Rick Duncan, the ACLU, and a Constitutional Right to Lie

It is not only a question of harm, but of fraud. By fraudulently claiming awards and decorations that have not been earned, the poseur is usually the beneficiary of goods & services, as well as non-tangible gains such as admiration.

Furthermore, harm is done by diminishing the value of awards actually earned.

A country which awards decorations should protect them.

I don't know that it harms me if someone claims an award they didn't earn unless they are using that claim to get something from me. In this case, money. Liars are liars and just about as low as you can go on my list, but that isn't against the law. This is a case of fraud. He stole someone else's identity to solicit money. That is not covered by the constitution. Whether or not he was doing it for a good reason.

I am curious though, was he actually giving the money to homeless veterans or keeping it? That might change my harshness toward a punishment...

Let's see, lawyers seeking to protect, enshrine lying - mendacity - in law. First draft the ACLU lawyers, let them serve as Private or Seaman, and after they've honorably finished their hitch, then let's see how keen they'd be to enshrine and protect in law individuals who lie about military service and honors.

Such outright acts of deceit do undermine the value of decorations/awards rightfully received by others. It cheapens them. If diamonds were so plentiful that everyone wore them, their value would greatly diminish. They would no longer be special. If a service member goes "above and beyond" in acts of bravery, how can we say we have honored them, if any yahoo can come along, wearing the very same award/decoration, usually accompanied by yarns a mile long, and get away with it? If you say, well, these guys haven't gotten away with it, what would you call it if they had robbed a bank, gotten caught, and then were let go because the money was recovered? You could say nobody was really hurt, so why punish them? I say they have broken the law willfully and knowingly, with utter disregard for others. As a Marine combat veteran (Vietnam) and a retired Police Lieutenant, I say a nation has no laws if they are not adhered to and enforced.

Why don't we just all pick out whatever decorations we like and start wearing them? I think I would look good with a Medal of Honor around my neck. After all, who would it hurt? I expect this kind of stuff from the ACLU, after all, it was started by ardent communist sympathizers (fact, not rumor), but the Rutherford Institute getting into this shocks me. If that is true, my opinion of them changes greatly.

USING FALSE INFORMATION TO OBTAIN A GAIN, BE IT MONEY OR A JOB IS EXTORTION AND NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED. I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH BUT THERE IS A LIMIT, LIES DO NOT CONSTITUTE "FREE SPEECH".

I agree entirely with Falshrmjgr says. My father-in-law was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, the French Croix de Guerre, the purple heart in his landing at Omaha Beach in Normandy and several others. He paid a price for these medals. Rick Duncan/Strandlof did not pay any price for his claimed medals (unless he bought them in an Army Surplus store) and should be rewarded for his claim with a prison term.

It does not surprise me that the ACLU is taking this position. No one has a constitutional right to lie, particularly when it involves any claim to unearned awards and decorations. Enabling one to do so demeans the valor and courage of those who bled and earned the recognition of our great nation. Every service member should be outraged at this assertion by the ACLU. From personal experience in the late 80's and early 90's on countless occasions I felt the personal rage and anger when confronting a "wanna be" at a veteren's or memorial event. All too often I saw these phony heroes stealing the accolades due the real heroes. At times you could spot them easily and at other times when questioned their story fell apart. I applaud and encourage anyone who seeks out and exposes these thiefs of valor. Thanks for all your efforts. Please keep up the good work. Vic Vickery

If it takes a dictatorship to end the absurdities of this country and legal system, I am all for it. There is actually a court case being argued over whether or not it is wrong to falsely claim someone has been awarded medals of valor. Waterboard the culprit and show his confession on national TV until there is nobody left who thinks it wasn't necessary. Throw out the not guilty pleas of those unwilling to confess right away unless they accept a death penalty for being found guilty.

Shoot the son of a bitch!!

If someone bolsters their resume with phony college degrees, is that protected by 'Freedom of Speech'? Of course not.
If an elected official lies to the public promising one thing and doing another, is he/she protected by 'Freedom of Speech'? Of course not.

The (il)logic of the ACLU is damaging to America.

A claim of honor not earned may be one's right under 'free speech', but it does indeed harm those who have earned such honor by diminishing its (honor) very essence. What then, and where in does the 'value' of such award reside if not in the honor (medal) awarded for valor. Harm is therefore incurred when the essence of valor is diminished by falsehood.

As a proud member of ACLU, I object to describing the ACLU as "the usual gang". ACLU has done more than any other single organization in the country to defend legally our precious Bill of Rights, which we as service members were prepared to give our lives to defend. They are not our enemies, they are our allies in the cause of freedom. And sometimes the military or the government oversteps the limits which the Bill of Rights sets. Those boundaries are not always clear, which is why we have courts and lawsuits to sort things out. This is a good thing, not an insult to the services.

In this case, without having read the lawsuit papers, I expect that ACLU is saying that this kind of offensive behavior -- which clearly it is -- should not be criminalized, because that that goes too far, that free speech is such an important value that we should tolerate offensive speech unless it causes actual harm. That is what the Supreme Court has said in similar situations many times before. For example, you can no longer lock someone up for "criminal libel", but I remember the newspaper editor back in the 60s who criticized the local Sheriff and may have exaggerated a bit with the facts and was headed right for the state pen until the Supreme Court said no. Well, the Sheriff was highly offended. We are highly offended in this case. Is that enough to send someone to prison? I don't think so.

I see that some creative arguments for such harm have been made in this case, but to me they just don't rise to the level of the kinds of harm the courts have traditionally recognized. People lie all the time in our society, and you can't lock them up for it unless it causes harm, such as fraud. And if the kind of misrepresentation involved in this case was in fact used fraudulently, if for example benefits were obtained at cost to the government, we already have laws to deal with that. If not, then we're talking about offensive behavior related to our sense of patriotism.

We have to be careful about letting our patriotic fervor turn such offenses into a form of blasphemy or sacrilege. That almost happened with the flag-burning case. People who burn flags do so to make a point, but many of us wanted to lock those people up, not for violation of the fire code but for committing sacrilege against a precious symbol. If we start doing that, we'll be locking people up for who knows what is "sacred". Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck down the law punishing flag-burning. I can't even remember the last time a flag-burning was reported in the U.S., that's how significant it is in reality.

And, it costs a lot of money to lock someone up, both in prosecution and in prison costs. And all because this unpatriotic behavior in question annoyed the hell out of us. I've got neighbors who annoy me, and a couple of relatives, and the law doesn't let me lock them up either.

The guy who did this this time, whoever he is, is being punished for the rest of his life by being notorious for having done something dishonorable. And, I imagine a law which allowed a civil judgment to be entered on a serviceman's record, or restraining him from future conduct of that kind, would be constitutional and would be a sufficient stain as to punish him appropriately.

Let that be enough.

I believe that I will claim to be a lawyer. Who would it hurt?
IF, we all start charitable organizations, and solicit funds for the ACLU. Then collect a salary at say a 90 or 95% rate; I guarantee the ACLU would not see that as protected speech. OR Maybe apply for a job as an attorney with the ACLU, just lie about our credentials... We could all be graduates of Harvard Law!! The duplicity of these scabs knows no bounds
This is exactly what I expect from the progressive movement. They are dismantling our Constitution and it is going on unchecked. It is too bad that Attorneys do not take an oath to "protect and defend the Constiution..." But that would require a spine.
The ACLU should beware.... would precedent law deem, that the lying on a resume then is protected speech?

Douglas Wilson,

I think that you forgot to use the /sarcasm tags on your post. I'd hate for anyone to think you were actually serious when you claim the ACLU exists to protect our bill of rights. If the ACLU actually gave a rat's ass about our Constitution, it would be the first time it's history. The ACLU was founded by a man who wanted to destroy capitalism, democracy, and bring in a spcialist worker's paradise to the United States.

Grow up, Douglas. If you truly believe the crap you wrote, then you need some serious help, more than anyone on this site can give you.

mmmm Free Speech gives us all rights to say anything we want and not worry about paying for what we say? thats like someone being able to say they have a bomb in an airport, or that they aim to cause harm to Obama,as long as it isn't true it's ok under Free Speech. and what about ID thief? come on give me a break!
Wait hold on as I'm The ACLU's donation rep you can help poor Mr Duncan by sending me your "The Help Mr Duncan fund".
(the above statement about the ACLU is not true in the lest, do not send any money or surport)
Now if i was to post and really work that and get thousands of dollars I wonder. would the ACLU defend me and my rights under the same free speech rights as they understand it for Mr Duncan?
now come on, He lied, he made money from the lie, he caused damage with the lie, now he needs to pay for that lie.
(Note just be ready for the lies he'll tell about he's time in prison.)

I served In Vietnam From May !967 thru May 1968. I was with the 255th Signal group. We were support for the 56th transporttion Company and the 120th Assult Helicopter Company. I find this man and the ACLU and their cronies totally disgusting. I absolutely feel this is a slap in the face to evey American service person who has earned a medal in connection with their service to our country. I did not receive any decorations or medals other than the normal campain medals and such. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine doing what this man has done. I wonder how the ACLU would feel if I impersonated one of their attorneys and went around soliciting money for their cause? The ACLU is what's wrong with America. And to think our tax dollars go to support this organization!

If one tells a lie about military medals or honors what does that say about the character of the individual? Did this lie directly hurt me as and individual, no, but as a veteran yes. This individual has in some way taken away from the real hero's that earned their medals and honors. This individual has claimed to be a part of this special group of vet's that received their medals for real service heroics. Is this a lie and should it be against the law, yes. This individual should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

Wait a minute. A person who lies and thereby commits fraud, and is caught, and is prosecuted, is entitled to use a free speech defense? Am I missing something? This is just another example of how the ACLU has lost its credibility!

I served in Vietnam, recieved the CIB and a Purple Heart. I find it reprehensible (and INDEFENSIBLE) that someone would decieve people about awards such as these. I personally know of a veteran that claimed to have been a POW. Even though he'd served 2 tours in 'Nam he somehow started telling this lie and kept it alive until he had to confess to it all. The story found it's way to the local newspaper and he knew it was a matter of time before someone saw through the lie. I lost all respect for him but at least he never sought to profit by the ruse and was truly sorry for the incident.
Prosecute these people to the full extent of the law and then ostracize them forever. The act of a coward, thief and liar.

Claiming to be a lawyer when one is not is a crime, practicing law without a license.

Claiming to have military medals one has not earned is practicing honor without a conscience.

If the former is a crime because it causes harm, then the latter most certainly is a crime, too. It causes harm to the Republic vis-a-vis the harm caused the honor and integrity of its military, one of the Consitutional obligations of our Government.

Not a vet, and have never claimed to be one.

Oh, and Douglas Wilson, the ACLU are nothing but a bunch of commie rat b*stards. That is not libel as the truth is an affirmative defense.

If would be fun to have a "blanket party"---member those?... cut his penis off then lie about who did it. Send the punk to the front lines and see if his tweety-bird a*s can back up his alligator mouth.

Douglas Wilson:
Yes, the ACLU love the Bill of Rights so much that they want to extend the protections and rights afforded to terrorists that killed three thousand Americans on 9/11. You're a deluded idiot.

I believe I will start claiming to be a brain surgeon or maybe a cardiologist. After all, who could it hurt?

According to the ACLU's logic it should be legal to commit fraud. By someone claiming to have earned those medals and then reaping the benefits of that lie you are committing FRAUD. If I call my insurance company and make a false claim by lying to them I go to jail and or face the consequences of committing insurance fraud. If I file a false police report I can also got to jail/suffer the consequences. In my opinion lying about military decorations is FRAUD. Now there are people out there that I'm sure have lied to people about what awards and decs they have received and while i believe they are wrong, in certain cases I don't think judiciary punishment is needed...some people just crave attention. It is when these lies are used to gain money, support, or benefits only given to those that have truly earned those decs that something should be done. The worst thing though for me is people that take it a step farther like this guy and build an entire persona around the lie and cause a gross amount of fraud. The stolen valor law was meant to draw a line in the sand of when lying about military decs is a crime and when it is not. This guy committed fraud and should serve time for his fraud. If this guy is allowed to walk then what are our decorations worth anyway...

Equally as pathetic as “Stolen Valor” is wearing a medal or award you were legitimately presented, but did not legitimately “earn.”

The ACLU needs to be dismantled and abolished. They seem to have an endless supply of money and do nothing but stir up the populus with their rediculous lawsuits. Any individual who represents themselves as a hero or awardee of medals of valor or meritorious service should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. If not, then let the true heros line the offender up against the wall and shoot them one shot at a time in various portions of the body and let them die a slow death.

THE ACLU IS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS TRANSPORTED TO THIS COUNTRY TO ESCAPE THE NAZIS. THEY ARE NOTHING BUT ANTI U.S. A HOLES MASQUERADING AS LAWYERS. THE SCOTUS WILL NOT LET THIS ACLU CRAP STAND. I THINK THIS IDIOT SHOULD BE MADE TO GO TO AFGHANISTAN AND SEE WHAT IT IS REALLY LIKE TO EARN AN AWARD....

I think that it is morally wrong , although it may not be legally wrong...Taking credit for something of valor, from somebody who earned that medal, or maybe died, defending the United States is wrong and he needs to face some of our boys who have served & tell them what he is doing! There use to be valor among us, but I see it slipping away, by the likes of this fellow....There is a hole in the world...May God have mercy on his soul, (if he has one).

I served in Korea 1952 - 1953. I was a rifle squad leader. 7 th inf Div. I was awared the Bronz Star for valor for action on Pork Chop Hill
( and I can prove it ) I was not awared the Combat Inf Badge bescause my MOS was not Inf. I truly belive I earned that CBI. But I would never wear it, I would never dishonor those that have earned it. If you take Honor for something not deserved you are a very small person. Those troopers that have served on the line ,, would never wear a decoration they did not earn.

Sgt 1st Class John Beike RA 11167634

Give me a break. ACLU is full of bull. This activity amounts to out and out fraud.

I guess that there is no such thing as fraud anymore. You are just exercising free speech.

Once again the American Communist Lawyers Union (aclu) from the left coast is so far off base it is hard to discuss this.

To defend a phoney, lying, low life rat wearing unearned Medals is beyond Comon Sense!

Free Speech needs to take a back seat when it comes to Medals Earned While Serving Their Country with HONOR.

This maggott needs to be locked up and have the keys thrown away.

By their logic, it should be forseeably OK for me to tell people I am a Harvard Law School graduate practicing in Florida, and a former editor of the Harvard Law Review. As long as I don't actually PRACTICE law, I haven't caused any harm. On what grounds would the legal system be able to stop me, if any? Anyone care to test it?

As wearing the uniform of our country without being a member of the military is a crime, because it is a material misrepresentation of who the person is, or if a person tells someone that they are a doctor when they are not, why is it that misrepresenting yourself as a soldier having received a medal of valor not the same thing. I am probably the most liberal person you would ever know, but this goes beyond the realm of mere human decency. For all I can see the ACLU is the most hypocritical organization I have ever seen. Freedom of speech is about political speech. It is not meant to protect those who misrepresent themselves.

Rick Strandlof is criminally liable.
The ACLU has earned a reputation asbeing a sham organization that almost entirely
promotes, protects and spends untold dollars gumming up the courts and confusing the facts
with all sorts of off-base cartoonish people and causes existing outside the norms of society.

Anytime the term "ACLU" is brought up what comes to mind? For me its "Oh there are those
ridiculous idiots trying to muddy the facts and stir the pot to circumvent the law and responsibility."

To the fellow who says he could accept a dictatorship to straighten things out -- be careful what you wish for.

Several have said the actions of "Rick Duncan" are fraud therefore ACLU is wrong. What he did is deceitful, but not in traditional criminal terms for fraud, because nobody was directly cheated out of anything valuable.

Several have given an example like lying about being a lawyer, e.g., Tom just above. Actually, he is right that you can't be punished for saying you're a lawyer as long as you don't practice or use that lie to cheat others out of something. But if you say you're a Harvard graduate and aren't, then Harvard, which is very possessive of its name, can get an injunction against you to stop you from doing that. Still no jail, unless you violate the injunction. Then the jail is for violating the injunction.

Several have said that ACLU is a bunch of communists, which I find is something said by far right-wingers, and it's kind of silly. Communists want to tear down the Bill of Rights; we want to defend it. Are we liberal? Probably, and for the last two national elections, so was a majority of voting Americans. But a lot of Republicans are ACLU members, and if ACLU has a liberal reputation, it's only because not enough conservatives have joined. After all, we are as conservative as any Libertarian in holding out for as much individual liberty as we can.

One of the things that confuses people about ACLU is that we often defend people we totally disagree with. This "Rich Duncan" guy is a classic example. You have to keep an eye on the reason for defending him. It is to avoid sending people to prison for using speech where there is no real harm except offended sensibilities. As another example of this, in the early 20th century there were some court decisions which upheld prison sentences for speakers at a public meeting whose only offense was that their audience was so hostile toward what they were saying that the audience became a mob and started a riot -- but the cops locked up the innocent speakers instead of the rioters. Crazy, right? Over time, ACLU helped change that so that the rioters now get locked up instead of the innocent speakers.

Calling ACLU a bunch of communists, being untrue, is defamatory, and in the old days, criminally so. But don't worry. You won't go to jail. ACLU has already protected you from that.

While I agree with you regarding the "communist" accusation, I still can not comprehend the statement that "nobody was directly cheated out of anything valuable." Every recipient of the Silver Star and Purple Heart is now susceptical to the suspicion that he did not do so by anyone who knows the story of Duncan. Additionally, I would argue that the other members of the Colorado Veterans Alliance were cheated out of their entire organization by his fraudulent statements. Each Congressional Candidate who relied on Duncan's statements, and used him in Campaign commercials has had their integrity and honor called into question.

You keep saying there is no harm, a mantra used by the ACLU and Rutherford. I would like to think that my fellow recipients of the Combat Infantryman's Badge would take sxtreme exception to that. Perhaps you haven't been harmed, but all of us that earned the honor now have to go to extra lengths to prove that we did.

I wonder if the ACLUs defense of Free Speech also extends to pedophiles trying to seduce young children over the internet. If yes, then I believe that speaks for itself, but if not, I wonder what distinction. Since it is merely an effort to seduce, if it is not culminated, or if the underaged individual is a law enforcement official, and therefore there is no victim, dows that obviate the perpetrated of any culpability?

Also, I would argue that those that donated to Duncan on the assumption that he was a combat decorated and combat wounded veterans might also take issue with your "no fraud" defense.

One last though that perhaps you could educate me on.

In Salazar v. Buono, the ACLU is arguing that standing is predicated on the remote possibility that an Oregon resident might travel on a remote road through a park over 800 miles away. The ACLU argued this is harm. And yet in this case, there is insufficient harm acrued to those who have earned on honor by others fraudulently claiming the same. So I wonder what definition of "harm" you are working off, and/or whether the harm here is insufficient for c government interest, but you believe that for standing it can be a significantly more attenuated harm.

First, isn't it a crime to impersonate military personnel? If not, it certainly should be. Second, the American Communist Liberation Union is nothing more than a group of wannabe lawyers who can't make an honest living so they resort to undermining our society (the one THEY don't fit into) and doing everything in their power to destroy that which our forefathers bequeathed to us. I wish them ill will.

Mr. Wilson, you may be correct "legally", but morally and emotionally (something I think many here many consider the aclu devoid of) your arguments will NEVER win over the hearts and minds of anyone who has served, especially in combat zones. You (aclu) will never have/gain/hold any respect in this regard. Going over a number of aclu (I refuse to capitalize out of lack of respect) cases, I personally see nothing "good" (I realize this is subjective) that the aclu has done for the "average American" since 1967. i.e. The Boy Scouts of America, neo-nazis, Mt. Soledad and McCreary County are major ones that have caused me personally to despise the aclu. (I'm an agnostic, don't play the religion card) The whole "I don't agree with what you say, but would die to support your right to say it" wears very thin. What irks me even further is that indirectly "We the People" pay you to inflict this crap on us. (every time the aclu wins, the tax payer pays for it) I'm sorry, sir... I for one will never understand how you can sleep at night. This is especially true if you, as I understand from your first post, are a Vet.

Lying about military service and medals received demeans those service members that have served in combat or support from home; Good Conduct medal to Medal of Honor. I beleive that the ACLU is the reformed Communist Order, Conquer from within. They should be cut of from all government funds and have to work only by donations and fees like the true Americans have too.

The defense is false. His actions do indeed cause harm. Individually a veteran may not be harmed but collectively the veteran community is most definitely harmed and I submit so is our entire society.
Military personnel give of themselves for this country's defense; often suffering severe injury and death. Those fortunate enough to survive the battles continue to carry the burden of their experience long after they return home. The purpose of decoration is to recognize valor, to honor those who sacrifice themselves in service to their country, and to remind the benefactor of freedom that it is borne at a cost only a few are willing to pay.
If it is not illegal to wear a medal that is unearned then anyone can do so at any time and there will be no recognition of valor or service. Medals will be rendered worthless and after some time most likely will cease to exist. You could say then that on any Memorial Day all people stand equal in their contribution to freedom without regard to their military service or lack thereof.
I must ask, if we do not recognize service then is it fair to punish disservice? If it is not honorable and just to recognize valor; then is it honorable and just to punish treason? Furthermore, if there is no formal recognition for valor and service, then is it service and valor and not merely a period of mercenary employment? Why not just hire our military from other countries and save all our young people from the horrors of war?
Yes, we do pay our military and no I am not suggesting that they are mercenaries; quite the opposite. Since we do honor valor and service they know that if they follow their sense of duty, their countrymen will respect them for having done so. They understand that their sacrifice will serve to perpetuate the freedom they have enjoyed and will secure that freedom to their children. They honor the sacrifice of the veterans that precede them in service and they strive to serve with equal distinction
Before we squander that trust and proceed down the mercenary path lets all go back and read some history. As the european city-states learned the hard way, mercenary armies are expensive to field and maintain; they have little respect for the values and traditions of their employers, and often displace the governments which pay them to fight.
Perhaps the most revealing point I've gleaned from these posts is this; those not willing to serve in harm’s way are the ones defending the actions of the thief who poses as a patriot.

AS far as RICK DUNCAN GOES , well frist of all he is the one that has to put up with his lies , that HE an HE only can make that right to his fellow comrades !! no one else , just him !! for the ACLU they are not SMART enough to manage them self , so really do not know what it is like to see what it is like to EARN A REAL MEDAL , or WHAT ever he is putting on his uniform or were ever he is puting the things that HE DID NOT EARN , like said in an other post , real soldiers do not like to brag an stand out , it is allways better to stay out of the light , ( ya make a much smaller target )also there is less questions that ya have to answer . ( if i have to explain , dont' even ask!!!) works better that way , i found out the hard way , didnt' take long eather .i do although have a good question , for someone who does not mind explaning , we HAD aperson in our legion hall , THAT WAS IN MANY OFFICERS POSITONS AN SUCH , SOMEONE,got to woundering ,after all of the real good (book) stories that he was telling about VIETMAN , an were he was an what he had done,
an for his age there was NO WAY that he could have even been to NAM, SO COME TO FIND OUT HE WAS NEVER IN THE MILITERY AT ALL!!HIS DD 214 AN ALL PAPPER WORK WAS FALSE !! NOW WILL SOME ONE PLZ TELL ME HOW THE HELL HE GOT AWAY WITH THIS , HE ALSO WAS A THIEF , STELLING FROM THE SOCIAL QUARTERS ( MONEY & LIQUER FROM THE BAR ETC.) WHOM EVER READS THIS FROM WERE WE ARE LOCATED WILL VEREY WELL KNOW THE PERSON THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT , O WELL SO BE IT , AS SOON AS HE WAS FOUND OUT ,AN IT TOOK A LONG WHILE TO GET GROUNDED PROFF, HE VEREY QUICKLEY SINGED A LETTER TO QUITLEY STEP DOWN , SO AS TO SAVE FACE , NOT JUST HIS WORNG DOINGS , BUT ALSO NOT TO BE IN THE LIGHT AS SAID BEFORE ,WE DID NOT HAVE HIM PUT IN JAIL ( SHOULD HAVE SHOT HIM )THIS UPSET A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE IN OUR POST , AGAIN WHY SHINE THE LIGHT , HE is the one an only him that has to live with what he has done we that DID OUR TIME IN THE NAM
DID NOT GET WHAT WE EARNED EATHER , EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON , SO BE IT ,WHEN THIS MAN JOINED OUR POST HE WAS FULLY CHECKED OUT & ALL OF HIS PAPPER WORK WAS IN VEREY GOOD
ORDER ( I NOW SAY TO GOOD , ) AN I DO BELIEVE THAT IS HOW HE GOT AWAY WITH WHAT HE DID !! I HAVE KEPT NAMES & NUMBERS OUT OF THIS POST , BUT AS SOON AS SOMEONE HERE IN OUR AREA SEES MY NAME WITH THIS POSTING , THE DAMN LIGHT WILL REALLY SHINE BRIGHT , THIS HAS BEEN BOTHERING ME SO BAD THAT I JUST HAD TO SAY SOME THING , (EASEY TO LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG , JUST TRIE TO GET IT BACK IN LOL. ) I DO WANT TO KNOW , IS THIS A FED .OFFENCE OR IS IT NOT? I KNOW , IF I HAVE TO EXPLAIN DONT'EVEN ASK , TO LATE , ENOUGH SAID , I AM QUIT SURE THAT I WILL HEAR ALL ABOUT THIS !!WP SCRAGG 1967 TO A BIT OF 1969 249TH CONST. ENG.GERMANEY THEN NAM MOST OF 1969 TO A BIT OF 1970 30TH ENG BRG . 35TH COMBAT ENGR.CO.A 24TH GROUP AN OUR MOS WAS NEVER CHANGED , BUT AS ALL COMBAT ENGR. KNOWES WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 11 BARVO!!
AN IAM' A VEREY PROUD ARMY FATHER AN HAVE A GREAT SOLDIER (LIFER LOL SON ) THX FOR LETTING ME TALK , HOPE IT ALL MADE SOME KIND OF SENCE GO ARMY!!!!

I have to say I'm surprised at the degree of hatred for the ACLU in these posts, and make just a few further points.

1. We don't decide these cases, the courts do. If we win, some pretty conservative judges -- in the federal courts, mostly Reagan, Bush I and Bush II appointees -- say we were right. We don't use voodoo, or the Communist Manifesto, we use the precedents of the federal courts themselves. It's called the rule of law. Lots of individual civil rights lawyers do exactly the same thing apart from the ACLU, and if you don't like them doing that, you can do what implicitly you are calling for -- repeal the Bill of Rights.

2. "The taxpayers are paying for you to subvert America." ACLU gets attorneys' fees when they win, just as other lawyers do in civil rights cases. That's the law. Go ahead and repeal it if you want. Then when the government steps on YOU, try to find a lawyer who will do your case for you.

3. The Mt. Soledad case has been mentioned, in a confused manner. It's about the government refusing to let religious memorials other than Christian to be present -- a clear case of religious discrimination. Then the property was reconveyed into private hands, and the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ninth Circuit -- again, mostly conservative judges -- was right in saying that was not permissible as a coverup for discrimination. If veterans support religious discrimination, I'd like them to step up and admit it.

4. None of the critics here seems to realize that the actions of ACLU are essentially CONSERVATIVE -- in that every single one of them seeks to keep government power over individual liberty restrained. We have a lot more in common with Libertarians than we do with some Democrats. Yes, sometimes there are conflicts of rights, and you can argue that we pick the wrong side sometimes. We have those same debates inside ACLU. You are welcome to join ACLU and influence those debates. But as a veteran who wore the uniform for four years during the Vietnam War, I get a little tired of being called a Communist, America-hater, etc., for what I regard is a very important activity -- challenging government every time it tries to restrict our individual freedom. Every now and then I get emails reminding me that the military is out there defending our freedoms. I agree, but you can't use an army to do that in court. And the government doesn't pay lawyers to sue itself. So ACLU does it. So do other organizations. But just be careful when you knee-jerk a criticism of some case ACLU files without understanding exactly what is at stake. When we defended the Nazi march in the Jewish neighborhoods in 1975, it was to defend YOUR right to march and express YOUR opinion someplace where YOUR message might be unpopular.

5. Following that point is this one: somebody is out there cooking up restrictions on your personal freedom every minute. (I am reminded of that every time I have to take off my shoes in an airport -- a silly rule that the Israelis, the best airport security team in the world, doesn't do.) Our motto is that eternal vigilance is needed to protect our freedoms. Be glad somebody is doing it.

I'd like to hear from other Legion members who agree with me. I know you're out there.

Methinks good ol' Douggie Wilson does not have any knowledge of who actually founded the ACLU. Read up on Roger Baldwin sometime, Douggie, and learn something (if that is even possible for a lawyer such as yourself). Once you do that, Douggie, then tell me and others here that the ACLU is a pro-America, Constitution-loving organization. Baldwin was a WWI draft dodger and sentenced to jail, along with being a good communist (like so many progressive elites). It's understandable why Douggie would defend the Rick Duncans of the world in their fraud against every honorable military veteran: An anti-US military attitude is in the founding genes of the communist ACLU.

Truth sucks, doesn't it Douggie.

Douglas:

You managed to simultaneously ignore the points I made, and execute a nearly perfect tackle on a straw man, well done.

However, in response to your statements:
1) No one has called for a repeal of the Bill of Rights, and even the ACLU acknowledges that there are precedents which cut against their case. So your hyperbole is neither needed nor honest.

2) The American Legion has indeed been working to repeal the law granting attorney's fees in cases such as this. What happens more often is a municipality or local gov't is threatened with exhorbitant fees it can not pay, and thus, whether they can win the case or not must accede to the demands of the ACLU or let go employees like firemen and police. And yes, I can provide examples.

3) The Mt Soledad case is not what I mentioned, but rather the Salazar v. Buono case which deals with the Mojave cross. On top of that, you missed my point, which was exclusively the harm issue. In Salazar standing was predicated by the ACLU on the harm that one man might endure were he to drive on a road in the middle of the desert 800 miles from his house. My sole question with regards to that is how you reconcile the "harm" in that case to achieve standing, with the harm alleged by myself and others that comes from people claiming medals that we rightfully have earned. Leaving aside all legal arguments, which I had intended to discuss later, but confining all arguments solely to the harm issue.

4) Not really even worth addressing, since I did not alledge it, and you haven't responded to any of the other charges regarding the founding of the ACLU etc.

5) I am uncertain what Isreali shoes has to do with the case at bar.

In the likely case that you don't adress any of the other points I made up, let me ask you this. I assume you went to law school, and that the Law School in question was a Tier 1 law school, like I attended. Now, no doubt you have the diploma on your wall. Mine remains in it's cardboard container since I am embarrassed by the profession. My question is this, would your diploma mean less if everyone who applied for matriculation was granted entrance, and each who was enrolled received a degree. Now, being that the exclusive nature of the degree has now been diminished, could it be properly stated that you have been harmed?

If he wants to claim he received all of the awards, after he is found guilty of violating the Stolen Valor Act, he should be given a public presentation of the awards, pinned right through his scrotum.

But this kind of stuff happens all of the time. I am involved in a military memorial. One of the founding members, a Navy veteran, or so he has told me, starting talking about SE Asia. I rotated with some B-52s to U-Tapao, Thailand in 1972. I figured that we had something in common. He explained that he spent his time on ship, occasionally shelling Viet Nam. Being Air Force, I have no idea of what the Navy was doing, if it wasn't about aviation. Later on, I found out that the fellow was only 45-years old, too young to be shelling Viet Nam, unless he had been on the beaches there, collecting shells.

Because of circumstances beyond my control, I have to interact with the fellow and can't confront him on it all. But I have let others know, discreetly, that he's full of crap.

If that's the case, I should be able to legally lie about being a doctor and I should be allowed to give medical advice without worrying about repercussions. I should also be able to claim that I'm a lawyer and give out legal advice that isn't worth a steaming pile of cow excreta... you know, like the advice the ACLU is giving.