Quote :

"A few examples of honorable action, surrounded by dozens more of dishonorable action, comes off as generally negative. There's really no way, in my opinion, to ever view those two "wars" as either just or honorable."

1. I think you've got that quite backwards--there are more honorable actions than dishonorable.

2. My entire point is that even if a war is not just or not honorable, there can be tons--even a majority--of honorable actions that take place in it. If you have a quarrel with the war, that's a political issue. Your problem is with Washington, not DoD, and certainly not with the individual servicemen.

There are tons of people who served multiple tours in Iraq who disagreed with the war, but were determined to do the best they could with the hand that was dealt. You can say "Oh, but if they'd really disagreed, they could've claimed conscientious objected status or just refused to go and taken their legal beating under the UCMJ" (the latter proposition being fundamentally fucking stupid, I might add), but even from a pragmatic standpoint, the big green machine has its marching orders from civilian leadership, and you can bet that it isn't going to just go hungry. You might satisfy yourself by not taking part, but someone else will take your place, and you've ultimately accomplished nothing. The smarter (and more honorable) approach is to go and give it 100%, and try to accomplish as much good as you can.



3. *Anecdotal evidence to follow*:

I went to Baghdad a couple of weeks ago. The last day I was there, I had lunch with some Iraqi officers. The senior one was a Colonel--I think he's from some sort of spec ops background. He fought against us in Desert Storm in 1991 (where he was shot in the leg by U.S. forces)...throughout the 90s (when we had limited but ongoing military involvement against Iraq)...and again in OIF in 2003. He very much viewed us as his enemy all throughout that time.

I said to him, "You spent 15 years of your life fighting us. You were personally shot by American forces, and who knows how many of your soldiers and countrymen have been killed by us. When and why did you change your mind and work with us?" The first thing he said was that "I saw that the Americans were not only good soldiers, but good people."

Quote :

" You mean, defend the right. (Rights aren't given.)"

True, at least not the ones we're talking about.



[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

5/26/2010 11:54:32 AM

I agree with theduke.

*world implodes*

I just hate that lines between "the troops" and "the war" and "the administration" have become so goddamn grayed that you can't slander one without some muck rubbing off on the other.

5/26/2010 11:56:54 AM

I didnt say anything about honor...even though I think you're full of shit. You said it wasn't a JUST war. Taliban attacked the US -- Taliban controlled Afghanistan. How on earth could you say it wasn't just. Logic doesn't get any more simple.

5/26/2010 11:59:28 AM

Quote :

"Taliban attacked the US"

Ehh...

more like they harbored a non-state actor who attacked the U.S. Not really arguing with you; just saying that words mean things and distinctions like that are important.

5/26/2010 12:03:32 PM

The Taliban did a lot more than harbor Al Qaeda.

5/26/2010 12:05:04 PM

Quote :

"TULIPlovr: It is only a crime in NC (and everywhere else) if someone else acts on your misrepresentation to their own harm, or if you get an advantage from it. http://law.justia.com/northcarolina/codes/chapter_14/gs_14-276.1.html"

Might want to keep combing through your copy of the NCGS sparky. The statute you've cited is only for emergency personnel

---

Quote :

"TULIPlovr: With the military, the feds have no burden to show that anyone else was harmed, or that the impersonator got advantages from it. That's a huge difference."

How is no one harmed? It's similar to being in possession of counterfeit currency -- even if you don't spend it, you've (1) devalued the currency everyone else has, and (2) increased demand for counterfeits.

And re the "impersonator got advantages" comment: not to repeat myself, but...

Quote :

"TGD: Are they not acquiring [advantages]? Or do you think things like fraud only apply to the acquisition of tangible items?"

---

For anyone interested in the text of the actual statutes, you can read them at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/702.html (uniforms)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/704.html (insignia / medals / ribbons) 

5/26/2010 1:36:56 PM

In addition to the above statute re: impersonating police, I would like to reiterate from the previously linked thread:

Quote :

"Impersonating any number of people is a criminal offense. For example, here in our own state of NC, it is a criminal offense to impersonate a soil scientist (89F-22), or a geologist (89E-22), or an engineer or surveyor (89C-23), or a plumber, HVAC or similar contractor (87-25, 87-61), or an employee of the NCDACS (81A-29), or law enforcement (20-137.2), or fire and EMS (14-276.1), or student (14-118.2), or a pharmacist or pharmacy tech (90-108), or a voter (163-275) just to name a few. In fact, a good rule of thumb is it is a criminal act to impersonate anyone with a public office or the public trust."

And most of those have no requirement other than impersonation.

5/26/2010 1:55:49 PM

It takes more than playing dress-up and spouting nonsense accomplishments to be guilty of 'impersonating' any of those.

I AM A SOIL SCIENTIST!

I EARNED A PURPLE HEART IN IRAQ!

If I play dress-up and say the first, even in the presence of an offended soil scientist, there is a 0% chance that any person in the legal system would give two shits about it.

If I say the same thing in front of an offended veteran, well, we all know the ending would be different.

If you can't clearly recognize that the law treats them differently, then there's not much I can say.


[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 7:28 PM. Reason : a]

5/26/2010 7:25:02 PM

What you're describing is how individuals treat the two offenses differently, I fail to see how the law treats them any differently aside from one being a fed offense and the other state.

5/26/2010 8:19:15 PM

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olden_Polynice)

5/26/2010 8:31:27 PM

Quote :

"If I play dress-up and say the first, even in the presence of an offended soil scientist, there is a 0% chance that any person in the legal system would give two shits about it. If I say the same thing in front of an offended veteran, well, we all know the ending would be different. If you can't clearly recognize that the law treats them differently, then there's not much I can say. "

The law isn't treating them any differently. It's the people reacting that are. The fact that no one cares enough to complain if you dress in a lab coat and call yourself a soil scientist does not change the fact that if someone did, you can and would be prosecuted.

5/26/2010 10:37:03 PM

I love that most liberitarians are so driven by stupid philosophical ideals that they will go out of their way to spew hate against people who are honestly driven to fight off people who want to kill them. It makes my job of making them look stupid so much easier.

5/26/2010 10:55:49 PM

They are driving people to want to kill me. If they participate, they are complicit.

5/27/2010 12:26:26 AM

that cannot be how to spell complicit

oh shit it is

gg spellcheck

5/27/2010 1:35:09 AM

Let's actually look at the laws.....I will put everything that deals with the harm caused by the impersonator in bold.

U.S. Code Title 18, Section 704b:

Quote :

"(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or 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, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000704----000-.html

Hmmmm, nothing is bold.

There is not one word about the liar's gain from his lie, or harm to someone else from his lie. The lie is clearly the crime, in and of itself. Nothing else is even mentioned.

Now let's look how the state treats other impersonation:

NC General Statutes - 89C-23

Quote :

"Any person who shall practice, or offer to practice, engineering or land surveying in this State without first being licensed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, or any person, firm, partners hip, organization, association, corporation, or other entity using or employing the words "engineer" or "engineering" or "professional engineer" or "professional engineering" or "land surveyor" or "land surveying," or any modification or derivative of those words in its name or form of business or activity except as licensed under this Chapter or in pursuit of activities exempted by this 9 Chapter, or any person presenting or attempting to use the certificate of licensure or the seal of another, or any person who shall give any false or forged evidence of any kind to the Board or to any member of the Board in obtaining or attempting to obtain a certificate of licensure, or any person who shall falsely impersonate any other licensee of like or different name, or any person who shall attempt to use an expired or revoked or nonexistent certificate of licensure, or who shall practice or offer to practice when not qualified, or any person who falsely claims that the person is registered under this Chapter, or any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Chapter, in addition to injunctive procedures set out hereinbefore, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor."

http://www.ncbels.org/GS89C8-2000.pdf

Now that's a lot of bold.

Even the few fragments that don't specifically indicate fraud/harm are still clearly meant that way, given the overwhelming context around them.

Why would NC legislators give so much more text to describe the crime than the feds? If they meant to offer the same sort of protection, a simple statement saying that the lie is the crime would suffice, just as it did in the U.S. code.

These are entirely different animals.

5/27/2010 3:36:13 AM

Quote :

"Why would NC legislators give so much more text to describe the crime than the feds? "

Because the statutes about impersonating a military officer fall under a different part of the US Code?

In fact you're being dishonest only quoting one sections when a good part of Chapter 33 and 34 describes various penalties and crimes involved with impersonating an officer

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_33.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_43.html

Of course the other simple answer to the question is the relevant parts of law were likely written at different times by different people who chose to be more or less verbose as the legal climate of the day requires. For the same reason why the constitution is a very brief document which describes the entirety of the powers and structure of the federal government, but the recently passed health care reform is a monstrosity of legal jargon.

5/27/2010 7:59:40 AM

Quote :

"a simple statement saying that the lie is the crime would suffice, just as it did in the U.S. code."

The vast majority of that quote is simply listing the different ways in which someone can lie about being a soil scientist. Almost everything you bolded is just effectively saying "These are all the things that count as lieing." I'm sure you've also realized that your "here is what I bolded, look there's lots of it" argument is meaningless and disingenuous, too, and yet you posted it anyway.

Why did you bold "shall be guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor"? I'm honestly curious, because that doesn't even make sense in the context of the argument you're trying to make, unless you just wanted to add more bold text to make it look bigger.

Quote :

"Even the few fragments that don't specifically indicate fraud/harm are still clearly meant that way, given the overwhelming context around them."

You seriously don't think that the US Code regarding veteran impersonation isn't also implying fraud/harm? Really?

Quote :

"Why would NC legislators give so much more text to describe the crime than the feds?"

To be thorough and ensure that there are no loopholes, perhaps? By explicitly stating every single thing that counts as impersonation, there's no room for different interpretations of the law, and no room to get around what it says.

Hell, the fact that the law goes into so much more detail about what exactly constitutes the impersonation of soil scientists, it actually seems that they are offered more protection from impersonation. Taking everything that you quoted in the US Code literally, without inferring or interpreting anything, someone could legally dress up as a veteran and walk around looking and acting like one, so long as they never "verbally or in writing" actually claim to be a veteran or claim to have earned a medal.

Granted, such a person would still likely be convicted or fined for the offense, but this is not due to the law itself, as you quoted it, but due to the differing treatments of the crime by people.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 8:25 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 8:14:46 AM

Quote :

"TULIPlovr: There is not one word about the liar's gain from his lie, or harm to someone else from his lie. The lie is clearly the crime, in and of itself. Nothing else is even mentioned."

I suppose next you'll tell us that libel and slander statutes don't make sense because "[t]here is not one word about the liar's gain from his lie"?

5/27/2010 12:26:51 PM

Quote :

"However, if you truly think that dishonoring the military should not be a crime, how about you go to any VA hospital and tell the wounded how you feel, tell those old WWII vets or those old Vietnam vets; if you make it out of there without getting your ass kicked, I'd be really surprised."

Sure someone impersonating as a military veteran or wearing their fake admiral's uniform with lots of metals deserves and should get an ass-kicking.

In my opinion though simply walking down the street with a uniform should not be crime no less than an actor dressed up in a movie.

HOWEVER if you are impersonating a military vet/hero/active-duty for personnal gain or to infiltrate sensitive

areas then their is a problem....

For example

- Trying to gain VET benefits, scholarships, making money by giving speeches as a soldier, or military discounts from
a store that offers them is FRAUD.

- Trying to use your fake credentials and uniform to gain access to a military base is TRESPASSING and probably
a bunch of other crimes if they think you are a spy or trying to commit treason.

- Making a fake military ID is a federal crime

HOWEVER if you get your jollies from putting on a uniform with medals (that you bought on the internet)
and walking down the sidewalk SHOULD NOT be a crime. Just do not be surprised if you get an ass kicking if
someone realizes you are a fake.

I do this understand why this law could be importand back in the old days. During times liek WW2 this could
be a major security risk is spies and enemy soldiers were running around comitting sabatoge behind our lines.

Quote :

"a lot of men & women have died, HONORABLY, to give you the right to be said offensive, ignorant disrespectful tool. you should probably try to remember that. nothing wrong with being against the war. that is your right as an American. "

Very true but on the other hand this a CHOICE they made to join the military. This also does not give
them the right to run around while on leave acting like obnoxious uncivilized baboons while amoung civilians (i.e the
drunk marines that were harassing girls, picking fights, talking shit to random people unprovoked, wildly throwing
a football around the pool that on several occasions hit random kids / old people, like the drunk marines I witnessed
2 weeks ago at beach.)

Quote :

"My entire point is that even if a war is not just or not honorable, there can be tons--even a majority--of honorable actions that take place in it. If you have a quarrel with the war, that's a political issue. Your problem is with Washington, not DoD, and certainly not with the individual servicemen. "

I 100% agree, any qualm I have with a war is with the politicians. The soldiers are just doing their job.

5/28/2010 8:50:15 AM

^^
Did you not see the "or harm to someone from his lie" in what TULIPlovr posted?
Libel harms someone, so of course it's a crime. Also, the perp may have wanted that harm to happen -- so they gain.

5/28/2010 9:06:42 AM

Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, federal judge rules
July 17, 2010

Quote :

"A federal judge in Denver has ruled that the Stolen Valor Act is 'facially unconstitutional' because it violates free speech, and he dismissed the criminal case against Rick Strandlof, a man who lied about being an Iraq war veteran. U.S. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn issued his decision Friday and rejected the prosecution's argument that lying about having military medals dilutes their meaning and significance. 'This wholly unsubstantiated assertion is, frankly, shocking and, indeed, unintentionally insulting to the profound sacrifices of military personnel the Stolen Valor Act purports to honor,' Blackburn wrote. 'To suggest that the battlefield heroism of our servicemen and women is motivated in any way, let alone in a compelling way, by considerations of whether a medal may be awarded simply defies my comprehension.' The Stolen Valor Act prohibits people from falsely claiming they have been awarded military decorations and medals. The act, signed into law in 2006, carries a punishment ranging from fines to six months in prison. U.S. Rep. John Salazar, a Democrat from Manassa, introduced the legislation in 2005. 'This is an issue of fraud, plain and simple,' Salazar wrote in an e-mail Friday. 'The individuals who violate this law are those who knowingly portray themselves as pillars of the community for personal and monetary gain. The Stolen Valor Act has been upheld by other courts and I am confident this decision will be overturned on appeal.' Blackburn's decision only set precedent in the District of Colorado, and further prosecution of the law isn't likely to happen here unless a higher court strikes down his ruling. Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the Colorado U.S. attorney, said the Department of Justice is reviewing the ruling to determine whether an appeal should be filed. Strandlof, 32, was charged with five misdemeanors related to violating the Stolen Valor Act — specifically, making false claims about receiving military decorations. He posed as Rick Duncan, a wounded Marine captain who received a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. Strandlof used that persona to found the Colorado Veterans Alliance and solicit funds for the organization. Actual veterans who served on the board were suspicious of his claims and reported him to the FBI. Robert Pepin, Strandlof's attorney; the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado; and the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties group, all filed briefs with Blackburn contesting the Stolen Valor Act. They argued that simply lying is not illegal. Pepin said that he and his client were pleased with the decision and that Strandlof is doing well. "

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_15536854?source=commented-news

This ruling is outrageous. I can only hope that it will be overturned on appeal.

7/22/2010 7:44:22 AM

Quote :

"They argued that simply lying is not illegal. "

Quote :

" He posed as Rick Duncan, a wounded Marine captain who received a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. Strandlof used that persona to found the Colorado Veterans Alliance and solicit funds for the organization. "

Fraud == Simply Lying?

7/22/2010 10:50:39 PM

^ Seriously. I'm the one arguing against treating this kind of lie as a crime, but this seems pretty clearly to be fraud and not dress-up.

7/23/2010 4:40:01 AM

Quote :

"Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, federal judge rules"

GOOD

If someone is impersonating a military personnal, war hero, or vet as a means to commit espionage, gaining veterans benefits, or other economic reasons than arrest them for treason, fraud, and/or whatever other else the DA feels like.

However as I stated above, if Billy Bob gets his jollies from playing dress up and walking down the sidewalk in his Class A uniform with 10 medals hanging off his chest, than who gives a fuck....

Whats next?? Maybe we can start arresting toolbags who lie about their identities claiming to be a doctor just to get laid.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/21/israel.rape.by.deception/index.html?iref=NS1

Quote :

""It is terrible, but the law says very clearly that if someone has sexual intercourse using deception about his identity to conduct the act, it can be considered rape," said Leah Samael, a lawyer specializing in civil rights and human rights cases. "

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 12:41 PM. Reason : a]

7/23/2010 12:39:23 PM

Wasn't this done in Wedding Crashers?

7/25/2010 1:59:58 PM

Quote :

"It is terrible, but the law says very clearly that if someone has sexual intercourse using deception about his identity to conduct the act, it can be considered rape," said Leah Samael, a lawyer specializing in civil rights and human rights cases."

This happens all the time, and has probably been happening since humans have existed. People conveniently leave out details about who they are/their past, embellish details about what they've done, or just plain make shit up, all for the sake of getting laid.

7/25/2010 6:32:46 PM