Stolen Valor Act ruled Unconstitutional

[Mongo]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Interesting analogy. When you met the other 10 individuals on the forum, did you present your DD-214? Was it, in fact, a true copy? LOL. Could someone who had spent a greater length of time on the forum not have just had more opportunities to hone their skills as a "B.S. artist"?

However, in principal, I think we totally agree. We just have a slightly different viewpoint as to where the "STEELING" stops and the "FEEL GOOD" starts.

 

[Luigi59]

Pam Sterner, who as a college student wrote a policy analysis that became the basis of Salazar's bill, said the issue isn't free speech but misrepresentation. Sterner, a former Coloradan who now lives in Virginia, said authentic medal winners' credibility suffers when impostors are exposed because the public becomes suspicious of even true stories of heroism.

Aren't authentic Everest climbers and authentic MLB All-Stars also suffering when imposters are exposed because the public becomes suspicious of their true achievements?

If so, we would need a Stolen MLB All-Stars Act and Stolen Everest Climbers Act as well.

What about when I tell the girl I'm trying to impress that I'm a doctor, or I'm a millionaire, but I really live with my mom in a trailer park. Doctors and millionaires might want a law to protect them as well.

And so on.

 

[Mongo]

Aren't authentic Everest climbers and authentic MLB All-Stars also suffering when imposters are exposed because the public becomes suspicious of their true achievements?

If so, we would need a Stolen MLB All-Stars Act and Stolen Everest Climbers Act as well.

What about when I tell the girl I'm trying to impress that I'm a doctor, or I'm a millionaire, but I really live with my mom in a trailer park. Doctors and millionaires might want a law to protect them as well.

And so on.

Yep, exactly. And was the subject of an earlier question I was asking myself when attempting to bow out of this discussion: "I guess my first question would be whether or not we, as a nation, can afford the valor of a serviceman to a greater level than a backup catcher or mountain climber."

This is probably the crux of the entire issue and will perhaps be a discussion of the US Supreme Court. I would like to think so. Christcorp would like to think not. Not sure about you.

 

[Christcorp]

"I guess my first question would be whether or not we, as a nation, can afford the valor of a serviceman to a greater level than a backup catcher or mountain climber."

That is 100% pure emotions speaking; and THAT is the problem. To understand, and more importantly, appreciate our laws, rights, and the constitution that it all rests on, you have to be able to view the perspective and actions of others, without judgement or emotion. Until you can do that, you will always believe that your beliefs, rights, opinions, etc... are better than someone else's.

When I took my oath of service, I did not decide who's freedom of speech or religion I agreed with and would defend. For some reason, you believe that our country; meaning MAN; gave us our rights. Man did NOT give them to us, and man can not take them away. Then again, you probably believe the bill of rights is some document that lists our rights. It isn't. Matter of fact, it is just the opposite. Our nation believes in 3 rights. The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We believe these rights to come from a higher being than man.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our constitution and the bill of rights embedded in it, is not a list of "RIGHTS" for the citizens. It's a list of "LIMITATIONS" that the "GOVERNMENT" is not allowed to infringe upon the citizens. Infringement by the government in the 1st 10 amendments; and later the following amendments; was seen as a way of an individual NOT being allowed to enjoy their unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.

So what if a person wants to walk around town and claim to be a "War Hero". If that really truly bothers you, then you need to take some "Self Esteem" classes. No one can make you feel less of yourself, or of anyone else, unless you allow them to. If you think less of a loved one who served and sacrificed for their country, because some impostor is pretending to be an "Equal" to your loved one; then you're the one with the problem. "But my father served honorably and people like these impostors tarnish his memory....." BullShiite!!! I didn't buy the car I have because I cared what you or anyone else thought. I didn't buy the house I have, in the neighborhood it's in, because I was trying to impress anyone. I don't wear military related Baseball caps every day to impress anyone. And if someone doesn't like my air force or POW/MIA hat that I wear, who gives a shiite? I wear it so people can be reminded. But if you care so much that someone is walking around claiming to be a war hero; and you can't verify it indisputably; then you're the one with the problem. And if you're the one who WANTS more government INVOLVEMENT in your life, because your feelings have been hurt, then you're the insecure person who needs help.

We need LESS government. We need less government involvement in our lives. 80% of the laws on the book should be abolished, and the subject matter turned back over to the individual states where it belongs. Social services, education, taxes, employment, etc... To support more government involvement goes totally against the constitution and the OATH that we swore to. I am not insensitive to the real war heros. I am not insensitive to their family's memories of them. But if you allow an impostor to alter in any way, the memories and feelings you have for any or all real war heroes, then you have very LITTLE respect for those veterans. And if you're willing to alter in any way at all the citizen's 1st amendment right, just to make sure that you're feelings aren't hurt, then I seriously doubt that you have any true understanding of our constitution. And thereby, gave a well meaning oath to something that you did not fully understand. And this is not uncommon. There are plenty of military members who have given oath to defend the constitution; yet they've never actually read it or the meaning behind it. I suggest you do seriously study it.

A person's right to free speech is equal, whether they are telling the truth or a lie. Only when they directly affect another individual, can the lie be called into question. Yelling fire when there isn't one, affects the individual. "Identity Theft" affects the individual. These should all be punishable acts. Claiming to be a war hero, does NOT affect the individual. As a group, people might FEEL like they've been affected; but they haven't. That's just their emotions talking. Anyway, I think I've had enough of this subject. You all continue. In the immortal words of Andrew Wilkow; "We're Right! They're Wrong! End of Story. Have fun y'all.

 

[Mongo]

CC, I think you are totally confused. Sometimes, in order to understand something, it helps to understand where it is coming from, it's history, what the people were thinking who started it. This is all I was doing. Somehow, you have completely construed this as percieved shortcomings on my part. Actually, if you were in the majors, your batting average after that last post would have you back down in 'A' ball.

If you desire to continue this, please read my posts again. We basically agree. Like I posted before, our only differences are where the stealing stops and the feel good begins. We both agree that if it brings gain to another, it should be punished. We jujst disagree on what encompasses gain. We agree in principal.

Actually, the precedence has already been set long ago.
The orders of our very first Commander In Chief in 1782 when he authorized the first medal for valor:

"Before this favor can be conferred on any man, the particular fact or facts on
which it is to be grounded must be set forth to the commander-in-chief.

The name and regiment of the person with the action so certified are to be
entered in the Book of Merit, which will be kept at the orderly office.

Gallant men who are thus designated will, on all occasions, be treated with
particular confidence and consideration.

"Men who have merited this last distinction (shall be) suffered to pass all guards
and sentinels which officers are permitted to do.

Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the
badges of them, they shall be severely punished.

This order is also to have retrospect to the earliest days of the war, and (is) to be
considered as a permanent one.

Thus the precedent for military awards was established including verification of the
action, maintenance of a Roll of Honor, that recipients of military awards should be accorded
both unique places of honor among their peers and special privileges. General Washington was
also cognizant that there would be some who even way back then, might be desirous of these special advantages, might wear
awards they did not actually earn, and from the very outset, established "severe punishment" for
these imposters who would steal the valor of their comrades. It has only been since the end of the Vietnam conflict
that George Washington's edict has been necessary.

 

[Luigi59]

Yep, exactly. And was the subject of an earlier question I was asking myself when attempting to bow out of this discussion: "I guess my first question would be whether or not we, as a nation, can afford the valor of a serviceman to a greater level than a backup catcher or mountain climber."

This is probably the crux of the entire issue and will perhaps be a discussion of the US Supreme Court. I would like to think so. Christcorp would like to think not. Not sure about you.

I believe you are right, that it will be brought before the SCOTUS, and I believe you are also right about the fundamental underlying question.

They would have to decide that there are different classes of free speech--one class for lying about military service, another class for lying about everything esle-- if they choose to uphold the SVA.

 

[raimius]

Unpopular truths need to be protected, as well as ideas which may not be conclusively proven or disproven. I'm not sure straight up lies deserve the same protection.

This is a tough one, especially considering the narrow scope of the law in question. It would seem an "all-or-nothing" ruling on lies being protected can only fairly go toward "yes, they are protected" in this case. I don't think blatant lies were intended to be protected, as they serve no valuable use to civil discourse or spreading knowledge, then again, I haven't read all of the views of those who wrote about free speech or who codified it.

 

[Christcorp]

Unpopular truths need to be protected, as well as ideas which may not be conclusively proven or disproven. I'm not sure straight up lies deserve the same protection.

This is a tough one, especially considering the narrow scope of the law in question. It would seem an "all-or-nothing" ruling on lies being protected can only fairly go toward "yes, they are protected" in this case. I don't think blatant lies were intended to be protected, as they serve no valuable use to civil discourse or spreading knowledge, then again, I haven't read all of the views of those who wrote about free speech or who codified it.

Ramius; you are partially correct. In the law, actions alone do not constitute wrong/right. Most laws rely on "INTENT". In post-active accounts, the law relies on "MOTIVE". In other words; if a person simply lied publicly that they were a war hero, climbed mt everest, won a gold medal, etc... That in itself is simply speech. It's handled separately. It is in fact protected by the 1st amendment. And that is what we need to ensure DOES NOT CHANGE!!! Ever!!! But in law, the question becomes: "What was the Intent"??? In other words, you can not prosecute anyone for lying. But, if their "INTENTIONS" for lying was to gain from another person, then the crime would be "Fraud". The crime isn't Lying. it's "Fraud". That's why when a person lies in a courtroom, they are not charged with LYING. They are charged with Perjury.

In law, you have to separate the action, with the intent. If the intent is not illegal, then the act is not illegal. EXTREME EXAMPLE: "Killing another human being". (DO NOT USE SEMANTICS. USE THE WORD KILL). If you KILL another human being, is that AGAINST THE LAW??? That depends on the intent, and later motive. If the other person came at you with a knife, and was screaming at you to die, then your "Intent" was self defense. Therefor, KILLING another human being, was NOT ILLEGAL. If the other person had something that you wanted, and you stabbed them to get the item, then Killing the other human being WAS ILLEGAL. And of course, there is the "In between" such as walking in to your house, home early from work, and finding your wife in bed with another man. You might simply SNAP and kill the other person, and possibly your wife. The the "Intent" and "Motive" becomes cloudy because of your state of mind and emotions.

Anyway; not the greatest example, but I think it makes my point. Rarely if ever is an "ACT" alone something that is punishable, prohibited, or illegal. The act is dependent on the "Intent" and "Motive". So, lying is simply an "Act". It is a freedom of speech. The intent might simply be to increase one's self esteem by rationalizing to themselves that they have accomplished something significant with their life. People embellish the truth all the time. You can not say that there are degrees of Lying. There isn't. It's like being pregnant; you ARE, or..... you're NOT. There is no in between. HOWEVER; there are varying degrees of "INTENT". That same person lying, might be doing it to fraudulently gain financially. The INTENT is illegal. Anyway, that's why lawyers and especially constitutional lawyers are paid so much. I keep telling my wife how screwed up the judicial system is, and she keeps smiling and reminding me that without it, the majority would always control the minority, even if they are wrong. And that is true.

 

[Mongo]

Unpopular truths need to be protected, as well as ideas which may not be conclusively proven or disproven. I'm not sure straight up lies deserve the same protection.

This is a tough one, especially considering the narrow scope of the law in question. It would seem an "all-or-nothing" ruling on lies being protected can only fairly go toward "yes, they are protected" in this case. I don't think blatant lies were intended to be protected, as they serve no valuable use to civil discourse or spreading knowledge, then again, I haven't read all of the views of those who wrote about free speech or who codified it.

Lets go back and look at the law, it’s overturning, and the possible rebuttals during the upcoming appeals process. Whether or not lying is protected under the Constitution has been the subject of much speculation on this forum. Let’s forget that. Completely ignore the lying. Go back and look at the unofficial title of the law itself. STOLEN Valor, not Untruthful Valor, not Lying Valor, but STOLEN Valor. Surely, no one can argue that stealing is not a crime, no matter how much Christcorp attempts to confuse the issue with intent. Now, the question becomes whether or not when someone claims to be something that they are not, are they, in fact, stealing something from someone to whom it rightfully belongs. By gaining something that is not theirs, are they taking it away from someone to whom it rightfully belonged. Is valor indeed a zero-sum item that exists only in a finite amount? It is a difficult argument to win but perhaps it is valid.

Let’s go back and look at the issue. Around one hundred live MOH recipients. However, there is one individual alone out in California who has exposed over 300 fakes. Also, if someone tells you he is a POW, the odds are more than even, almost 2:1, that he is lying. And that is only known fakes. These are the only two for whom anyone who is internet savvy can, themselves, within minutes, only knowing the individuals name, verify easily. What about Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, Purple Hearts, DSCs, Navy and AF Crosses, etc where layman proof is impossible? Are there more of these since the imposter knows he is safe or are there less because the Bronze Star is not as prestigious as the MOH? Who knows. Who cares. Even if it is the same, IT IS AN EPIDEMIC. First off, it requires a certain type of individual to earn a medal for valor, usually in one degree or another, someone willing to lay down his life for his comrades. A very special person. One of the items discussed in the book is that the vast majority of the fakes have criminal and/or serious psychological issues. This, combined with the fact that the fakes, by definition, are much more apt to bring attention to themselves and thusly become the benchmark, the standard, for whom the real heroes are judged. What will America think of our military if this is the type of individual which they see as succeeding in it? Not to mention what it does to the views it has of the individuals themselves. Do they also detract from the honor and respect that the true recipients deserve? I say they do.

I was involved heavily in repatriating the Vietnam POWs when they returned. To a person, they all deserved the MOH. Several years ago, I became aware of a crying, whining, sniveling, SOB who claimed to be a Vietnam POW. He had worked himself into leadership positions at various Verterans organizations and actually gave motivational speeches to the local NHL team. His ‘motiational’ speeches, with overloads of whining, crying, and sniveling, were actually featured on the team’s website. It was this whining, crying, and sniveling attitude, so unlike any real POW which I had ever known, that caused me to suspect him. It took me 15 minutes on the internet to expose him (and even less time for the team to remove his video from their website). Did he damage the reputation of every POW who had honorably served? I say he did. Was it just by existing and having an implied ex-POW sign around his neck, was it when he made the speeches, or was it only when he received free vacations specifically because he claimed to be a POW. I say it was all of the above.

Libel and slander are laws formed to protect ones reputation. I would submit that these offenses to an entire group of people are just as serious and deserve their own law. Perhaps look at it as a class action libel/slander suit against an entire group of imposters.

 

[Luigi59]

Lets go back and look at the law, it’s overturning, and the possible rebuttals during the upcoming appeals process. Whether or not lying is protected under the Constitution has been the subject of much speculation on this forum. Let’s forget that. Completely ignore the lying. Go back and look at the unofficial title of the law itself. STOLEN Valor, not Untruthful Valor, not Lying Valor, but STOLEN Valor. Surely, no one can argue that stealing is not a crime, no matter how much Christcorp attempts to confuse the issue with intent. Now, the question becomes whether or not when someone claims to be something that they are not, are they, in fact, stealing something from someone to whom it rightfully belongs. By gaining something that is not theirs, are they taking it away from someone to whom it rightfully belonged. Is valor indeed a zero-sum item that exists only in a finite amount? It is a difficult argument to win but perhaps it is valid.

It would place the court (or some other individual) in the position of defining "valor" and determining if it was indeed "stolen."

I'm not sure it could be quantified - do the true recipients of the medal still have "valor?" If so, how could it have been stolen?

Who is recognizing or not recognizing their valor? i.e. - who has been harmed - the medal recipient or the people who honor the medal recipients?

The law as written was/is way too broad, way to vague - it need to be re-written.

Simply claiming the medal/award (verbally, in writing, or display of the medals) without any attempt to defraud, is free speech and needs to be removed from any subsequent version of the SVA. Exposure, ridicule, and public rebuke is the appropriate penalty.

Using the award/medal to gain financially should be punished as fraud, with perhaps an additional enhanced penalty for fraud by using unauthorized military awards/decorations/medals.

 

[Mongo]

Mongo-
I have read and re-read what you are saying and while I can see your rational, I am not sure I can justify it in my mind. That is simply because I cannot see how they diminish the heroism in question nor can I see how their act affects true heroes who have been awarded Medals of Valor. In other words, I just don’t know the answer, as I am not a legal scholar. Again, I also have to qualify my position simply because I have been around true heroes often enough to recognize the difference.

Now I do want to add significance to your comments about both POW’s and CMOH recipients from the Vietnam War, I can attest to your statement that former POW’s are rare indeed. To add credibility to that statement I can say that I have met (4) four individuals who were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor during the Vietnam war.
My Father knew and introduced me to these individuals at various times.

Lt. Michael Thornton, USN (Ret)
Lt. Thomas Norris, USN (Ret)
VADM James Stockdale, USN (Ret)

I know and served with:
M/SGT Richard Pittman, USMC (Ret)
Col. Wesley Fox, USMC (Ret)

I have only ever met one Former POW from the Vietnam War- CDR. Paul Galanti, USN (Ret).

First off, if you met Adm Stockdale, you have met two former POWs from Vietnam. If you have met either, you have met the model. They are all like that. Or at least those I know. I still have the Letter of Recommendation CDR Galanti wrote for me while I was searching for my first job in Richmond after retiring. He truly has the keys to the city.

How does a fake diminish the real? I am also having trouble getting a handle on this. But I think it is the only way that the law will remain. And I hope it remains. The only way that makes sense to me is to agree with what Luigi is saying, one fake is probably only fooling those who are attempting to honor him. What about five? ten? One hundred? When the fakes far outnumber the real? Then the fake becomes the standard. You and I have sufficient BS detectors to recognize it. We can look at a whining, crying fake and readily see that he is no Paul Galanti. The majority of our population cannot. When the distinguished old WWII vet proudly slips his minature Bronze Star onto his suit lapel and heads for his grandson's wedding reception only to have everyone dive for cover leaving him embarrasingly alone. Why? The only Bronze Star "recepients' that his grandson's friends have ever been exposed to have been on a bar stool Friday night and they only love to tell long boring embellished 'war stories' which no one believes. When the fake becomes the standard, the true recepients have lost their identity. And apparently, according to the book, it is an epidemic. The fakes far outnumber the real. It needs to be nipped in the bud. You and I think in terms of the military community. We need to consider the population out there where less than 10% have ever really been exposed to anything military. They don't know any better.

 

[Maximus]

What does being a Vietnam Veteran have to do with it? Why is it that some Vietnam Veterans feel like they have a superiority complex…. Is it that Vietnam was a worse or a more superior War than those before or after?

I understand the intent of this bill and I personally disagree with it. I see no purpose to it outside of the fact that it gives a few people a feel good feeling and allowed a few Representatives and Senators to say they are Vet Friendly.

Thinking about my short life, relatively speaking, I have met pretenders who claimed to have done this or that in WW2. Personally I say that until we get rid of war, we will always have war fakers and pretend heroes.

I personally do not feel that they are taking away anything from REAL Heroes! If anything they bring attention and appreciation to the Real heroes in this world we live in. many of whom truly do not think of themselves as a Hero and very rarely talk about their experience.

Now I will say this. I am NO HERO. But I know many who are- Men and Woman from as far back as WW2 all the way through today’s wars –I have even had the privilege to meet our last surviving WW1 Veteran. Mr. Buckles is an interesting man and while we honor him for his service in WW1, it is his survival during WW2 that rings as a true hero in my mind. I will always honor them for their service and never forget what they have done.

Now as far as VA Benefits….we have laws to deal with those people too!

I beg to differ TPG, post your ribbon rack avatar again so that some of the new folks here can see that you are actually a hero, you are definitely a hero to me.

 

[Maximus]

I'm sure most here know that it's already a crime to make (counterfeit) or wear, a MoH unless you were awarded one.

 

[Mongo]

I'm sure most here know that it's already a crime to make (counterfeit) or wear, a MoH unless you were awarded one.

Not any more. The MOH laws were incorporated into the new Stolen Valor Law which has just been declared unconstitutional.

 

[flieger83]

I did not think about that and you know, I have a problem with. I have nothing but RESPECT for that Medal and I feel that the ACTS that the CMOH represents deserves that RESPECT. Anyone who has been awarded the CMOH has done something unthinkable and/or indescribable in my mind.

Actually I think you need to check the laws again.

The MoH had, I thought, a special status re: there was a federal law that made wearing the medal/ribbon a criminal offense if you were not the recipient, the medal can not be sold, etc. It was my understanding (perhaps incorrectly) that this law/legislation was seperate from the Stolen Valor Act.

This started back in the late 1980's, early 1990's when Lord Industries made/sold/gave away about 350 actual medals (USA, USN, USAF) to folks, sales reps, etc. I saw all three here in an antique store on sale for $350 each back around 1993...was stunned by that.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Mongo]

Here is the new revised law which has just been declared by a Federal Judge to be unconstutitional. As you can see, it not only covers the CMOH, but also similiar but lesser punishments for the DSC, Navy and AF Cross, Silver Star, and Purple Heart:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 704

(a) In General. - Whoever knowingly wears, purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt, manufactures, or sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters or exchanges for anything of value any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. (italics added)

(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Medals. - Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the member of such forces, or the ribbon button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof shall be fined under this title for imprisoned not more than six months, or both,

(c) Congressional Medal of Honor. -

(1) In general. - If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) or (b) is a Congressional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(2) Definitions. -

(A) As used in subsection (a) with respect to a Congressional Medal of Honor, “sells” includes trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value.

(B) As used in this subsection, “Congressional Medal of Honor” means -

(i) a medal of honor awarded under section 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 10 or section 491 of title 14;

(ii) a duplicate medal of honor issued under section 3754, 6256, or 8754 of title 10 or section 504 of title 14; or

(iii) a replacement of a medal of honor provided under section 3747, 6253, or 8747 of title 10 or section 501 of title 14.

(d) Other Medals -If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) or (b) is a Distinguished Service Cross awarded under Section 3742 of Title 10, an Air Force Cross awarded under Section 8742 of Title 10, a Navy Cross awarded under section 6242 of Title 10, a Silver Star awarded under Section3746, 6244, or 8746 of Title 10, or a Purple Heart awarded under Section 1129 of Title 10, or any replacement or duplicate medal as authorized by statute, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be find under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.

 

[flieger83]

Here is the new revised law which has just been declared by a Federal Judge to be unconstutitional. As you can see, it not only covers the CMOH, but also similiar but lesser punishments for the DSC, Navy and AF Cross, Silver Star, and Purple Heart:

Hmm...very interesting.

I say that because it has NEVER been illegal to buy/sell/trade medals/decorations in the USA. It's been going on since I was a kid because folks collect them. I actually have a display made that I take to JrROTC units, CAP, etc., when I give talks about the military, valor of certain individuals, etc. I have EVERY decoration a member of the armed forces of the USA can receive except the MoH.

Very interesting indeed. I'm thinking that this was a law that was being applied "selectively" and arbitrarily...maybe that's part of its problem.

Thanks for posting this!

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Mongo]

But I also don't care that I don't have those decorations. Matter of fact, while I'm extremely proud of my 21 years of service, I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about any of my medals or ribbons. Why? Because those decorations don't determine who I am. And anyone who has to measure their worth by mentioning or displaying their decorations, has some self esteem problems.

There are several factors in play here which might cause such a rationalization. First, in a service where it is almost impossible for non-aircrew to achieve those medals covered under this law or the “V” which distinguishes a few others and makes them special, this attitude probably is very common. Why wish for something impossible?

Secondly, it is a generational thing. Those coming into the military shortly after Vietnam would spend an entire career without having an opportunity to place themselves in a situation where the earning of any of these special medals was possible. Again, why wish for something impossible?

So, why are these medals important to those in the military and what do they signify? A while back some candidate for WP on this forum was severely roasted for making the comment that he hoped the war in Iraq would last long enough for him to participate. He questioned his ability stand in front of his troops, leading them into combat, if he had never been there himself. For those in the military whose job it is to go face to face with the enemy, it is important to know that they can, in fact, do it. There is no war game that can test this. That little “V” on a Bronze Star is an indication that one, in fact, has at least passed some part of that test. For the individual himself, it may mean little or nothing. He knows he was just doing his job. It is not the medal itself that causes him to know he can perform in real combat, it is the actual experience itself. However, for the entire generation of young recruits in peacetime who follow him, who he is expected to lead, that simple “V” will give them perhaps only a small amount, but confidence nonetheless, that he can, indeed, when and if the situation ever arises, lead them in combat. This simple signification itself makes it worth its weight in gold.

So yes, for 20 years I wore my "V"s proudly and still occassionally a miniture on my lapel. And even more proud of my "badge" of which the minature I continue to wear much more often. This badge, is without a doubt, the single most significant identifier of my entire life. Why should I not be proud to display it. And I am also relatively certain that I don't have any self esteem problems. Actually it is probably just the opposite.

 

[flieger83]

Well...sorta related to our discussion here...

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/25/20100725fake-marine-poser-convicted.html

A fine result!

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Mongo]

Well...sorta related to our discussion here...

"Sorta"?? I think this is the entire discussion in a nutshell. Should it require the fraud and the security issues to get him convicted, as will happen if the law is overturned, or is the former Marine who exposed him, Dan Ryan, correct:

I've been in the company of men who have unhesitatingly given their all; in the face of sheer peril just got up and did the deal," Ryan said. "Having seen that and having been in the company of men like that, if you claim to even be close to that, you better be right."

I would like to think that we all agree that while the law itself may be flawed that there is definitely a need for it. The article itself addresses the proliferation of such fakes in the recent past.