This is a discussion on Stolen Valor Act is Struck Down by Supreme Court within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mlr1m Strange, I did not see anything in his post that would lead one to that conclusion. Michael Then you should reread ...
Went back and read the post to make sure. Yup nothing in it said that any of the members of your post did not ear their medals. It just said that some people were awarded medals they did not earn.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. Because it's in English, thank a vet
Interesting read. Not directly related and a few years old but still pertinent today:
Is the U.S. giving out too many medals? - World news - Brave New World - msnbc.com
And I must reiterate again: I am not talking about any one single person..I do not wish to demean folks that deserve awards...like our fathers and grandfathers before us.
Protect valor with transparency - Roanoke.com
Editorial: Protect valor with transparency
The Pentagon finally sees the wisdom of creating a public database of military honors.
Military veterans have had no greater friend in Congress than Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. He chose not to seek re-election this year, but he is still working on military issues. In response to the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning the Stolen Valor Act, Webb announced plans to introduce a new version of the law. He should find a different project for his final days in office. The Defense Department is working on a better solution.
The Stolen Valor Act made it a crime to lie about having received a military honor. The court correctly struck that down on free speech grounds, but some of the justices left room for a revised version to pass constitutional muster.
Webb believes his Military Service Integrity Act will meet the court's requirements. It would make it a crime to receive tangible benefit from lying about military service or awards. If one gets a job, receives government benefits or, in the case of a candidate, voter support based on false statements about military service, it would be illegal under Webb's proposal.
After the Supreme Court overturned the Stolen Valor Act, however, officials changed their minds and now actively are looking into creating such a database. When it happens, it will prove a valuable resource.
Americans should happily pick up the cost to protect the integrity of military honors. If the Pentagon successfully deploys its database, Webb's and similar bills will become even more irrelevant. As is so often the case, transparency is preferable to censorship.
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
^^ Politics aside, making it easier for people to validate a person's claimed military service record would resolve much of the issue of material harm being done, IMO. Those materially harmed will have simple recourse via terminating the relationship. If firms/agencies don't give a rat's eyebrow over hiring confirmed liars, then more power to 'em. The rest will know such people for who they are.
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
This has to be one of the most pathetic cases I've seen in a while regarding "posers" and the Stolen Valor ACt.
A Mr. Richard Johnson who was claiming to be a "Weapons Specialist" on Facebook with the United States Army Special Forces. He spoke multiple languages and from 2005 had enlisted and rose through the ranks so quickly he had become a Captain. Yeah, mmm, hmmmm.
His profile photo is this:
There's only one huge problem with the photo..............................It is a photo of a United States Army Ranger, 1st 75th Ranger Batt that was KIA October 1st, 2009 in Kandahar Province, Afghan. His name is Sgt Roberto Sanchez.
The Facebook link is now dead. Professionalsoldiers.com caught the clown and many messages got sent to his personal Facebook page from current and former SF Team guy's. Draw your own conclusions. Total dirtbag.
Here is his link:
U.S. Army retired
We see it on this forum all the time. If someone brings up an act of wrong doing on the part of LEO's, Unions, soldiers, politicians or person of color you are instantly accused of trying to go after the whole group. When in fact you are actually only pointing out one individual in the group. Its the lock step joining of arms by the offended group that makes them look bad to reasonable people.
After all why would members of a group object to a member of their group being arrested for spousal abuse unless they were abusers themselves. Why would a LEO object to another member of that group being investigated for illegal activities unless they themselves felt that what the member did was permissible?
You only need look at our own government to see this in action. One member of government is accused of wrong doing and his guilt or innocence is decided not by the evidence but by whether or not his group has more votes than the other group. Can you tell me how this is any different than deciding guilt by the color of ones skin?