http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/02/20/lying-about-military-service-should-not-be-a-crime Comments On: Lying about military service should not be a crime by Max Brantley en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Tue, 21 May 2013 13:30:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by MysteryShopper]]> Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:18:08 -0600 Arkansas Times All the reporter would have to do is say, "Show me. I want to see your medals. I want to read your commendations." We had two instances of this in Northwest Arkansas a few years ago, and in both instances, the reporter just took the person claiming heroic actions at his word. When I was in the newspaper business, journalists were cynics; they did not believe anything unless you proved it to them. I fear that this is no longer the case, and the desire on the part of journalists for a story that sounds good outweighs their dedication to the truth.
Posted by plainjim]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:34:07 -0600 Arkansas Times On the other hand, lying is a moral lapse. And it's hard. If you tell conflicting stories to different people, how do you keep your tales straight?

Posted by Verla Sweere]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:42:06 -0600 Arkansas Times
I don't think priests should have sex with choirboys
I don't think counselors should have sex with their patients
I don't think teachers should have sex with their students
I don't think senior officer's should have sex with subordinates
I don't think doctors should have sex with their patients
I don't think bosses should have sex with those they supervise.
The issue of "consent" is complex in all of these.

That being said, breaking those laws is not a high crime.
It happens, go on with life.

However, as sad as it was to keep a dirty blue dress as a souvenir, without it she would have just been some dumb, celebrity wanna-be twit whose boss tried to save his butt by wrongfully calling her a liar on national TV. That was low class.

Had he said, "I get lots of blow jobs, "I can't remember each fallen robin"", I'd supported an amendment to give him another term.

Posted by mudturtle]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:21:15 -0600 Arkansas Times I mean, if you don't know, then where have you been!!!
Posted by Pat Downs]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:06:03 -0600 Arkansas Times
I started to say something one way and wound up not saying it that way.

Sorry about "that."
Posted by SkyPilot]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:04:23 -0600 Arkansas Times
Obvioulsy, one doesn't. And I didn't mean to suggest that one did.

The issue I was addressing was the suggestion that "we liberals" defended, condoned, or at least ignored, Clinton's lying about his affair.

My point was that he lied, we knew it, it hurt us, we were embarrased and felt betrayed by it, but we never excused or defended it. We criticized him for lying just as much as anyone else!

That the whole sordid witch hunt started over a supposed shady land deal, Whitewater, and came down to a question of his having sexual relations outside of marriage, which had absolutely nothing to do with Whitewater. Then he was accused of perjury, which technically wasn't correct, because what he lied to the grand jury about was not germane to the charge, which was the Whitewater deal. He didn't lie about Whitewater; he lied about "having sex with that woman," which was not the focus of the investigation in the first place. It was a question incidental to the investigation and the original charge.

In short, it was a contrived Republican witch hunt intended to get Clinton out of office in any way possible that came down to grasping at a straw over definition of his denial of an affair--or the existence of a "relationship."

In essence, Starr had NOTHING, but tried to make soup out of a stone. And although impeached, which means "charged," Clinton was not convicted. And, as pointed out, several of the key players in this drama were themselves involved in sordid sexual affairs all the time they were chasing President Clinton. Talk about HYPOCRITES!!!

And I don't care if Starr IS president of Baylor University, I'd take a repentant Clinton over an unconfessed and unrepentant Starr ANY DAY! And Clinton HAS repented, and confessed--publically. Which is more than Starr, Hutchinson, or any of the others, including Newt Gingrich, has done.

But that still doesn't mean that I excuse or defend either Clinton's sexual infidelity or his prevarication. I am as critical of him for those as I am of anyone else.
Posted by SkyPilot]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:55:39 -0600 Arkansas Times
It's a crime to impersonate a police officer, but it's not to say you were/are one. Why shouldn't the military be the same? Secondly, I have read on other blogs how some vietnam vets remark that if there were as many guys who claim they were 'in country' or in special forces and UDT/Seals that say they were who wear the service ribbons at the vet gatherings and conventions, then we wouldn't have lost the war. If this happens, there's gonna be a lot of grumpy old men in prison. I can just see a Homeland Security raid at the VFW netting some more fodder for the prison-industrial complex.

In regards to Clinton's lying, remember that no politician is a saint. Saints don't want to be politicians. I am proud to say that I volunteered as a campaign worker for both of his elections.
Posted by MarcKyle64]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:24:06 -0600 Arkansas Times
It was introduced by Democrats in both the House and Senate in 2005 and signed by a Rethuglicon president, W, in 2006. This from Wiki:

"The Act was likely passed to address the issue of persons claiming to have been awarded military awards for which they were not entitled, and exploiting their deception for personal gain. For example, as of June 2, 2006, there were only 120 living Medal of Honor recipients, but there were far more known imposters. There are also large numbers of people fraudulently claiming to be Navy SEALS and Army Special Forces, among others."

Now, I suggest you ask yourself if this problem of individuals falsely claiming to be a recipient of the Medal of Honor or other high military awards for valor, a Navy SEAL, or Army Special Forces is a problem that government should rightly restrain.

Here's a link to the Act if you care to read it so you can form an educated opinion on what it does or does not do:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ4…

The full title of the Act is:

"An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance protections relating to the reputation and meaning of the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards, and for other purposes."

The Act is quite short and easy to understand. Or you can share your opinion not having read the act or knowing exactly what it does or does not do. Take your pick.
Posted by Sound Policy]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:23:30 -0600 Arkansas Times
Blah blah blah...and you correcting anyone's spin is LOL ridiculous 'cause that's 99 percent of what you post on this blog. Sure he lied and of course lying is wrong...but as I said earlier it's impossible to have an affair without lying. A fact that Right wingers like you always skim over because the greatest injustice was Republicans using government resources (aka Special Counsels) to go after a sitting President for having an affair...something that was NEVER done before. 'Ah hah 'Clinton screwed around' 'Ah hah he lied about having an affair'--whoop tee-do--especially given the Republican record for investigating ANYTHING a Republican President does, and especially given how many of the impeaching Republican hypocrites were guilty of doing exactly what they were pontificating about.

Clinton's greatest sin during the witchhunt was stupidity for falling for the blatant trap. He should have said 'Yeah, I did it and it's no ones business buy my wife and daughter's...so shut up.

"The fact that he used his position of authority to seduce a young intern who worked for him then try to cover it up merits no sense of indignation from the feminists because he is a liberal and indignation is reserved for conservatives who do those things."

Ha...you lecturing 'feminists' about what we should be outraged over is LOL funny...just as funny as the recently all-male panel that was convened to discuss women and contraception. We didn't squeal because it was sex between two consenting adults...and we generally save our squealing for hypocrites and crap like the aforementioned panel.

I understand the right wingers are totally incapable of understanding that feminism is about women, period...just as you're incapable of seeing any view that's contrary to the right side. And, we'll scream about Democratic sexism just as much as Republican sexism; but it's not our fault that most Democrats are enlightened compared to the Neanderthal Republicans.
Posted by zelda]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:19:28 -0600 Arkansas Times
For the record, one definition of feminism, according to Encarta: "the movement committed to securing and defending rights and opportunities for women that are equal to those of men." My own definition of a feminist is one who embraces feminism -- just so our fellow commentors can get a better handle on the terminology, you understand.

Posted by Doigotta]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:08:53 -0600 Arkansas Times I've seen so much of this not only with family, but also with people I went to school with, that I'm likely to raise a skeptical eyebrow to those who talk much about their military exploits. Actually, the more heroic the story is, the more skeptical I am. (Funny you never hear much about the deadly dull paper pushing on the margins of the conflict.)

Posted by Doigotta]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:41:38 -0600 Arkansas Times
The fact that he used his position of authority to seduce a young intern who worked for him then try to cover it up merits no sense of indignation from the feminists because he is a liberal and indignation is reserved for conservatives who do those things.
Posted by SHolmes]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:37:46 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by zelda]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:13:27 -0600 Arkansas Times
Shouldn't the bill be named implied valor, rather than stolen valor?

It would seem to me valor is something which cannot be legitimate if simply assumed, declared or implied anymore than a lie could take it away. Of all the places for a politician to decide to legislate on lies this is certainly one vague and useless place to do so. In fact politicians who want to do this are demonstrating the very antithesis of valor.... since most are liars and cowards to begin with.
Posted by Eureka Springs]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:19:15 -0600 Arkansas Times
We supporters know he lied. We were embarrassed over it, disappointed in him for it, felt betrayed because of it, and wished he hadn't done it. But I never heard anyone excuse it and I'm not sure I remember anyone's defending him for it.

And as soon as anyone, defender, opponent, or troll, (other than Louie) steps up to the plate and swears, "I never told a lie," I'll have more respect for his/her criticism of liars than any I've read here."

But that's just me.
Posted by SkyPilot]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:00:14 -0600 Arkansas Times
Only in the political realm can folks think it's OK to outlaw lies about military service and OK to impeach a President for an extramarital affair while giving blank passes to the criminals who lied us into the horrid Iraq War. Such nonsensical priorities it's no wonder the public doesn't give a damn about what our politicians think...especially our preaching right-wing hypocrites.

For a party that likes to whine about government intrusiveness (when it's a Democrat doing the intruding), I've noticed that Republicans love to make laws covering every personal vice...ironically while they're often engaging in said activity. (No, I don't know the political leanings of those who are proposing this silly stuff...I'm just commenting on a blatant Republican pattern.)

Please, one-track trolls, keep defending Dubya while reminding the country of the Republican witchhunt of Clinton. An overwhelming majority of Americans didn't care about a Presidential extramarital affair then and they sure don't care about it after the pathetic failings of eight years of a Republican President. The public does care, and remember, Clinton's great economy/disappearing deficit. So keep dredging up your Party's huge failings...all the way up to next November. (And some more all-male gatherings about contraception would also be wonderful and effective.)
Posted by zelda]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:51:59 -0600 Arkansas Times
Then there are the guys who tell lies about their fictional service to impress a girl they've just met. Should this be a federal offense? Probably not.

Then there is the law that makes it a crime for anyone to provide any kind of false information to any federal official, regardless of whether it is given under oath or not. The intent of the law is to prevent coverups of crimes or misleading federal investigators, which is a legitimate concern. But this law is so broad, it makes it easy for a federal official to maneuver a subject into committing a crime during a casual conversation, even without a valid underlying offense.
Posted by radical centrist]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:19:24 -0600 Arkansas Times
I could fill a small prison with the fiction I have received over the last 20 years.

Or, with corporations being people and all, everyone I catch I could sentance to 5 years work release free labor on the factory floor.


Posted by Citizen1]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:48:03 -0600 Arkansas Times Also, I can hardly wait to go hear Jessie Jackson at SCA this spring.
Posted by louie]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:45:22 -0600 Arkansas Times
The issue was can a boast be punished by the gov't with fines and or jail time?

It seems to have turned into a your guy did it more or worse than my guy.

Focus People!


Posted by Citizen1]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:42:38 -0600 Arkansas Times "Who among us has not said things about ourselves that are untrue? Who has not exaggerated or embellished details to tell a better story?", give great excuse and justification for pseudo standards. Seems valor is not worth much in for progressive times.
Posted by baker]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:40:08 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by SHolmes]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:30:16 -0600 Arkansas Times
For instance do we want to rehash this type crap....

Didn't George Bush (Jr) try to claim he didn't lie about his military service when it was obvious he did? Trying for ever to convince us that he served honorably although the innuendo proved otherwise. Even now he's trying to rewrite history to shine a positive light on his historical inept 8 years as president?

Posted by ButWhoCares]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:21:15 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by couldn't be better]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:57 -0600 Arkansas Times