. That's why it started and why it should continue. We have been attacked by the enemy here a few times and i believe they should be awarded the medal. Let's not cheapen the rules so everyone feels better, let's honor the history of the Purple Heart.
(6)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Joseph James, Enemies in our backyards is one thing that really scares me. I know whenever I see a Middle Easterner they can see it in my eyes that I don't trust them. They don't look at me long. They put their head down and keep on trucking. I hate to stereotype. It could be an American turned Jihadists blowing us up, and the first thing I think of are the Middle Easterners. That's terrible isn't it?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Spencer Sikder
If it's definitive that the action was done by the enemy regardless where the action, yes. But not sure as one suggested that Oklahoma bombing qualifies under the same definition. Recently the Sheriff's Dept in Cumberland County NC awarded Purple Hearts to some deputies wounded in the line of fire. Not sure that the award should be referred to the same way and said so on the newspaper's blog. Purple Heart has it's defined history and it had nothing to do with non-military issues. I'm not suggesting that what happened to the deputies should not be recognized as valiant, just not "Purple" Heart. LEO needs to develop their own off shoot of the PH.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jim Schwebach
Sgt Spencer Sikder - The Purple Heart is a federal award and as such may only be awarded by the federal government. That does not preclude the award of medals or other forms of recognition by state or local governments to person who have been wounded or killed in the performance of their duties. Texas awards the Texas Purple Heart to members of their state forces under the same criteria as the federal award. Similar medals are also awarded by various police associations across the nation. In those cases the awards are usually titled the (Texas, Iowa Police Association, City Police Union, etc) Purple Heart. A reference to the Purple Heart being award to non military personnel by a local government in a news article reflects a reporter's ignorance and and editors incompetence in improperly referring to an award rather than a federal policy.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Military personnel injured or worse in the LOD due to an act of domestic terrorism is no less serious than being wounded in combat. Changing times calls for changing regs where appropriate.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I lean towards the "Wounded" while on Active Duty as a matter of Spirit, as opposed to anything else.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
The idea of "cheapening awards" perturbs me.
Someone else getting something in no way lessens another person's accomplishment.
Someone else getting something in no way lessens another person's accomplishment.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Handing out awards for unearned reasons does cheapen the award for those that earned it.
For example, if we started handing out PH's for muscle pulls or accidents/illnesses in theater and we all knew it we would wonder when we saw the PH on someones chest if it was earned or one of the "unearned" ones.
That by default cheapens the award for the person wounded in the line of duty. We should be able to look at the award and know it was awarded appropriately and well within the requirements of the award.
For example, if we started handing out PH's for muscle pulls or accidents/illnesses in theater and we all knew it we would wonder when we saw the PH on someones chest if it was earned or one of the "unearned" ones.
That by default cheapens the award for the person wounded in the line of duty. We should be able to look at the award and know it was awarded appropriately and well within the requirements of the award.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Cpl Jeff N. Not at all. How is you value defined by another person? It isn't. The award is just a recognition for a singular event. When the PH criteria was modified to include IED, it didn't cheapen the recognition of the thousands of recipients before then.
No one is suggesting handing them out for just "injuries," or negligence. That's one hell of a strawman fallacy. Let's try to keep this at least somewhat intellectually honest.
No one is suggesting handing them out for just "injuries," or negligence. That's one hell of a strawman fallacy. Let's try to keep this at least somewhat intellectually honest.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
My example was an example of how an award could be watered down. It is a fair argument even if extreme. It was used to illustrate a point. Not every argument is a fallacy just because you don't agree with it. It sounds like you hve recently taken a debatiing or philosophy class they way you toss around the fallacy argument.
Your example of the IED is inappropriate because the award criteria was officially changed by the DoD. This is an award being made outside of the current criteria. When you begin issuing awards outside the criteria you create an atmosphere (especially in the military) that some are getting the award innappropriately and therefore you can't be sure an award on someone's chest is legitimate. That doubt impacts those that received an award legitimately.
Can you explain how my position or that of the Military Order of the Purple Heart is intellectually dishonest? Your disagreement does not equal intellectual dishonesty.
Your example of the IED is inappropriate because the award criteria was officially changed by the DoD. This is an award being made outside of the current criteria. When you begin issuing awards outside the criteria you create an atmosphere (especially in the military) that some are getting the award innappropriately and therefore you can't be sure an award on someone's chest is legitimate. That doubt impacts those that received an award legitimately.
Can you explain how my position or that of the Military Order of the Purple Heart is intellectually dishonest? Your disagreement does not equal intellectual dishonesty.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Cpl Jeff N. No, your example was a classic example of a strawman. It wasn't anything close to "watering down" or even a slippery slope. You took something that was never said, then knocked it down. Again, keep it intellectually honest. As for me "recently" taking a class. No. I've been pointing out logical fallacies on RP for as long as I've been a member. Most people don't even realize they are doing them.
My example of IED is pertinent in that it's an actual change, which could be perceived as "watering down" as opposed to some hypothetical, which has never been discussed. The Article is about the PH being awarded WITHIN the criteria, but an outside authority disagreeing about it. I agree with their assessment, but the actual award authority (Congress) does have the final say.
Your position of "handing out PH's for muscle pulls" is inviting failures of basic logic into the discussion, which is intellectual dishonesty. I did not comment on MOPH's opinion regarding that, merely that I am perturbed any time someone thinks that their worth is tied to anyone else's through "The idea of "cheapening awards." One concept does not follow the other.
Congress said these were active duty wounded during a terrorist attack, and rate a PH. MOPH disagrees that it was a terrorist attack. That doesn't water down PH's for anyone else.
My example of IED is pertinent in that it's an actual change, which could be perceived as "watering down" as opposed to some hypothetical, which has never been discussed. The Article is about the PH being awarded WITHIN the criteria, but an outside authority disagreeing about it. I agree with their assessment, but the actual award authority (Congress) does have the final say.
Your position of "handing out PH's for muscle pulls" is inviting failures of basic logic into the discussion, which is intellectual dishonesty. I did not comment on MOPH's opinion regarding that, merely that I am perturbed any time someone thinks that their worth is tied to anyone else's through "The idea of "cheapening awards." One concept does not follow the other.
Congress said these were active duty wounded during a terrorist attack, and rate a PH. MOPH disagrees that it was a terrorist attack. That doesn't water down PH's for anyone else.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google