So exactly what is the difference between all the people who got shot while at Fort Hood in Texas, and the ones who get shot overseas?

In this case there is no difference..

Now if you have a humvee rollover and get wounded overseas, the way I understand it, you can get a purple heart since you are in a war zone.

If you are in a humvee accident and wounded while in the states.. EHH very grey area... I dont think you should get one here..

Basically it needs to be case by case... Blanket yes or no does not work.

Jeremy, no you wouldn't get one for that rollover unless it was the direct result of enemy action. I've put plenty of purple heart paperwork together and that wouldn't cut it.

Purple Heart awards must be the direct result of enemy action; there's no geographical requirement.

I think the geographic restriction should be lifted, but the medal should still be restricted to injuries resulting from enemy action. That means that those injured at Ft Hood would still not be eligible. What happened at Ft. Hood was a criminal act committed by one US service member against other service members, it was not enemy action. If a foreign terrorists attacks a base in the US then those injured should be eligible. If the attack is carried out by an American citizen then the injury would not be the result of enemy action. I would not be comfortable with awarding the purple heart to soldiers injured by other Americans unless we were involved in a civil war. It would cause far too much debate over who is considered an enemy for purposes of awarding the medal if we started considering some attacks by American citizens to be enemy action while others would not be. To do this would be to intentionally set up a subjective rather than objective criteria for awarding the medal. For example, some deranged person with a gripe against the military shoots military personnel and they do not get the medal but if he has certain religious or political views they do?!?! It would just get too messy.

Jeremy the difference is that the soldier is not in a combat field and not wounded by the enemy. In your scenario if a soldier is shot in a home burglary he can and should get a purple heart.

Purple hearts are for COMBAT wounds from an enemy action

They can be awarded due to terrorist action as well as combat. In the 1980's when the attack at Ramstein AB, Germany happened (I believe it was the Red Brigade) Purple Hearts were awarded.

Not familiar with them but perhaps because it was during the Cold War and in a foreign country?

For me it would really depend on the fashion of the attack. If it was an attack directed deliberately at military forces, (even here), I would support military men and women getting the Purple Heart. If it was just some random attack (like on a subway or something), where lots of civilians were involved out of the blue, I'm not sure if I would feel the same way.

DeweyDan,

At least read the history of the Purple Heart before you make a comment.

Why does it have George Washington's picture on it?

"The original Purple Heart, designated as the Badge of Military Merit, was established by George Washington—then the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army—by order from his Newburgh, New York headquarters on August 7, 1782. The Badge of Military Merit was only awarded to three Revolutionary War soldiers and from then on as its legend grew, so did its appearance. Although never abolished, the award of the badge was not proposed again officially until after World War I"

So you see, the first Purple Hearts were issued to soldiers for battle on American soil.....

Blood is red where ever you are standing...........they will have earned the Medal.

Sure, pass 'em out like confetti...

Hi All,

The rules for the Purple Heart are you must be assigned to unit in a combat zone and wonded as a direct result of combat. Nothing there stating being "abroad". As some one else pointed out the first awards were presented 1779 I think. It is sad that we incur losses in our ranks while not actively engaged in combat but awarding or changing the rules undermines the meaning of the Purple Heart awarded to all that have received it to date.

Thanks, Chris USA Ret

Seven2Seven,

Well said.

It's sure to be a contentious debate, but I agree with you. A wounded soldier is a wounded soldier, and I don't particularly care about the nationality of the bullet.

The War on Terror is not defined by borders and includes the United States and started with an attack on the United States and continues with attacks within the United States.

If a soldier, marine or airman stopped another 9/11 by overwhelming high jackers and safely landing the plane, would he or she be eligible for a Silver Star or Medal of Honor?

Or is there really no War on Terror?

Why would you care Blake??, do you have one? If not, shut the F up.........

Here is a link to a pretty thorough wiki article about the Purple Heart. Note the section "Criteria."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart

This is a problem that is easily fixed and at the same time could also get rid of several other gray areas. Leave the Purple Heart just as it pretty much was at the end of WWII when it could also be awarded for meritorious service: Award it only for significant wounds sustained as a direct result of actual enemy fire while under competent military supervision and in a Congressionally-declared war overseas. There would be no gray areas here. The standard for the award would be that it would become an award based on a recommendation that would take into consideration the severity of the wounds (with death being the most severe), the level of gallantry involved, and a level of sacrifice that cries to be rewarded.

That would leave a huge number of people not eligible for a Purple Heart. For all the other wounds we would revive George Washington's original decoration, the Badge of Military Merit. This award would not be determined by a recommendation, but would be a "circumstantial" award that is based on a wound received that did not qualify for a Purple Heart. This would include being wounded on humanitarian missions, in major training accidents, in "undeclared" wars, and for wounds that are not really that significant. Terrorist action, embassy guards who are injured etc would all be covered here.

This would serve to elevate the Purple Heart award to a more select group of recipients. Since the medal would now be recommended, the awards panel could take its time and be selective about its awarding. It would allow those who did not meet these higher criteria and who did not have someone to advocate for them via a recommendation. It a person sustained injuries in the performance of his duties, documentation of the cause and the medical treatment would be all that was required as justification. General Officers (Bird colonels and above) could award the medal on the spot if desired.

Maybe they should make it a different shade of purple in order to give the same recognition but indicating wounded on US soil.

If the shooting at Ft Hood is a criminal matter the murder of the Texas civilian and the attempted murder of other Texas civilians should be tried in State court I can tell you we wouldn't still be waiting for a trial 2 years later. Hassan would be on deathrow awaiting execution now. The government denied our request to try those cases in civilian court.

Up to the military to decide who they want to give it to. Personally, I think that a soldier shot by a terrorist in the US deserves it before some guy that crashes his humvee at some base in Afghanistan, unless he was under fire at the time.

I think it should really be for being injured under fire. It should not matter where that fire occurred.

So let's say a terrorist attacks a service base here in the US...At any time, there are civilian workers at any base. So let's say 5 service men and 5 civilians are all killed. Would ONLY the service men receive the award? Seems to me the civilians are just as dead, only because they worked on a base...

No, and HELL NO!! This move diminishes all those who were injured overseas in time of war. If we are having our soldiers in the battle field on American soil, then its too late. The idiocy of those in power in America, makes me wonder whose best interest do they have in mind?

This is another waste of time.

@ Defend America. Sadly there is NO war on terror as perceived by many Americans. It was something made up, under King George to instill fear and control. Fact, Bush was on vacation in Aug 2001 and was briefed about the terrorists at flight schools in America and instead Bush tried to learn how to ride a bicycle for the first time. He spent about a month at his ranch, just after 6 months on the job, boo hoo, work too tough. He could have rounded up the terrorists and stopped 9-11, if the FBI in Phx knew about them as early as May and told the chain, Bush should have done something, but didnt. Just like the day of 9-11 while sitting in that Floriduh classroom listening to kids teach him how to read, Bush was told by Andy Card that we had just been attacked and what did King George do? Sat there listening, smirking almost, for about 8 minutes afterwards. Very Presidential. He didn't leave, he didn't do anything. The world knew of his movements that day prior. Why didn't they try to fly a plane towards the school? Bush knew of 9-11 prior. It was his only chance to invade Iraq!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IedVRYUNWUU

"defend against enemies foreign or domestic"

Make up a different award but leave the PH as it is.

Purple heart should be only awarded in a combat zone. This change reminds me of "everyone deserves a trophy award even if you lose".

IMO, If you are SERIOUSLY wounded in a COMBAT SITUATION as a DIRECT result of the ENEMY while doing your DUTY then you should get a purple heart, no matter where you are.

Ex. The enemy sets an IED and your transport is hit and you are wounded or a service member who is standing guard and gets wounded by the enemy in the US or elsewhere - you should get one. I would deem the 9/11 attacks at the pentagon a combat situation, just like I would the Pearl Harbor attack. A lone terrorist attack or getting injured while off duty wouldn't count for a purple heart (some other medal perhaps or maybe a silver pin). It should be up to the committee to decide if the situation warrants declaration as a combat situation.

This change could lead to MP's getting a purple heart for breaking up a bar fight in the US.

And NO civilians should not receive the purple heart. There are other medals/honors civilians can receive but not a purple heart.

If their approval ratings are in the gutter they can always do something for the vets!
Our troops deserve all the recognition they receive. I just do not like politicians using legislation such as this for their own political gain.

Nice to see that our "legislators" are working on such important matters...

Nice to see our legislators can do more than one thing at a time.

and they'll attach some other bill to it to further their own agendae. Such horse@!$%#.

Yeah, the bill will probably be 3600 pages long with the first two pages dealing with purple hearts and the remaining 3598 pages full of congressional political BS and earmarks.

Yeah, the bill will probably be 3600 pages long with the first two pages dealing with purple hearts and the remaining 3598 pages full of congressional political BS and earmarks.

Yeah, and after that they will probably hop aboard a UFO to Uranus.

Agreed! Just wait, attached to the bill will be a dozen pork barrel projects, tax increases, special exemptions for major political donors, etc. It has happened over and over again in the past so what makes anyone so naive to think that they wouldn't do it again?

BUT if anyone votes against this bill the media will report that they are voting against American soldiers and leave out the real reason why.

what?????? military personnel are a thousand times safer than civilians. Yo are a veteran of what exactly?

doug - if you are service member serving here in the US and are either killed or wounded by terrorist or any other enemy you deserve the PH..period

combat can happen any where and at anytime...

Who defines what a "terrorist" is than? Purple Heart for Combat injuries in a combat theater by enemy actions. Very simple

Seve000000, if you don't know who defines a "terrorist" may I ask what planet you have been living on since 2001?

But I can answer who decides who gets a Purple Heart- not you.

People do not seem to understand what the issue is: The Purple Heart is NOT awarded based on a recommendation like most other medals. It is supposed to be "self-awarding", that is, award is automatic if the basic criteria have been met and are in your medical records along with an evaluation statement that goes into your personnel records stating that the wound was a result of enemy fire. It only actually dates back to 1932 with and, until the end of WWII, was awarded for gallantry in action in addition to combat wounds. Washington's original Badge of Military Merit was only awarded to three Revolutionary War soldiers and not because they were wounded --- two recipients were couriers, a very dangerous job.

This legislation seeks to widen the number of people who would be automatically awarded the Purple Heart and would cover all sorts of non-combat situations. But the problem would still remain that not all "enemy action" is "combat action." A military person who is killed by a terrorist is in exactly the same position as one who is killed by a drunk driver --- a criminal, rather than military, offense.

What is troublking about this legislation is:

1) It would not fix any of the gray areas with the current award. It would just increase an already muddy mix of criteria for its award. The whole award needs to be re-worked into something more meaningful and specific.

2) More and more, since Vietnam, there has been a steady drumbeat of moves that give the military a greater and greater role in policing civilians and conducting "domestic" operations --- from guarding borders to airport security. Awarding Purple Hearts for "terrorist" attacks is a back door way of saying that the US military should conduct active military operations inside this country. Ever since the first year of the GW Bush administration, more and more bills have been passed that a) take control of the National Guard away from the individual states (in violation of the Constitution and over 200 years of tradition), to allow the military a law enforcement role, to make it a border patrol, fighting forest fires, etc. The military now has a role in “(n)uclear detonation, biological attack, biological disease outbreak/pandemic flu, the plague, chemical attack-blister agent, chemical attack-toxic industrial chemicals, chemical attack-nerve agent, chemical attack-chlorine tank explosion, major hurricane, major earthquake, radiological attack – radiological dispersal device, explosives attack – bombing using improvised explosive device, biological attack-food contamination, biological attack – foreign animal disease and cyber attack,” or “any other hazards identified in a national planning scenario developed by the Homeland Security Council.” The Founding Fathers were very scared of a standing military that could be used domestically. To prevent this, they specifically allowed the states to maintain standing militias --- not to do anything particular for the states, but to offset a strong federal government that could otherwise ignore the states. The Founding Fathers envivioned absolutely no role in political ort domestic life for the military. Period.

And BTW --- the Purple Heart was pretty much completely invented by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. The first Purple Heart went to the most deserving military man that MacArthur could thin of ---- himself!

I would say screaming something about death to infidels as you shoot up a bunch of office workers on a military base should qualify as a terrorist. Notice He didn't go after combat soldiers he said he was against but targeted people leaving the main administration building at Ft Hood. Such a "brave" act.

civilians used to be but only to a select few.. such as red cross, war corisponants. 97' the PH foundation actually had congress change the rule to where only military personnel would recive the award and civilians that were normaly awarded the PH would instead recieve the Defense of freedom medal which was actually created after the 9/11 attack

I would restrict it to military personel. But I see no difference between being attacked by a terrorist in Texas or by one in Iraq. You are just as wounded or just as dead. People the war has come home.

I would rather them make a seperate award for that and leave the Purple Heart alone.

The Purple Heart is based on an award created by Gen George Washington and the first three to receive it were veterans of our War for Independence. If a military person is wounded in a battle with an enemy of the United States, they deserve the honor. Lets not get petty with those who serve and sacrifice for our country !

The Ft. Hood shooting was a military member should they get purple hearts? If it is a foreign enemy fine but not random shootings or acts of crime.

How about to the Border Patrol that are not allowed to use weapons against armed invaders?

No medals for being a idiot!

Hell yah One Thumb Rustyboy! I also want to try some of that meaty chow slop you served up. Go get your medal and request that your thumb is bronzed in turned into a medal of Clownness.

Rusty,

only if you are actively under enemy fire at the time. A lot of people here seem to be forgetting that the first question asked when deciding whether or not to award a purple heart is were you actively under enemy fire at the time of the injury, not just before, or just after, but AT THE TIME.

This one is kind of a mixed bag for me too. I think in the end, if you are wounded by enemy fire, where you are standing is a non- issue.

Fighting terrorists in our nation is combat..if its not what do you call it..domestic quarrel?

Grandfather, you are closer to what the problem with this bill is than I think you realize.

I am a vet, and I participated in "couner-terrorism" missions both in the USA and in Iraq. Fortunately, I was not wounded in any capacity. However, were I to have been wounded during the US based missions I would not have wanted nor expected a Purple Heart. Overseas = different issue. It is not only to the honor the tradition of the medal itself, but to respect past recipients.

The issue, as I see it, is that if you suddenly start awarding "combat" medals to stateside personnel do they then qualify for the hazard pay that is normally given for assignment to a combat zone. Do you, for example, declare Ft. Hood, TX to be a combat tour and increase the pay of every soldier on base by $150 a month?

Hell, forget about the pay issue (deficit, etc.). Do you really want the possibility that large chunks of the US become declared combat environments?

Do you, for example, declare Ft. Hood, TX to be a combat tour and increase the pay of every soldier on base by $150 a month?

Of course not, but if you are attacked by a declared enemy ... that is combat. I would think that Congress (or the C-in-C) could declare such an attack as "combat" on an individual basis in order to award the medal.

Hell, forget about the pay issue (deficit, etc.). Do you really want the possibility that large chunks of the US become declared combat environments?

Unfortunately, and probably slightly off topic, I think large portions of the US probably SHOULD be declared combat environments ... you know, the ones where you have to go through metal detectors and pat downs just to attend school.

I am a Viet Nam war veteran with this perspective, never compromise how medals are awarded. It would be disgraceful to award purple hearts to veterans in a non-combative environment especially here in America. There are too many war veterans without limbs etc. who have paid the price for our freedom.

First, thank you for your service.

However, the modern battlefield is changing. Just as your war, Vietnam, was totally different from WWII, so is the war on terrorism different from what you experienced. The battlefield HAS been brought to the U.S.

My feeling is that, if there is a terrorism attack and military personnel are killed or injured in defense of our country, then Congress (or the C in C) should have the authority to declare it combat and thus award the medal.

You can fake some mental issues..but can't fake a bullet hole in you that's proven you receive it in combat.