M14 Forum

GARRARD · February 19th, 2012, 09:00 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Xavier Alvarez stood up at a public meeting and called himself a wounded war veteran who had received the top military award, the Medal of Honor. He was lying about his medal, his wounds and his military service, but he wasn't the first man to invent war exploits.

He was, however, one of the first people prosecuted under a 2006 federal law aimed at curbing false claims of military valor.

Concerns that the law improperly limits speech and turns people into criminals for things they say, rather than do, are at the heart of the Supreme Court's review of his case and the Stolen Valor Act.

Veterans groups have come to the aid of the Obama administration, which calls the law a narrowly crafted effort to protect the system of military awards that was established during the Revolutionary War by Gen. George Washington. The high court will hear the case Wednesday, which is Washington's 280th birthday.

"They're committing fraud. They're impersonating somebody else. They take on attributes of somebody else, attributes of a hero who served honorably," said Pam Sterner, whose college term paper calling for the law wound up in the hands of members of Congress. "When you do that, impersonating someone else, that's fraud, not freedom of speech."

Civil liberties groups, writers, publishers and news media outlets, including The Associated Press, have told the justices they worry the law, and especially the administration's defense of it, could lead to more attempts by government to regulate speech.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-dil...100520506.html

The question being brought before the court is this, [Section 704(b) of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime when anyone "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." The question presented is whether 18 U.S.C. 704(b) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.]

nicholst55 · February 20th, 2012, 02:17 AM

Hope they rule that Alvarez should do prison time. He's a sc**mbag of the lowest order.

bd111 · February 20th, 2012, 04:56 AM

The elites of the chattering/political class never dreamed SCOTUS would take the case. They thought the 9th Circuit would be the last word.

jake2far · February 20th, 2012, 05:44 AM

If this applies and he is found guilty does Senator Kerry get prosecuted?
He lied about his Military Service on the Senate floor.

John Kerry said this, he said it on the Senate floor, it was false, it was done to sway the direction of our country. This was not some guy trying to puff up his record.

"Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia."

Later, this is what he said.

"In an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," Kerry corrected his 1979 statement about being "five miles across the border" on Christmas Eve, but reiterated that he was on a patrol at the border at that date and had been sent on a covert mission at a later date."

So, for those who are angry at little people stealing valor, will John Kerry get prosecuted? If the law doesn't apply to Mr. Kerry should it apply to those who don't have money, power, position, and clout?
I think lying, stealing valor, and making false statements about your service record is wrong, question is does it rise to a criminal level? If yes, than will we apply it to all equally or just the few?

If this guy is found guilty, and it is upheld, I want John Kerry prosected.

Jim

Ivan1GFP · February 20th, 2012, 05:56 AM

My opinion for the 1.5 cents it is worth:

Alvarez has the right to claim anything he wants. He can claim to be King of Mars if he wants. He can claim to be President of the United States.

The leader of a particular branch of service also gets to sue him for false claims as well.

- Ivan.

willriskit · February 20th, 2012, 06:21 AM

It seems to me that it isn't speech that they're attempting to regulate, but plain old Bravo Sierra, which is also known as fraud. Sadly, some of these wanna-be Rambos and Ramboettes have wormed their way into legitimate veterans organizations, where they are protected from exposure by their drinking buddies. It would be a good idea if the veterans organizations on the right side of this issue examined their own memberships and weeded-out the posers.

ppcshooter1 · February 20th, 2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jake2far

If this applies and he is found guilty does Senator Kerry get prosecuted?
He lied about his Military Service on the Senate floor.

John Kerry said this, he said it on the Senate floor, it was false, it was done to sway the direction of our country. This was not some guy trying to puff up his record.

"Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia."

Later, this is what he said.

"In an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," Kerry corrected his 1979 statement about being "five miles across the border" on Christmas Eve, but reiterated that he was on a patrol at the border at that date and had been sent on a covert mission at a later date."

So, for those who are angry at little people stealing valor, will John Kerry get prosecuted? If the law doesn't apply to Mr. Kerry should it apply to those who don't have money, power, position, and clout?
I think lying, stealing valor, and making false statements about your service record is wrong, question is does it rise to a criminal level? If yes, than will we apply it to all equally or just the few?

If this guy is found guilty, and it is upheld, I want John Kerry prosected.

Jim

Jim, not that I agree with Kerry cause Lord knows I don't; however, in those quotes you posted I don't see where Kerry claimed to have gotten awards he didn't earn. That's what this case is about. As far as Kerry lying, that's a given. He's a politician. The first quote looks like he was speaking in front of the Senate. If so, he wasn't under oath. May tick us off but there's not a whole lot that can be done. The Senate isn't going to do anything about it and the voters of Mass. sure as hell aren't.

Marty

GARRARD · February 20th, 2012, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppcshooter1

Jim, not that I agree with Kerry cause Lord knows I don't; however, in those quotes you posted I don't see where Kerry claimed to have gotten awards he didn't earn. That's what this case is about. As far as Kerry lying, that's a given. He's a politician. The first quote looks like he was speaking in front of the Senate. If so, he wasn't under oath. May tick us off but there's not a whole lot that can be done. The Senate isn't going to do anything about it and the voters of Mass. sure as hell aren't.

Marty

In addition, ex post facto laws are not permitted under the Constitution, so if it happened before the Stolen Valor Act, it's not prosecutable.

bd111 · February 20th, 2012, 11:34 AM

Plus members of Congress have "Speech & Debate Clause" constitutional immunity for lying on the floor of the House and Senate.

CAVman · February 22nd, 2012, 02:13 PM

Update:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/201...D9T2LV600.html

CAVman in WYoming

GARRARD · February 22nd, 2012, 02:20 PM

Thanks for the update CAVman. I'm looking forward to the ruling in June.

willriskit · February 26th, 2012, 06:06 AM

If the law is upheld in June, I plan to be one of the first to file a complaint. As an officer in a veterans organization I received formal complaints from two retired Marines about a Marine poser wearing unearned rank and decorations for the purpose of personal gain. Fortunately, she allowed herself to be photographed on numerous occasions and even gave an interview to the media (which has since been altered to content different to what appeared in print).

bd111 · February 26th, 2012, 08:39 AM

Based on reports I've read of the oral argument before SCOTUS last week, the Court seemed inclined to uphold the Stolen Valor Act, but constitutionally-enforceable criminal liability for a violation would have to entail reading into the law a requirement of a specific intent to deceive for the purpose of obtaining a benefit or property to which the offender wouldn't otherwise be entitled. I.e., another species of criminal fraud. By way of analogy, think about bogus charities that falsely claim to be raising money for families of fallen peace officers. The Court is uneasy with the idea of making lying, per se, a crime, when there's so much credential-padding going on every day in every other area of American social and economic life. Where do you draw the line? Again, acc to reports, the entire Court - conservatives and liberal Justices alike - seemed to be in agreement that there's room withing the First Amendment for Congress to act to protect the Nation's official recognitions of honorable military service against misappropriation by impostors.

mjconnau · February 27th, 2012, 02:22 PM

It is a crime to dress up like a police officer. Why wouldn't it be a crime to dress up like a war hero?

CAVman · February 27th, 2012, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjconnau

It is a crime to dress up like a police officer. Why wouldn't it be a crime to dress up like a war hero?

Good Analogy!

CAVman in WYoming