7 Votes
Crime of Impersonating a Soldier and Falsely Claiming Medals
|
||
|
The Purple Heart – awarded to soldiers injured in the line of duty during combat. |
So I was just browsing around the web the other day when a random headline in an RSS feed caught my eye. It was about a legal case between Rick Strandlof, the ACLU and the government. In a nutshell, this guy was arrested after being exposed for faking his survival of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and being a disabled vet after surviving a roadside IED in Iraq. He was using these claims to found and operate the Colorado Veterans Alliance, an organization that questionably funneled donations for wounded vets to Strandlof. One of the peculiar twists to his story is that he used his false resume (which included being a Naval Academy graduate) to pitch an anti-war message at rallies and actually raise positive awareness for actual disabled vets. Fellow [real] veterans that he worked with said, “It seems like his heart was in the right place. He was a really hard worker. He did a lot of good by raising a lot of awareness, but then you find out that he’s a fraud.”
The fraud part aside, two Title 18 Federal laws apply to this situation. Title 18 § 702 covers wearing of the uniform without authority in the context of impersonating a soldier and Title 18 § 704 covers falsely claiming military medals (to include a section specifically for fraudulently claiming a Medal of Honor). The ACLU and the Rutherford Institute got involved with Strandlof’s defense, claiming First Amendment rights protect his freedom to speech and expression as the lie of his background doesn’t hurt anyone as in the clear and present danger application. The government has responded to the defense arguing the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 (pdf) does not trample First Amendment rights, indicating the case will move forward.
And that made me curious – OmniNerds, what do you think?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Women Now Allowed Into Combat Roles, by VnutZ 4 months ago
- Commission to Recommend Women For Combat Roles, by VnutZ about 2 years ago
- Stolen Valor Act Ruled Unconstitutional, by VnutZ almost 3 years ago
- Virginia's Three Year Old Immigration Law, by VnutZ almost 3 years ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Intentions in this case. by EyeOfSage
Seem to me that this man had good intentions and his actions resulted in good things. The punishment might serve as a deterrence rather than a punishment to deter future frauds. Overall, I think his punishment should be given but more lightly due to the fact of his good intentions and effects.
Can't believe this by Anonymous
It boggles my mind that the ACLU would actually support someone lying about military service & the medals they never earned. What is next? Them supporting someone getting full benefits & retirement pay for a ranking they never made because they never served? These people are incredible. And people wonder why this country is messed up.
Vichy by Anonymous
Soldiers are low-rent mercenary thugs who deserve less ‘honor’ than serial killers and child molestors.
RE: Vichy by Occams
Soldiers are low-rent mercenary thugs who deserve less ‘honor’ than serial killers and child molestors.
Ironic? cynical? Still rubbish. This is about the constitutional right to free speech.
I presume that the ACLU is defending his right to say that he earned those medals, even if he didn’t.
Free speech is only of value when it offends, and we must retain the right to offend up to the point of breaking a law.
In this case his exercising his right to free speech offends me a very great deal.. That’s just fine. I don’t have the right to not be offended unless a law gives me that right in relation to the particular thing that he is saying.
I believe that the legislature should make this a crime if it isn’t already (which is hard to believe). Then he has no right to make those claims, and I don’t give a damn about his loss of rights to free speech.
If he was using these claims to enhance his ability to raise money, even if he was giving that money to damaged vets, it is still fraud. That is a serious crime – just like running a fake raffle would be.
Genuine vets don’t have a right to not be offended either (unless there is a specific law about it – if there is I don’t know). This is partl of the Freedom that the vets have fought for.
RE: Vichy by VnutZ
I believe that the legislature should make this a crime if it isn’t already (which is hard to believe). Then he has no right to make those claims, and I don’t give a damn about his loss of rights to free speech.
The Stolen Valor Act was law but it was thrown out as unconstitutional protecting the person’s ability to make false claims.
If he was using these claims to enhance his ability to raise money, even if he was giving that money to damaged vets, it is still fraud.
In this case, he was using it to raise money. Others use it to pad resumes because depending on the industry, companies get benefits for hiring vets and they’re cheating real vets out of job opportunities.
RE: Vichy by Occams
In this case, he was using it to raise money. Others use it to pad resumes because depending on the industry, companies get benefits for hiring vets and they’re cheating real vets out of job opportunities.
Well, that is still fraud – or should be.
If the Stolen Valor Act was deemed unconstitutional then it was poorly drafted. Those responsible sghould have found a way to achieve the same goal without going against the Constitution.
RE: Vichy by Anonymous
The so called low-rent thugs gave you the freedom to post that comment so show some respect, or better yet, why dont you join the military and fight for the freedom you take for granted.
RE: Vichy by Occams
Anonymous,
That was a quote from another anonymous (was it you?). I didn’t write it, and I respect our US soldiers, but I still disagree with you.
WIth one notable exception (OBL) mentioned below, I don’t believe that the actions of US soldiers in any of the conflicts of the last 30 years have secured my freedom.
I think it is all the more tragic that many of out best young men and women have been conned into wasting their lives under the illusion that they are protecting their relatives and friends back in the USA.
If you really respected our troops, you would require our politicians to be honest with them and explain to them the real reasons why they are being required to fight overseas.
These men and women might often be poorly educated in world affairs, but they are intelligent adults who if it is properly explained to them, are intellectually capable of understanding the complex international politics and business that leads our government administration to deploy them in this way. I have served my country in the Navy for many years and I have occupied senior executive positions in government, but I don’t see how any American lives have been protected by the deployment of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan: quite the opposite.
Killing OBL was good, but that was a special forces action in Pakistan, so I will credit that one with potentially saving American lives that might have otherwise been lost in future terrorist attacks.
To treat our servicemen like children who need a simplistic patriotic illusion to make them willing to sacrifice their lives is showing them the utmost disrespect. It is the same for their grieving loved ones. Flag waving may help initially, but they also deserve better.