I - like many veterans - are angered at the decision of the Supreme Court. However, they are not against the idea of protecting awards, ranks and experiences military individuals hard-earned from fraud - only that the legislation itself is not precise enough to effectively and constitutionally protect that and at the same time not be in conflict with our Constitution itself.
"Justice Breyer also provided possible templates for rewriting the act, saying it had 'substantial justification' (Dao, New York Times)."
We also need to remember that the U.S. Constitution is the basis of our laws and also that we the people are a part of the Government (ideologically, not physically); we can also directly affect its actions and of our most simple and strongest Powers To VOTE which changes are necessary.
In the same article, Jameel Jaffer (Deputy Legal Director) of the American Civil Liberties Union, points out an interesting tip about the 1st Amendent - "The First Amendment reserves to individual citizens, not the government, the right to separate what is true from what is false, and to decide what ideas to introduce into private conversation and public debate".
When any one of us finds out someone deliberately - especially knowingly and without coercion - lies about being in the military and/or earning any form of Valor, on a matter of Character the person responsible will quickly learn the consequences. This does not just include a loss of Character; it is also a loss of respect - both personal and from others.
It can be the equivalent of a psychological atom bomb.
My recommendation: First attempt to fix the policy if it is inadequate in its current form; improve, revise and increase precision if it is has a generally good template; and if it conflicts with the Constitution: How, in what ways, can the policy be made to not conflict and still maintain the necessary precision to avoid over-reaching?
Yes, I am very pissed off at the individuals committing this fraud. But, my central concern is to help protect individuals from those who use that status to inflict real harm - financially, physically or mentally, or all three - to others using Deadly Force.
References
Dao, James. "Lying About War Medals Is Protected Speech, Justices Rule." The New York Times. Print: 2012 - June 29; Section A18. The New York Times, 2012 - June 29. Web. 30 July 2012.
< http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/justices-say-lying-about-military-honors-is-protected.html >
United States. U.S. Court of Appeals; Ninth Circuit, Supreme Court. Number 11-210. United States of America, Petitioner vs. Xavier Alvarez; entered on 2011 June 17. Web, PDF. 30 July 2012.
< http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/11-210_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf >
No comments:
Post a Comment