HFrog71 (and anyone else) what are your thoughts on the discussion about awarding Purple Heart medals to service men and women who are victims of domestic terror attacks?
Here is the key point: "If somebody is hurt or killed in a terrorist attack, then they deserve a Purple Heart. It depends on who defines what an act of terrorism is.”
Historically, the Purple Heart has been awarded for wounds received in action against the enemy. The criteria has been expanded/clarified in recent years:
Executive Order 11016, dated 25 April 1962, included provisions for posthumous award of the Purple Heart.
Executive Order 12464, dated 23 February 1984, authorized award of the Purple Heart as a result of terrorist attacks or while serving as part of a peacekeeping force subsequent to 28 March 1973.
Public Law 99-145 authorized the award for wounds received as a result of "friendly fire".
If the events at Fort Hood and Little Rock can, indeed, be categorized as "terrorist attacks", then, yes, award of the PH would be appropriate. However, I am personally reluctant to call them such.
BTW, the most undeserved PH I knew of was worn by a guy I worked with in San Antonio. He got a shard (singular) of glass in his arse when a Euro-anarchists blew up a car in a parking lot outside his building on Ramstein AFB. But he acted like he was a modern day Audie Murphy...