STOLEN VALOR
By Silvermane
Those of us who have served in the military in the past, and those of us who are currently serving, know well the sacrifices that are asked of us. We often work long hours in dangerous conditions, many times with little recognition. When we do receive awards and decorations, often bought through blood and strife, we therefore treasure them all the more.
So it is upsetting and repugnant to us when we hear of someone wearing awards and decorations which they have not earned. This essay will explore some aspects of Stolen Valor, from a personal as well as a legal standpoint. We'll begin right after the break.
So it is upsetting and repugnant to us when we hear of someone wearing awards and decorations which they have not earned. This essay will explore some aspects of Stolen Valor, from a personal as well as a legal standpoint. We'll begin right after the break.
 |
| Nick Androvsky AKA "MSGT Soup Sandwich" |
For several years, being an enlisted member of the military has been ranked as the most stressful job in the United States.
Long hours, dangerous working conditions, and the threat of serious bodily injury or even death are common occurrences for a lot of members. Members of the military, like most other people, like to be recognized for exemplary job performance, but being in the military requires more than striving toward doing a good job. There is much more to it than that. When such occasions arise, we may also be required to perform acts of bravery, heroism, or outstanding actions in support of missions critical to the safety and security of the United States, its citizens or allies.
While it is certainly true that most members of the military do NOT go looking for such recognition, when it is given, we treasure it. We also honor and respect others who have earned decorations for bravery or valor in combat for the sacrifices and heroism it took to be awarded such honors. We also honor and respect those who have earned non-combat related decorations because of the exemplary service it takes to be awarded such medals.
Conversely, we usually have NO respect for people (Members of the military AND civilians) who wear military decorations they did not earn. The wearing of military decorations that are unearned is commonly called “Stolen Valor” and is the subject of this essay.
BACKGROUND
The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, was a U.S. law that broadened the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals. (18 U.S.C. § 704). The law made it a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal. If convicted, defendants might have been imprisoned for up to six months, unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor, in which case imprisonment could have been up to one year. Here’s the actual wording of Section 704:
(a) In General.— Whoever knowingly wears, purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The Act was first introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 19, 2005, by Representative John Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado, as H.R. 3352. It was introduced in the Senate by Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, on November 10, 2005, as S. 1998. The Senate version was passed unanimously on September 7, 2006. The House passed the Senate version, S. 1998, on December 6, 2006.
After several legal challenges, it was struck down in a case titled “United States vs. Alvarez.” In it, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2012 that the Stolen Valor Act was an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment, striking down the law in a 6 to 3 decision.
FIRST CHALLENGE
United States Vs Strandlof
 |
| Rick Strandlof |
Rick Strandlof, founder of Colorado Veterans Alliance, was accused of seeking to raise funds for that organization by posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War. In January 2010, he challenged the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act in U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Strandlof's attorney believed the law was too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive [strict scrutiny]", a level of judicial review that requires the government to justify any limitation it places on free speech. The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."
On July 16, 2010, a federal judge in Denver ruled the Stolen Valor Act is "facially unconstitutional" because it violates free speech and dismissed the criminal case against Strandlof who lied about being an Iraq war veteran. Strandlof, 32, was charged with five misdemeanors related to violating the Act – specifically, making false claims about receiving military decorations.
On January 27, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overruled the district court and reinstated the charges against Strandlof. Two judges on the three-judge panel held that false statements are not worthy of constitutional protection. On July 2, 2012, the Tenth Circuit vacated its previous opinion, writing, "In light of United States v. Alvarez, we vacate both the opinion and the judgment issued on January 27, 2012."
SECOND CHALLENGE
United States Vs. Alvarez
 |
| Xavier Alvarez |
In 2007 at a Three Valley Water District Board meeting in Claremont, California, new member Xavier Alvarez introduced himself by saying "I'm a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy."
As this statement was not true, Alvarez was indicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, the place where the trial was to occur, rejected Alvarez's claim that the Act was unconstitutional. This decision was reversed by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held the law invalid.
Rehearing by the entire panel of the Ninth Circuit was denied over the dissent of seven judges. Judge Smith, one of the dissenters, argued that the panel "incorrectly rested its laurels on Supreme Court rulings in defamation cases that false facts did not receive First Amendment protections." Smith argued that this was not a defamation case, because even if the act was intended to prevent injury to military personnel, "The right against defamation belongs to natural persons, not to governmental institutions or symbols."
The government appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision, which was subsequently granted by the Supreme Court in 2011.
On June 28, 2012, a divided Supreme Court held that the Stolen Valor Act's prohibition against making false statements of having been awarded a military medal violated the First Amendment. However, the six justices in the majority could not agree on a single rationale for the decision.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a plurality consisting of himself, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that false statements are not, by the sole reason of their falsity, excluded from First Amendment protection.
The plurality opinion also expressed the wide applicability of the Stolen Valor Act. "The Act by its plain terms," Kennedy wrote, "applies to a false statement made at any time, in any place, to any person". Such breadth means that the law is "sweeping... The reach of the statute puts it in conflict with the First Amendment... the statute would apply with equal force to personal, whispered conversations within a home."
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine), who served as a Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan, expressed disappointment in the high court ruling:
"There might well be some legislative options here and that's something we'll be taking a closer look at, because our military men and women contribute and sacrifice too much for others to try taking the credit," Hunter said.
Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nevada) vowed to sponsor legislation making it a crime to seek a benefit by lying about military service:
"As a colonel in the Army Reserve, I feel strongly about protecting the honor of our servicemen and women," he said.
In its decision, the high court indicated that a more narrowly drawn law, making it a crime to seek money or other considerations by claiming to have military medals, might past constitutional muster. Heck said he believes his legislation would fit that definition.
Michael Neil, a retired Marine brigadier general and recipient of the Navy Cross for bravery in Vietnam, said lying about receiving a medal should be considered the same as impersonating a police officer, which is a crime:
"Why should we allow someone to impersonate someone whose bravery and heroism is far beyond what you could expect from the average citizen?" said Neil, a lawyer in San Diego.
Neil said he recently encountered someone claiming to be a Navy Cross recipient. He said he quickly realized the man was lying.
"I gave him two seconds to get out of the room," he said.
**NOTE** The staff of FOB Equestria in no way condones violence or the use of force in confronting those suspected or shown to be guilty of Stolen Valor.
The Supreme Court, however, had its own take. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the 1st Amendment "protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace."
THE AFTERMATH
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine), who served as a Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan, expressed disappointment in the high court ruling:
"There might well be some legislative options here and that's something we'll be taking a closer look at, because our military men and women contribute and sacrifice too much for others to try taking the credit," Hunter said.
Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nevada) vowed to sponsor legislation making it a crime to seek a benefit by lying about military service:
"As a colonel in the Army Reserve, I feel strongly about protecting the honor of our servicemen and women," he said.
In its decision, the high court indicated that a more narrowly drawn law, making it a crime to seek money or other considerations by claiming to have military medals, might past constitutional muster. Heck said he believes his legislation would fit that definition.
Michael Neil, a retired Marine brigadier general and recipient of the Navy Cross for bravery in Vietnam, said lying about receiving a medal should be considered the same as impersonating a police officer, which is a crime:
"Why should we allow someone to impersonate someone whose bravery and heroism is far beyond what you could expect from the average citizen?" said Neil, a lawyer in San Diego.
Neil said he recently encountered someone claiming to be a Navy Cross recipient. He said he quickly realized the man was lying.
"I gave him two seconds to get out of the room," he said.
**NOTE** The staff of FOB Equestria in no way condones violence or the use of force in confronting those suspected or shown to be guilty of Stolen Valor.
The Supreme Court, however, had its own take. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the 1st Amendment "protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace."
NEW LEGISLATION
(House)
On September 13, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a new version of the Stolen Valor Act, a bill aimed at people who lie about receiving military medals and then attempt to profit from the deception.
The first version of the Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment.
The bill focuses not on people who lie about having medals they didn't earn, but on any profits they make from lying about the medals, which is essentially criminal fraud.
Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nevada) sponsored the new bill. His office issued a release on September 14 saying the bill passed by a vote of 410-3.
Heck said in a floor speech last year that the bill would survive judicial review because it resolves the "constitutional issues by clearly defining that the objective of the law is to target and punish those who misrepresent the alleged service with the intent of profiting personally or financially."
(Ed. Note* as of this writing, the bill has not undergone judicial review.)
The bill targets those who falsely claim to have earned certain major military decorations, including the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart or a medal signifying you served in combat. This bill only covers those who try to profit from such deceptions, not those who merely wear decorations to which they are not authorized.
Congressman Joe Heck (NV-03) on March 14, 2013 applauded the House Committee on the Judiciary’s passage of H.R. 258, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013. Rep. Heck's bill, which had 103 bipartisan co-sponsors, makes it a crime to knowingly benefit from lying about receiving certain valorous military medals and awards. The Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to move the bill to the floor for consideration before the whole House of Representatives. The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (H.R. 258) is identical to legislation previously introduced by Rep. Heck that passed the House of Representatives in 2012 with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Senators Dean Heller (R-NV) and Jon Tester (D-MT) introduced companion legislation, S. 210, in the Senate which has 19 bipartisan co-sponsors.
NEW LEGISLATION
(Senate)
On Feb. 4 2013, a new bill aimed at criminalizing those who falsely wear military decorations to profit by such deceptions was introduced into the U.S. Senate as the Stolen Valor Act of 2013. The measure, introduced by Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., is a companion bill to legislation proposed on Jan. 15 by U.S. House Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev.
The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 would enhance current federal legislation that punishes those who falsely represent themselves as decorated military heroes. A provision in the proposed law would authorize criminal prosecution of those who lie about being awarded certain medals and decorations in order to gain veterans benefits.
The existing federal law, Title 18, Section 704, reads, in part, "Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded (certain) decoration(s) or medal(s) authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces… shall be fined… imprisoned… or both."
The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 would replace that provision with "Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal described… shall be fined (and/or) imprisoned not more than one year...."
(Editor’s note; It should be noted here that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 modified a section of USC 704 Title 18, and that is what was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This is the Act that Strandlof and Alvarez were prosecuted under, USC 704 Title 18 remained in effect and was not challenged. It remains in effect today.)
A Senate vote on the bill is awaiting passage of the House version later this month.
WHAT CAN BE DONE
 |
| Maximilian Uriarte's "Terminal Lance" shows how to handle this sort of situation. |
When someone is suspected of fraudulently wearing medals or decorations to which they are not authorized, several resources are available. One of the best ones is the website www.thisainthell.us This is a site run for the most part by decorated combat veterans who diligently research and identify those who wear non-authorized decorations. They maintain a database as well as a list of military blogs. Another valuable resource are the folks that run the Guardian of Valor website. Here is their mission statement:
“Our Mission is to out people who falsely claim Military service and/or claim unauthorized medals or tabs. It may be your First Amendment right to lie about service to this country, and medals earned, but it is our First Amendment right to show the world your lies. Our admins are a group of Active and Veteran service members that want to protect the Uniforms of the services and the Valor, Integrity and Honor that comes with that. We value our service, our veterans, and the fallen, and will do whatever is needed to protect them.”
Another website worth checking out is www.fakewarriors.org. This website is helpful because it has tabs right on the home page to “Verify retired or discharged military claims made.” And also “Report suspected false military claims.”
CONCLUSION
This problem will continue to be an issue until the public is sufficiently informed of the issue, and it is up to current and former members of the military to identify and pursue such individuals through all available legal means. Stay vigilant!
