The Fort Hood massacre, which took place in 2009, was a devastating event that claimed the lives of 13 people and injured over 30 others. Now, more than a decade later, 83 victims and family members have come together to seek $750 million in compensation for the tragedy. In this article, we’ll explore the details of the event and the ongoing legal battle for compensation, including the victims’ claims and the role of the US government.
The Fort Hood Massacre
On November 5, 2009, a US Army Major and psychiatrist, Nidal Hasan, opened fire at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, killing 13 people and injuring over 30 others. Following the attack, Hasan was sentenced to death for the murders of 13 people, and 32 additional counts of attempted murder.
The Claims of Victims and Family Members
In 2016, 83 victims and family members of those killed in the Fort Hood massacre filed a lawsuit against the US government, seeking $750 million in damages. The lawsuit claims that the government had knowledge of Hasan’s extremist views and failed to take proper action to prevent the attack.
The plaintiffs argue that they were not provided with adequate protection or warning, and that the government should be held responsible for the attack. They claim that Hasan’s actions were a result of systemic failures in the military’s mental health program and security protocols.
The Role of the US Government
The US government has denied responsibility for the Fort Hood massacre, arguing that Hasan was solely responsible for the attack. The government has also argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed based on the Feres Doctrine, which generally prevents service members from suing the government for injuries suffered while on active duty.
However, the plaintiffs argue that the Feres Doctrine should not apply to their case, as many of the victims were civilian employees working on the military base at the time of the attack.
The ongoing legal battle continues to be a source of controversy, and many are watching to see how the case will be resolved.
Conclusion
The Fort Hood massacre was a tragic event that claimed the lives of 13 people and injured many others. Now, more than a decade later, victims and family members are fighting for compensation for the tragedy. With the ongoing legal battle against the US government, it remains to be seen how this case will be resolved. Regardless of the outcome, the Fort Hood massacre serves as a stark reminder of the importance of addressing mental health issues in the military and ensuring the safety of those who serve.
Eighty-three victims and family members in the Fort Hood shooting are seeking $750 million in compensation from the United States Army, claiming that willful negligence enabled the attacker—Nidal Hasan—to carry out the attack at the military installation.
The administrative claim filed last week claims the government had precise warnings that Hasan posed a grave danger to the lives of civilians and soldiers stationed on the base.
The claim suggests that the government ignored the threat Hasan exhibited and instead—because they acquiesced to political correctness—promoted the attacker to the rank of major. The attack, which took the lives of thirteen soldiers and civilians and injured twenty-four more, has prompted fifty-four relatives of eight of the murdered soldier, to file a claim against the Army. The government claims that Hasan’s attack was inspired by the radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki—the two men exchanged as many as 20 emails.
The claimants point to the irony of this relationship—ak-Awlaki, who was killed in September by a drone strike, was perpetually targeted by the government, while Hasan was promoted. In the events leading up to the shooting, a colleague and an instructor at the base each referred to Hasan as a “ticking time bomb.”
In classroom presentations, Hasan habitually spoke of violent Islamist extremism and justified suicide bombings. This egregious display of hate and contempt towards the U.S. was ignored by Hasan’s superiors who failed to discipline and/or discharge him.
