Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...n-1961979.html

    In what could be the first step toward a massive federal lawsuit, 83 people —victims of the 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood and family members of those killed in the attack — have filed administrative claims against the U.S. government alleging willful negligence and seeking about $750 million in damages.

    The claimants include family members of eight of the 13 people killed during the rampage, the worst shooting ever on an American military installation.

    The claims allege that the federal agencies bowed to "political correctness" in ignoring warning signs regarding Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist facing 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the shooting. Witnesses have said Hasan, who was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan shortly after the shooting, shouted "Allahu Akbar" — an Arabic refrain meaning "God is greatest" and something of a war cry for Muslim terrorists — before opening fire inside Fort Hood's Soldier Readiness Processing Center, killing 12 soldiers and one civilian and wounding more than 30.

    The claims cite a February U.S. Senate report by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, which concluded that Hasan was a "ticking time bomb" and that federal agencies failed to take action against Hasan despite mounting evidence that the psychiatrist, born in Virginia to Palestinian parents, was embracing radical Islam.

    According to officials, Hasan had been in email contact with al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was recently killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen. But FBI officials ultimately dismissed the communications as legitimate research and failed to inform Hasan's superiors, the Senate report said.

    "It is a sad commentary on our avowed war on terror that the government deliberately refused to take even minimal steps to neutralize the clear threat posed by Hasan," New York attorney Neal Sher, who is representing the claimants, said in a statement. "It is a tragic irony that our government sought out and killed (Awlaki), while Hasan was promoted in the Army and put in a position to carry out his murderous terror attack."

    Fort Hood officials would not comment on the claims.

    The claims, filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, were made against the FBI and the departments of the Army, Defense and Justice. They were filed last week before the two-year anniversary of the shootings, as the two-year window on filing was set to close.

    Tort claims are the prerequisite to a lawsuit against the federal government, and federal agencies have six months to respond to the claims before a lawsuit can be initiated.

    Sher said the claimants include nine soldiers and one civilian who were injured in the shooting, 19 family members of those injured victims and 54 family members of eight people killed in the attack.

    Among the claimants is civilian police officer Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who testified in an evidentiary hearing that she was shot several times by Hasan. "I brought this claim because I strongly believe this tragedy was totally preventable and that the Army swept under the rug what they knew about Hasan," Munley said in a statement.

    But legal experts say the claims, and a potential federal lawsuit, could complicate matters for military prosecutors seeking the death penalty against Hasan in a court-martial scheduled for March.

    Retired Army Lt. Col Geoffrey Corn, a professor at the South Texas College of Law, said defense lawyers would probably seize on the fact that a number of potential witnesses believe the federal government — and particularly Hasan's chain of command — share some liability in the shooting. "It's a classic military defense; you blame the chain of command," Corn said. "All this is doing is making the issue more visible, more palpable."

    Sher declined to name the other claimants and did not release copies of the administrative claims, which he said were not public do ents. The claims were filed at Fort Meade in Maryland, and the named agencies were each served at their Washington headquarters, Sher said.

    [email protected]; 912-2942

  2. #2
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    Can they do that?

    I mean, I'm as pissed off as the next person about that guy but can members of the military sue the military when they get hurt just because their superiors did something stupid that got them hurt? Where does it end? A class action lawsuit of Iraq war vets?

  3. #3
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Can they do that?

    I mean, I'm as pissed off as the next person about that guy but can members of the military sue the military when they get hurt just because their superiors did something stupid that got them hurt? Where does it end? A class action lawsuit of Iraq war vets?
    Military can't sue the government in most cases; their families can. Maybe the soldiers suing were discharged? I wish they went into more detail.

  4. #4
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Oh, and fwiw, I believe that some vets held lawsuits due to Gulf War Syndrome...

  5. #5
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    The government has fairly expansive immunity from suit and I would think (though I've never researched the issue) that the immunity would extend to protect it against things that would qualify as military decisions. That would shield the government/military from liability for most injuries sustained by military personnel. But where there has been some kind of gross neglect or malice in a non-militaristic context, I would think that there would be a basis for affording a monetary remedy to those who have been injured by that conduct.

    I would also think that these claims will be settled for something well short of $750MM.

  6. #6
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    But where there has been some kind of gross neglect or malice in a non-militaristic context, I would think that there would be a basis for affording a monetary remedy to those who have been injured by that conduct.
    I'm not even sure about that, to be honest. If we as soldiers can't sue military doctors for malpractice, then I doubt there would be a non-militaristic context that would apply. Then again, I believe the rule against suing medical personnel is specific, so maybe that's the difference.

  7. #7
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,735
    The closest civilian analogy I can think of is if a local sheriff/police department knew they had a citizen that was borderline crazy/dangerous but hasn't committed a crime yet. The guy then robs a gas station and kills the clerk. The clerks family can't sue the police department because they knew the guy was nuts but didn't stop him from committing the crime.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •