PDA

View Full Version : Fort Hood tightens security procedures



Buckaroo
11-25-09, 02:56
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/24/fort.hood/index.html


(CNN) -- Military brass at Fort Hood, Texas, on Tuesday announced tightened security procedures and the availability of a range of mental health services in the wake of the November 5 shooting spree that killed 13 people on the post.

Steps have been taken to tighten restrictions on who gets onto the post, to position armed guards in key locations including behavioral health facilities, and to carry out random inspections of containers, said Col. Bill Hill, garrison commander.

"Relaxed entry will cease," he told post personnel in a televised town hall meeting.

All vehicles entering the post will be required to display a Department of Defense sticker or a secure pass, and some buildings will require badge access, he said.

Security at both the fort's airfields also will be tightened, with guards and patrols on site, he said.

Soldiers assigned to Fort Hood will have to register their personal firearms with the director of emergency services, he added. Fort Hood is home to some 50,000 active-duty soldiers and 18,000 of the soldiers' family members.

The suspect in the shootings, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder. Hasan, who was wounded by two civilian officers, is being treated at a hospital.

Additional charges are under consideration, Col. Jeff Harris said.

Many of the security changes have already been implemented, including additional searches at the gates and greater restrictions on who can get onto the post, said Lt. Gen. Bob Cone, Fort Hood's commanding general.

But, Cone said, had the changes been in place on November 5, they might not have been enough.

"I don't think necessarily they would have had an effect on this event," he said.

Among Fort Hood's resources for treating mental health problems -- including post-traumatic stress disorder -- are a 12-bed inpatient psychiatric ward, an outpatient clinic, a combat stress reset program, social services and substance abuse treatment, said Dr. Steve Braverman, commander of Fort Hood's Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center.

After the attack, the post's mental health staff was augmented by 75 to 80 mental health workers, though some have gone back to other assignments, he said.

Soldiers affected by the attack were screened for mental health problems afterward and will be rescreened 90 days after the event "to ensure that any previously unidentified issues are addressed," Braverman said.

A 24-hour "behavioral health hot line" is available, and a surveillance program "to identify and monitor areas of concern" will be started soon, he said.

"These findings may lead to targeted interventions for certain populations as we address these issues," Braverman said.

Plans call for construction of an 82,000-square-foot facility in which behavioral health facilities would be consolidated, Braverman said.

Soldiers in need of care can also make appointments with their primary care providers, he said.

The objective, Braverman said, is "to restore trust and confidence in Army medicine."

Despite the availability of resources, many soldiers have expressed reluctance to seek mental health care, fearing that doing so would adversely affect their careers.

"There is a perception of stigma," Cone said.

But Braverman said treatment need not hinder anyone's career.

"If you are seen in our system, while there's information in the medical records, that's not allowed to be used for any determination of security levels or future assignments," he said.

"This is really all about us regaining the trust in our community, in our soldiers, in our security, in our installation," Cone said. "That was taken from us, and what we have to do is take it back, and that is done one person at a time."

He added: "If there is someone out there who is hurting, I assure you there are resources in place and we can take care of them."

So, they admit that the changes will not make a difference but go ahead and put them in place anyway? Is there a SNAFU requirement that I am ignorant of?

Pathetic!

Buckaroo

DragonDoc
11-25-09, 04:36
I wonder how many soldiers that live off post will register their weapons. I know that I wouldn't register any fire arms in my possession if I were assigned to Fort Hood. I love the way our leaders react to incidents. They always go off the deep end. Security here at BAMC has also tightened. But noone has been asked to register any personally owned fire arms. Hearing things like this piss me off and to day has been a banner day for getting pissed off (this and the SEALs).

John_Wayne777
11-25-09, 07:11
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/24/fort.hood/index.html

So, they admit that the changes will not make a difference but go ahead and put them in place anyway? Is there a SNAFU requirement that I am ignorant of?


The basic principles of public administration require them to "Do Something!" once they make headlines. Whether or not the measures adopted under the "Do Something!" principle are actually effective at preventing the incident that propelled them into the headlines is utterly immaterial. What matters is that they have indeed "done something" in response to the incident so it looks like they have not ignored it. Simply stating the truth...that there was little base rules could have done to stop this moron and that attempting to revamp base rules is an utterly fruitless endeavor in regards to stopping a terrorist that the Army as an organization seemed completely unwilling to recognize as a potential threat.

You must understand that decisions made by many government agencies (and increasingly many private organizations) are aimed at dealing with bad PR and giving the appearance of real action so that the big spotlight of public scrutiny moves to somebody else. The measures adopted in the aftermath of a big spotlight event are not intended to actually solve anything, and everybody involved knows it. Actually solving problems requires taking a hard look at what went wrong and why, and then dealing with the core issues underlying the problem.

Whether that's reorganizing a public agency to make more efficient use of resources, removing a problematic personality responsible for mucking up decisions and/or projects, or perhaps rethinking a "Diversity!" focus that is so out of hand that Generals are on TV expressing their hope that "Diversity!" isn't a casualty of the shooting while there are soldiers still bleeding to death from gunshot wounds inflicted by a homicidal maniac that mental health professionals in the Army couldn't tell was dangerous because he happened to be a muslim....

...it's just plain unappealing for a big organization to take a really hard look at why things came out bad and how they can truly be fixed. That means rethinking things...confronting unpleasant truths about the organization's culpability in creating the environment that made the bad thing possible...making meaningful changes to the organization and how it thinks...and firing some people.

Who the hell wants to do that?

Ed L.
11-25-09, 07:33
Of all of the changes mentioned, the only thing that might have had an effect was the stationing of armed guards--as they would be in closer proximity to engage an active shooter.

QuietShootr
11-25-09, 08:42
But Braverman said treatment need not hinder anyone's career.

"If you are seen in our system, while there's information in the medical records, that's not allowed to be used for any determination of security levels or future assignments," he said.

rofl. Yeah.

ST911
11-25-09, 10:49
Eyewash.

aggopian
11-25-09, 13:01
He added: "If there is someone out there who is hurting, I assure you there are resources in place and we can take care of them."


Yes cause the next Jihadist will make sure to tell his base psychiatrist he's "hurting".:confused:

Caeser25
11-27-09, 07:04
The basic principles of public administration require them to "Do Something!" once they make headlines. Whether or not the measures adopted under the "Do Something!" principle are actually effective at preventing the incident that propelled them into the headlines is utterly immaterial. What matters is that they have indeed "done something" in response to the incident so it looks like they have not ignored it. Simply stating the truth...that there was little base rules could have done to stop this moron and that attempting to revamp base rules is an utterly fruitless endeavor in regards to stopping a terrorist that the Army as an organization seemed completely unwilling to recognize as a potential threat.

You must understand that decisions made by many government agencies (and increasingly many private organizations) are aimed at dealing with bad PR and giving the appearance of real action so that the big spotlight of public scrutiny moves to somebody else. The measures adopted in the aftermath of a big spotlight event are not intended to actually solve anything, and everybody involved knows it. Actually solving problems requires taking a hard look at what went wrong and why, and then dealing with the core issues underlying the problem.

Whether that's reorganizing a public agency to make more efficient use of resources, removing a problematic personality responsible for mucking up decisions and/or projects, or perhaps rethinking a "Diversity!" focus that is so out of hand that Generals are on TV expressing their hope that "Diversity!" isn't a casualty of the shooting while there are soldiers still bleeding to death from gunshot wounds inflicted by a homicidal maniac that mental health professionals in the Army couldn't tell was dangerous because he happened to be a muslim....

...it's just plain unappealing for a big organization to take a really hard look at why things came out bad and how they can truly be fixed. That means rethinking things...confronting unpleasant truths about the organization's culpability in creating the environment that made the bad thing possible...making meaningful changes to the organization and how it thinks...and firing some people.

Who the hell wants to do that?


That seems to be the sop with everything nowadays, "DO SOMETHING" without logically thinking about wether it will actually work.

Belmont31R
11-27-09, 15:23
Im still waiting for the announcement that muslim military members communicating with AQ operatives, making jihadi claims, and disparaging other service members in the name of muslim extremism are going to be removed from duty and/or charged with criminal activity.



But no we have to make life harder for the intended victims, and institute mass punishment type protocols. Meanwhile we keep our dumb ass PC policies and attitudes towards "minorities" in place even when it leads to the deaths of our citizens and soldiers.