A stolen valor case was dismissed on Constitutional Grounds.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=143981&catid=339
It is to the glory of the US Military that these men and women protect the Constitution of the United States and our Freedom of Speech. It is to the annoyance of human logic that military valor may be compromised by preserving Constitutional freedoms.
God Bless our service people. God Bless our Constitution. Sometimes when God blesses both we have a predicament such as this. So I guess I must begrudgingly say, God Bless our courts too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD7a9oj-Go8
DENVER – A law that makes it illegal to lie about being a war hero is unconstitutional because it violates free speech, a federal judge ruled Friday as he dismissed a case against a Colorado man who claimed he received two military medals.
Rick Glen Strandlof claimed he was an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and Silver Star, but the military had no record he ever served. He was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have won a military medal.
U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed the case and said the law is unconstitutional, ruling the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100716/ap_on_re_us/us_military_medals_impostors
Merged.
On one level I see what the judge was saying....
Saying "I used to be a fire man, saved a bunch of people and got injured" is not against the law...unless there is fraud involved....but saying "I used to be a Marine got the silver star and purple heart" is (was) against the law....simply because you said it.
The judge feels there is no good reason for the government to restrict that sort of speech.
This has nothing to with fruad...i.e. if you claim you were a vet and get benifits from someone because you lied....that is still a crime.
QuoteOn one level I see what the judge was saying....
NO.
This is the problem: they're arguing damage, but this is a matter of right and wrong. The judge is telling us that there are no actions that are inherently wrong. In a very real sense, people are harmed - it diminishes the value of the award.
It's inherent value is the standard which is applied for its award to an individual by the government. The awardees have paid a tremendous price, especially the MOH, and this is the government's recognition of that price paid.
Freedom of Speech/Press means that we tolerate pornography, most hate speech (when not used in direct acts of intimidation), political hypocrisy, shameful acts like protesters at Military Funerals upset over toleration of gays, AND Neo-Nazis, Communist, and Jihadists.
The object is to hone the counter argument so that these people are shamed or educated. For instance, discrimination
is everyone's right (in most private circumstances) Hence, private thoughts are usually handled with public shame. Mel Gibson is getting a dose of that this week.
Not pertaining specifically to the legal realm... there has always been an extra judicial procedure: It is trial by public opinion resulting in public disgust and public ridicule. That too is protected speech. That too is a protected and private discriminatory practice. That too is a valuable societal tool. I imagine the young misguided man in this case has received a Mel Gibson sized thrashing from that tool recently. This tool is known as shunning.
I can sort of understand where they're coming from in terms of verbal or written claims about military service or awards being a free speech issue.
But, I wonder if the decision also went into whether wearing unearned military awards was a different type of crime. I would hope at least that this would remain illegal.
With respect . . .
This is not speech, this is conduct, this is disrespect, this is theft of valor. Valor is a commodity. When it is stolen, it diminishes the value of that commodity. It demands that the person be punished for that crime. When valor becomes worthless then we become less safe as a people and a country. >:(
A little research, including watching this gentleman's Youtube video with Anderson Cooper, indicates that this guy is severely mentally ill. In other circumstances, he might have claimed to be Napoleon. Generally, lying is not a crime (else the impeachments would never stop, and the Government would shut down!) and since no thing of monetary value was gained by his lies, its hard to justify criminalizing nuttiness. Not to say that a good old fashioned azzwhoppin would not be inappropriate here. No serviceman's honor is diminished by his actions, his delusions don't hurt the honor of the real-deal guys and gals who's valor is unimpeachable. ( I am just glad that all these nutjobs seem to be on the liberals side!)
Major Lord
Gunner;
While I personally agree with you - I find that I am in a position to explain but not embrace this legal opinion.
Valor is not a commodity. Commodities have an exact amount. Valor is not a virtue (although it is the display of virtues)
It is honor bestowed by a grateful nation upon those who have earned it. My gratitude is not diminished by the acts of others.
There is no limit to my gratitude to the men and women who serve this country.
To this point. I stood in the rain not long after 9-11 to shake the hands and offer salutes to many a young man headed to battle in the initial stages of the Afghanistan invasion. After the ceremony I listened to the Marines talk about what happened. Several stated - that since they had not yet gone into battle - they felt uncomfortable in receiving the appreciation. The Captain who addressed these men stated something like -
"It is for you to die for your country. BUT it is for you to also receive praise that belongs to others. Take those handshakes. Accept that praise and give it to your brothers and sister. You are a transmitter of honor. Be the loudest, proudest, best transmitter that you can be. Be a Marine."
My point here is - this example is an understood exception. Meaning the rule has areas of gray that lack definition and standing. This lack of definition and standing has been used a ruler in rule making for as long as our States have been United.
There may be grousing about this decision over a beer tonight. However, I think the ruling is correct. I say this while the ruling is not to my liking. BUT then that is the nature of our Constitution. That paradox is a thing that we as Americans need to weigh and think through because that makes us as unique a people as have ever been.
Unfortunately I have to agree with the judge on this one also. The First Amendment is not designed to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech. The key in this case is to put these losers into a situation where they actually do violate a law that is constitutional. The first one I can think of is to get them into a proper uniform wearing their medals. Especially effective if they are impersonating a Commissioned Officer. Last I checked impersonation of a NCO or Commissioned Officer of the United States is still a crime. The other way would be to get them to apply for some benefit based on the lie. Then you have them. However, the best way would be to put them on a plane to Fallujah. Once there just let the city elders know all about his lie, then turn him over to them. I am sure they could handle the situation with great aplomb. >:D
Why am I not surprised to find that this judge never served and spent the entire Vietnam war in college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Blackburn)? Legal doesn't make something right.
This is on par with flag burning.
Personally I hate it terrible.....and want to burn the burners in their own flames.....but I understand that the flag they are burning gives them the right to burn it and I will defend their right to do so.
Stealing valor is terrible....but I can see how the judge would rule the way he did.
Unless we are prepared to make ANY LIE a punishable offense then we can't make just one type of lying a punishable offense.
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on July 17, 2010, 12:45:07 AM
Why am I not surprised to find that this judge never served and spent the entire Vietnam war in college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Blackburn)? Legal doesn't make something right.
No one ever said legal and right are always the same.
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on July 17, 2010, 12:45:07 AM
Why am I not surprised to find that this judge never served and spent the entire Vietnam war in college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Blackburn)? Legal doesn't make something right.
If he was born in 1950, and would been a teenager and of normal age to be in college and then law school why would should it be held against him that he didn't serve in Vietnam?
That said. I find this ruling ridiculous.
Of course, the judge must be an idiot because he never served in the military. If only we had conscription, then we'd have real citizens. ::)
I sometimes wonder if people forget what it is to be an American (rhetorical).
Gentleman....it is basically a CON-ARTIST...some one who can steal your identity and play someone else...lets start by respecting our war heroes...if you are civilian may be you would not understand but if you have ever been in the heat of a battle and you know what you are fighting for....and you are a lucky enough to come back home in one piece ..then you know you are who you are ...lets keep those people who do know what sacrifice is all about ...and keep those CON-ARTIST away from the media and prosecute them....
The judge is not saying these guys are saints....he is only saying that the government has not sufficent cause to make claiming vet status and medals a crime....at the same time they don't make claiming to be fireman and hero a crime as well.
And for the record I've been shot at a time or two.
I'm studying psychology but no way am I qualified to make an assessment on his mental illness.
I have no doubt that is a factor with some of these types, especially if they couldn't get into the military because of it and it became some sort of obsession.
But there are other pukes who buy the medals from someplace like Medals of America or one of the other 1,000,000 places on the Internet who sell medals up to and including the Air Force Cross, Navy Cross and Army Distinguished Service Cross to almost anyone, no questions asked. They do enough research to seem somewhat credible to those with little knowledge of the military, set up a uniform with lots of bling (like the bogus Marine Sergeant Major that has been referenced on this board), and claim to have been a Navy SEAL, Army Ranger, Marine Recon, USAF fighter jock, CG rescue swimmer or whatever other elite, knowing full well that they are lying in their teeth.
I was a Boy Scout when I was a kid. I didn't make Eagle Scout, unfortunately, but I remember some 12-year-old I ran into who swore left, right and sideways that he was an Eagle Scout. Similar mentality.
Those types should be sent to Lackland, Parris Island, Cape May, Ft. Leonard Wood or Great Lakes to be "educated" by someone with a big voice, lots of stripes and lots of attitude.
I am both saddened by and agree with the judge.
He can still be prosecuted under the Federal Blanket Party Act. ;D
Is carrying LEO credentials or wearing LE uniforms with badges now legal by the same theory? :o
Quote(Sent to me) Some history on this case:
As of January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act is underway in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and is accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization.
Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny." The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."
And it just occurred to me, what does the fraudulent wearing of medals have to do with political speech. It is political and religious speech that is protected by the First Amendment, not "pure speech".
And how about laws that proscribe the wearing of uniforms of the military and their auxiliaries? Is that out the door, too?
Gunner;
Acts of Fraud: For instance - raising money in the guise of a man of valor, that will be put to personal use is still a prosecutable
offense. Pretending to be some one you are not, is not. Of course the Police will be concerned that those that have a red light and siren and use those items to detain pretty girls for a phony conversation about traffic safety will be included in this broad ban. However, that is still prosecutable too as unlawful detainment. It will be a little messy until the legal system digests this new ruling.
My little neighborhood watch group is worried about detainment of taggers for instance. I don't see this a cause for concern. But it did come up as we collected in the neighborhood with our coffee cups this morning.
I would say this is now a matter to sort out.
Seems like this judge simply advocates that lying is acceptable. Nobody has to actually earn decorations, it's OK to just claim you have them.
There are some who say that Rule 303 should be used in these cases. I'm not sure that I disagree. >:(
Quote from: Gunner C on July 17, 2010, 02:00:34 PM
He can still be prosecuted under the Federal Blanket Party Act. ;D
Is carrying LEO credentials or wearing LE uniforms with badges now legal by the same theory? :o
No...because the government can good cause to make that sort of behavior illegal.
QuoteQuote(Sent to me) Some history on this case:
As of January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act is underway in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and is accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization.
Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny." The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."
And it just occurred to me, what does the fraudulent wearing of medals have to do with political speech. It is political and religious speech that is protected by the First Amendment, not "pure speech".
And how about laws that proscribe the wearing of uniforms of the military and their auxiliaries? Is that out the door, too?
Again....wearing the uniform is still illegal because the government can show good cause to restrict that sort of "speech".
The judge just disagreed with the government's argument that the "reputation" of veterans and medal winners was not a sufficent reason to restict people's freedom of speech....even if that speech was a lie.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2010, 07:29:25 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on July 17, 2010, 02:00:34 PM
He can still be prosecuted under the Federal Blanket Party Act. ;D
Is carrying LEO credentials or wearing LE uniforms with badges now legal by the same theory? :o
No...because the government can good cause to make that sort of behavior illegal.
QuoteQuote(Sent to me) Some history on this case:
As of January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act is underway in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and is accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization.
Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny." The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."
And it just occurred to me, what does the fraudulent wearing of medals have to do with political speech. It is political and religious speech that is protected by the First Amendment, not "pure speech".
And how about laws that proscribe the wearing of uniforms of the military and their auxiliaries? Is that out the door, too?
Again....wearing the uniform is still illegal because the government can show good cause to restrict that sort of "speech".
The judge just disagreed with the government's argument that the "reputation" of veterans and medal winners was not a sufficent reason to restict people's freedom of speech....even if that speech was a lie.
- It is not speech, it is behavior, just as you correctly stated above. Wearing a policeman's uniform with badge isn't speech. It is behavior that puts a trusted symbol into question.
- The government has sufficient reason to restrict that behavior - just as in counterfeiting, the government has an overwhelming interest to insure that its symbols, currency, and awards for bravery and gallantry are not misused.
I'm afraid that the government no longer cares about duty, sacrifice, (and most of all) honor. It is the very thing that the founders hung their lives on when they signed the Declaration of Independence. We have a society that says "I can do what I want, when I want, and how I want." There are no consequences to deeds whether they be good or bad. All is the same. There are no heroes, no villains. No penalty for broken laws, no rewards for sacrifice.
As Kipling wrote:
"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When
all men are paid for existing and
no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
We are not yet a fallen nation, but we may be heading that way.
Quote from: Gunner C on July 17, 2010, 10:03:35 PM
- It is not speech, it is behavior, just as you correctly stated above. Wearing a policeman's uniform with badge isn't speech. It is behavior that puts a trusted symbol into question.
- The government has sufficient reason to restrict that behavior - just as in counterfeiting, the government has an overwhelming interest to insure that its symbols, currency, and awards for bravery and gallantry are not misused.
"Speech" has a very broad definition with the court.
So the government can show just cause that they need to protect the "symbol" that the policeman's uniform represents.
The court just does not see that the government does not have the same compelling need to protect the reputation and symbol of the status of "veteran" or "Medal winner".
The first amendment makes it the government's burden to prove to the court that they have a valid need to restrict speech (speech is a behavior BTW).
QuoteI'm afraid that the government no longer cares about duty, sacrifice, (and most of all) honor.
It is kind of hard to brush with such a broad brush...the government that passed the law, and the government that enforced the law are the same government that struck down the law.
I for one would rather have a government that protected my freedom of speech the one that protected the value of my veteran status.
QuoteIt is the very thing that the founders hung their lives on when they signed the Declaration of Independence. We have a society that says "I can do what I want, when I want, and how I want." There are no consequences to deeds whether they be good or bad. All is the same. There are no heroes, no villains. No penalty for broken laws, no rewards for sacrifice.
Again...I disagree both with your generalization and how the founding fathers may have reacted.
Again there is nothing that says there is no consequences....only that the government must show damages. Joe Blow says he was a vet or a MOH just to give himself creditability and pump up his ego....who gets hurt? It makes him a DICK but not a criminal. If Mr Blow....lies and defrauds someone one...then they can sue or he can go to jail for fraud.....not for lying about his MOH.
QuoteAs Kipling wrote:
"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
We are not yet a fallen nation, but we may be heading that way.
Again...I think you are taking things out of proportion.
One measure that might help things is that the places selling mil-spec awards, like Medals of America (and I'm not trying to jerk their chain, because they're nice people and I've got very good service on the things I've ordered from them - which aren't medals by the way!) require proof of award by competent military authority before they will sell the medal/ribbon/other bling. No paperwork (DD214, NGB22 etc) from DoD, state Military Department, or DoT/DHS for the Coast Guard, no medal.
Yes, I'm aware that paperwork can be forged and that it wouldn't solve the problem entirely...but it might be a bit of a deterrent.
What would be a bigger deterrent would be the knowledge that conduct has consequences...I'm not advocating anything, but, to give an example, I know that if I would order a reproduction Victoria Cross and go to Canada with it pinned on my jacket (which I wouldn't), and walk into a Royal Canadian Legion hall, the chances are very good I will get a well-deserved attitude reorientation very quickly.
You'd get a lot more than an "attitude adjustment". From the Canadian Veterans Page:
QuoteCan I wear my father's (brother's, relatives') medals?
Medals may only be worn by the veteran. It is a criminal offense to wear military medals that someone else has earned.
I can't get excited about this until the Supreme Court rules on it. I hope they agree the Stolen Valor Law is constitutional. If they don't, then it is time to add a new amendment to the constitution.
Quote from: Short Field on July 18, 2010, 06:46:27 PM
I can't get excited about this until the Supreme Court rules on it. I hope they agree the Stolen Valor Law is constitutional. If they don't, then it is time to add a new amendment to the constitution.
Yes, because Congress has been just so swell on respecting those other amendments.......
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on July 18, 2010, 09:35:39 PM
Quote from: Short Field on July 18, 2010, 06:46:27 PM
I can't get excited about this until the Supreme Court rules on it. I hope they agree the Stolen Valor Law is constitutional. If they don't, then it is time to add a new amendment to the constitution.
Yes, because Congress has been just so swell on respecting those other amendments.......
Major Lord
So moaning and groaning is going to pressure the judiciary to change their ruling? You might not like it, but the one thing that separates the United States from most lessor countries is that we have an Independent Judiciary. We also have a mechanism to change our laws and our Constitution when needed that does not involve firearms. I devoted my adult life to defending the system we have now (with all its warts and blemishes) so I am content to let the system work.
As a tactic, it appears that moaning and groaning is a pretty sound way of getting around that pesky Constitution that is just so irksome to all the branches of Government these days. I am sworn to the Constitution, not the "system". As to firearms and the rule of law, remember how we got that freedom from tyranny? It involved lots and lots of guns. Tom Jefferson and a few of his pals knew we needed that final gateway against a runaway Government.
As for the matter of the Congress enacting an Amendment to prohibit the wearing of the Uniform, or false claims of military service or awards, I shouldn't hold my breath; the military is not much beloved by the Congress, who see it primarily as a drain of funds that could be better utilized for social programs. The unauthorized wear of uniforms and medals is still a crime, and people get arrested for it all the time. (In fact, spies can get shot for it....) absent a profit motive, it is solely the words involved in making the claim that are "protected rights". So is flag burning, or burning a cross (on your own lawn). The outrage of the populous, and the implied threat of the loss of office to our glorious leaders, is some motivation for "The system" to shape up, or suffer the consequence wrought by the total rejection of the Social Contract. The Constitution is written in language so clear, that only a lawyer can misunderstand it!
Major Lord
They can't make an amendment to protect the flag from burners.....no way they are going to protect veteran/hero status.
As an aside.....is the Constitution not the system? I mean that is basically all that is in the the consition. So how is it possible to be sworn to one and not the other?
That's such a crock!
Since when do we have to be sensitive to the needs of others and allow absolute wannabees to fulfull their 'needs' while cheapening the honor of those who served and sacrificed?
Military Awards, now coming to a Wal-Mart near you: just look in the aisle where M & M's are sold.....
O-rex and others;
I agree with the lack of satisfaction this judgment brings. However, provided that all of our other liberties are protected by our first amendment rights (Free Speech and Free Press) I can only suggest that you use that right to speak your mind but realize it comes with
a downside. It protects the disrespectful, the hate mongers, pornographers, and the idiots too.
I am for all that free speech offers and will take the bad, with complaint - for that is also my right.
Congress will not touch this decision and neither will the Supreme Court. That said, it will be a thing that we can use the best of our words to always defend those in the military - the best of our kind, with the greatest sacrifices as we acknowledge their deeds.
For the disparate wannabee, at least he can never run for Congress, get a military commission, or likely even get a good job, with this on his record. For pointing him out and slathering him in spite is protected speech.
Quote from: O-Rex on July 19, 2010, 03:25:41 AM
Military Awards, now coming to a Wal-Mart near you: just look in the aisle where M & M's are sold.....
I don't find them at Wal-Mart but I do see them for sell at all the traveling gun shows that pass through town.
Quote from: Major Lord on July 19, 2010, 01:26:03 AM
I am sworn to the Constitution, not the "system". As to firearms and the rule of law, remember how we got that freedom from tyranny? It involved lots and lots of guns. Tom Jefferson and a few of his pals knew we needed that final gateway against a runaway Government.
What you call the "system" is spelled out in the Constitution.
Quote
Article I - The Legislative Branch Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article II - The Executive Branch Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. ....
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...
Article III - The Judicial Branch Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
You can't pick and choose what parts you want to defend.
The Supreme Court found Slavery to be A-Okay with the Constitution. The Supreme Court thought kidnapping American citizens of Japanese ancestry was just okey-dokey. The Federal Government has had no qualms about conducting medical experiments against its citizens, especially its soldiers, without their knowledge or consent. The State Authorities went door-to-door to seize private firearms, with the tacit approval of the Federal Government, during Hurricane Katrina. Its not the framework of the Constitution I have a problem with: its the unauthorized, unconstitutional, and even evil group of "systems" that have sprung from the police power of the state without regard to Constitutional authority. We have no moral or legal obligation to support an unconstitutional "system". Your (darn) right I pick and choose!
Major Lord
I don't recall who said it and I'm paraphrasing, but free speech isn't about the speech you like, it's about the speech you hate.
In other words, we can't pick and choose which speech we feel should be protected. I don't like this any more than anyone else, but I can see the court's point of view.
In serving 15 years in the military, I find what he did to be UNAMERICAN. To lie about being a war hero and thinking of all the men and women to put on a uniform and died for this country is a slap in my face. (just how I feel)
The tragedy is that a veteran/military member serves to defend the right of free speech as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and the case is dismissed on the basis of a right of free speech.
You don't advocate for veterans causes by impersonating a veteran. You can be a staunch advocate and when the question is posed if you are a veteran or not, he should have done something about it....not talking himself into a corner with lies or misrepresentations.
Quote from: flyboy1 on July 19, 2010, 03:22:48 PM
The tragedy is that a veteran/military member serves to defend the right of free speech as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and the case is dismissed on the basis of a right of free speech.
You don't advocate for veterans causes by impersonating a veteran. You can be a staunch advocate and when the question is posed if you are a veteran or not, he should have done something about it....not talking himself into a corner with lies or misrepresentations.
I Agree, Could not have said it better myself.
It's more than a little ironic that this judges' decision came down the same week that Medal of Honor recipient, Vernon Baker died. Baker's WWII heroism was well known, but because he was African-American he was denied consideration for the MOH until the late 1990's when he was finally awarded the honor by President Clinton. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/us/15baker.html
It's ironic that a man who risked his life to save his comrades in combat, was denied his due honor for over 50 years! Compare that to a man who wears a uniform and awards that he did not earn, and a judge calls that protected speech. I guess it is. However, I guess I can't help but feel that this gentlemans "free speech" has had the effect of spitting on persons like Vernon Baker.
Irony: An outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
What does Vernon Baker's death have to do with this discussion? He's still an American soldier, and a hero. This court decision does not less what he did.
Neo Nazi's spit on Jews.
Klansmen spit on blacks, Jews, Catholics, and everyone else.
Greenpeace spits on heavy industry.
Black Panters spat on whites.
Fox New spits on President Obama.
General McChrystal was dismissed rather then executed.
This is America. Freedom's don't end at the distasteful. If this guy profited from his lies, then he should be punished.
Quote from: Marshalus on July 17, 2010, 01:08:57 AM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on July 17, 2010, 12:45:07 AM
Why am I not surprised to find that this judge never served and spent the entire Vietnam war in college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Blackburn)? Legal doesn't make something right.
If he was born in 1950, and would been a teenager and of normal age to be in college and then law school why would should it be held against him that he didn't serve in Vietnam?
That said. I find this ruling ridiculous.
I did not say that I held his lack of service against him. What I said was that he went to college instead of Vietnam. A very liberal college that was (is) known for its anti-military views and then never served in the military thereafter to get another perspective on what this clown's actions mean to those of us who did serve.
As to the flag burning aspect of "free" speech - I have no problem with anyone burning the flag that they are personally wrapped in.
Ok...perhaps irony is not the correct description. You got me there. Would you accept "interesting juxtoposition?"
A real hero juxtaposed against a faux hero.
An African-American denied appropriate recognition for his actions for over 50 years (although...he never sought the MOH and did not consider himself a hero) juxtaposed against someone who wears a military uniform when he never served, and wears decorations that indicate exemplary service in combat (again, he never served a day in the military) and a court declares that he is only exercising his 1st amendment rights of free speech!
Ok. I can see the courts point. And, I believe in protecting speech, no matter how repugnant. I also believe that the second gentlemans actions were undeniably dishonorable. As I stated in my above post...I feel that his dishonorable actions spits on the memory of persons such as Vernon Baker.
Exercising free speech has its consequences. That's all I was referring too.
I can understand what the judge is saying.
If this guy was saying he was a vet and was going around doing speeches and whatever that is one item.
If this guy was going around collecting military benefits, and ordering real people around under color of authority then that's definitely a crime and needs to be prosecuted.
Quote from: DogCollar on July 19, 2010, 08:06:05 PM
Exercising free speech has its consequences. That's all I was referring too.
I don't like this slime ball or any other slime balls who impersonate military personnel. My dislike for them increases when they claim honors they never earned. But my disgust and dislike for a person and their actions does not make them criminals. Would I be upset if they accidentally fell up a couple of flights of stairs - nope.
The greatest danger to our country are the people who believe they can pick and choose the laws they want to obey.
Quote from: Short Field on July 20, 2010, 12:25:25 AMThe greatest danger to our country are the people who believe they can pick and choose the laws they want to obey.
There is also the fact that far more people are adopting the same behavior.
People wearing medals they didn't earn in no way cheapens the value of medals worn by people who earn them, in my book. The only person dishonored by this impersonation is the impersonator himself. Shame on him.
However, from a purely legal standpoint, the Stolen Valor law was too vague in my book and did not offer adequate protection for people who did not earn medals, but have legitimate reasons for wearing one (i.e. professional reenactors, during their business, and actors portraying characters who earned them).
At the same time, I may not agree with all the decisions of the Courts, but I abide by them. Equal Protection of the Law, even when I don't want it to, is the goal of the Constitution.
And another note: I'm not going to name names, but I would like to remind people that the vast majority of liberals find these impersonators shameful as well. We're all Americans, and we all pretty much want the same thing. Liberals and Conservatives just happen to have different means of achieving the common end.
God Save the United States, and the Honorable Courts.
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on July 17, 2010, 12:45:07 AM
Why am I not surprised to find that this judge never served and spent the entire Vietnam war in college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Blackburn)? Legal doesn't make something right.
No, but it does make it legal, which is all that is asked in this case.
Quote from: spacecommand on July 20, 2010, 12:00:40 AM
I can understand what the judge is saying.
If this guy was saying he was a vet and was going around doing speeches and whatever that is one item.
If this guy was going around collecting military benefits, and ordering real people around under color of authority then that's definitely a crime and needs to be prosecuted.
Our's is not to understand because we don't have the court transcripts. I would, however, like to see how the ruling was justified.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on July 20, 2010, 03:00:22 AM
People wearing medals they didn't earn in no way cheapens the value of medals worn by people who earn them, in my book. The only person dishonored by this impersonation is the impersonator himself. Shame on him.
Yes it certainly does. I am not one to pump my chest and say "look at my medals," because they represent something very personal to me -- that I measured up once or twice in my life. This is especially true since one of my Commendation Medals was for an act at a plane crash that didn't warrant an Airman's Medal. The citation said "courage and extraordinary professionalism." To know what I did to earn that medal is tarnished by someone who just puts it on.
The real tragedy is that outside the military, if you are a true veteran who just wants to get on with his or her life, all the medals and a quarter won't even buy you a cup of coffee.
Sadly, I've seen simllar fraud in our own organization, from a few genuine stolen valor cases to an o-6 wearing an unearned Spaatz award. The last one is more like stolen achievement, but at least it's still illegal somewhere.
hmmm.....
This was supplied to me:
QuoteThe question/issue of before the district court concerning 1st amendment protect is outlined on pages 3 and 4.
"Amendment significance at all. Although conceding that some falsehoods may be
protected in the context of encouraging public debate and political discourse – "speech that 'matters'" in the government's view – the government maintains that defendant's statements and other, similar "[p]etty lies . . . do not promote the uninhibited marketplace of ideas and therefore are not protected" by the First Amendment. (Amended Government's Supplemental Brief at 10 [#27], filed January 11, 2010.) Stated differently, because defendant was not conveying a political message, speaking on a matter of public concern, or expressing a viewpoint or opinion, so the argument goes, his speech does not merit constitutional protection. The only other court that appears to have addressed the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act relied on a similar rationale in rejecting a defendant's First Amendment challenge to the statute.
Another court has ruled on the SVA calling it constitutional.
(See id. App, Exh. A (Order Denying Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, United States v. Alvarez, CR 07-1035(A)-RGK).)
Regardless, of how the 9th district rules, this same question will be addressed before the 10th district United States Court of Appeals, should the case be appealed, I think it will. Then, if both courts rule that the law contained in the SVA is Constitutional, then the law will be settled, and SVA will be enforceable.
If each District court rules differently, then a split court will result, and the constitutionality of SVA must be settled in the SCOTUS.
If I had my guess, it will be declared constitutional by SCOTUS 5-4 on the grounds that it is not protected speech.
Interestingly, the Top Cop in our county, Mickey LLoyd, is being investigated for putting on his application that he was a Navy Seal, had served 18 months in VN, and had seven medals for Valor. Seems like it ain't so. We will have to see how this plays out.
Quote from: author 11Alive reader guy personOne point of order. The "top cop" in any county is the elected Sheriff, not an appointed public safety director. A sheriff can only be suspended or removed by the Governor and then following an extended procedure mandated by state law. The public safety director is a position created by the county and serves at its discretion.
This
EDIT: the above was posted on the 11Alive news story comment section. Seems valid enough.
Well, the Lt Col seems to be objective- admitted that Lloyd could just have enemies, but also said if necessary he'd bring in the big guns.
Pretty sure he thinks he's guilty, though.
Quote from: capchiro on July 23, 2010, 10:49:41 PM
Interestingly, the Top Cop in our county, Mickey LLoyd, is being investigated for putting on his application that he was a Navy Seal, had served 18 months in VN, and had seven medals for Valor. Seems like it ain't so. We will have to see how this plays out.
Posers are being actively sought out by the SEAL community. I'm part of an effort to root out fakes who are posing as Special Forces/Green Berets. In both areas, great pains are taken to publicly embarrass them to the greatest extent legally possible. There is a parallel, but more specialized that is going after people who claim to have been in MACV SOG. They're being exposed as the posers that they are. Sheriffs, such as the one above, should resign immediately if found to be lying about their service. A DD214 will document all service and is the final arbiter of the controversy.
Quote from: Gunner C on July 24, 2010, 12:05:56 AM
... I'm part of an effort to root out fakes who are posing as Special Forces/Green Berets. In both areas, great pains are taken to publicly embarrass them to the greatest extent legally possible. ...
Good on you!
I was in one of the local fast food joints with my god daughters last week when the manager made comments about "...like I learned in the 82nd Airborne." Having been a member of The Division on several occasions, I asked him when and with who? Who knows, we might know some of the same people since there is so much homesteading going on at Bragg. He gave some dates and said " I wasn't in a unit, I was in black ops."
DING DING DING BULL #### ALERT! BULL #### ALERT! DING DING DING
I very loudly called him on it and said that the 82nd didn't do black ops, it was just a light infantry unit with an interesting way of getting to work. He retreated behind the counter to his office and wouldn't come back out. I'm going back with some friends this week who also have senior and master wings to see if we can't embarrass him some more.
Well, I guess you just were not cleared for the 82nd Airborne Black-Ops programs that put sleeper agents in Fast Food management positions to be ready against the inevitable Taco-Bell wars! You know too much now though , I am afraid.....
Major Lord
Maybe the Manager is on an undercover anti-immigration mission. He'll hire illegal immigrants, call a staff meeting, and turn them over to ICE.
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on July 26, 2010, 03:57:17 PM
I very loudly called him on it and said that the 82nd didn't do black ops, it was just a light infantry unit with an interesting way of getting to work. He retreated behind the counter to his office and wouldn't come back out. I'm going back with some friends this week who also have senior and master wings to see if we can't embarrass him some more.
Gawd, I love that.
Authenticating Questions for posers:
Army Rangers: What was your class number?
Seals: BUDS class number and who was your swim team buddy?
SAS: What Color is the Boat house at Hereford?
Paramilitary CIA Contractors: What color was your badge?
PJ's: Whats your favorite Hair Gel? (okay, this one needs some refinement-help me out)
82 Airborne Covert Ops ( So whats the difference between a Gordita and a Chalupa anyway?
Seriously, maybe we could put together a list of quick and dirty screening questions for members? If a Ranger or a Seal l for instance "can't remember" their class number, they either have Alzheimer's or they are bogus. Mozambique them tout suite for their own protection ( IF they take the gun away and embed it in one of your bodily orifices, you might have to reconsider the Alzheimer diagnosis....
Major Lord
Guess what? This guy my mom knows, he was SOOO TOtALLY A Navy SEAL!!! It's AWESOME!
Nah, not really. He's a poser, but I haven't been able to personally confront him. Now I have two questions to do it with :D Mom told me about it, she thinks he's full of it, but wanted me to try my hand, since I know the military better.
I look forward to it- he's trying to pose around someone who really was Navy (another friend) and me, a hopeful.
If some "poser" claims he was in Viet Nam, ask him to state his DEROS (date expected return from overseas service). No one ever forget that one! If he claims to have been there in the "final days" of the war (the troop pullout in 1973, not the embassy fiasco a few years later), ask him what "X-day did he DEROS." ( X-1 through 61; January 27 through March 28/29 ( timezone confusion stateside)
Quote from: rmcmanus on July 29, 2010, 05:48:35 PM
If some "poser" claims he was in Viet Nam, ask him to state his DEROS (date expected return from overseas service). No one ever forget that one! If he claims to have been there in the "final days" of the war (the troop pullout in 1973, not the embassy fiasco a few years later), ask him what "X-day did he DEROS." ( X-1 through 61; January 27 through March 28/29 ( timezone confusion stateside)
Actually, it would now be DROS - Date Rotated from OverSeas. But if you ask him his Dee-Rose, he should still be able to answer.