Stolen Valor Act II stalled in reconciliation

| December 19, 2012 | 9 Comments

Chip sends us a link to an article in the Marine Corps Times by Rick Maze which tells us that the second iteration of the Stolen Valor Act was caught in the reconciliation committee after passing in the Senate and the House;

Missing from the [2013 defense policy bill] is Stolen Valor Act legislation that would allow criminal charges to be brought against anyone who profits, directly or indirectly, from lying about military service or military medals received for valor. House and Senate negotiators were unable to reach agreement on details of exactly what acts should be a crime and how to punish the acts, aides said.

As I said when this bill was being written, it’s a lawyer employment act as it stands. What constitutes value. One might argue that using someone else’s valor to put a twinkle in a young girl’s eye is of a certain value. I guess there were too many lawyers in the reconciliation committee for them to arrive at a reasonable solution.

Category: Stolen Valor Act

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Chip@NASA says:

    Yeah, not happy about this *AT ALL*….
    *walks out the front of my building and faces the Beltway…*
    ” COME ON YOU F-TARDS!!! GET IT *TOGETHER* !!! mumble mumble…got-damn politicians….grumble….harumph….jebus h. tapdancing christ…
    {:-(

  2. YAG YAS says:

    Yeah because lying in a bar to some floozy should be just as illegal as defrauding charities for Vets.

  3. Chip@NASA says:

    @2 Oh christ, you again?
    Let’s try to keep up now, shall we?
    THAT is why the original SV act was declared unconstitutional because the language was vague.
    They are going to be changing the language to focus on specific behaviors such as financial gain as well as indirect examples such as lying on a resume to gain unfair advantage in hiring, which would be an indirect financial gain. Also they have not agreed on the penalty for said infringing behaviors.
    /go crawl back under your bridge. Adults are talking here.

  4. Reaperman says:

    Fraud is generally still a crime for the big stuff, and I wonder if tacking on ‘stolen valor’ in addition to that would just run into the same issues as the old law. The ‘indirect benefit,’ such as somebody lying to their employer to get a job, or publicity for a book is interesting. It would have been nice to be able to stick it to some of those slimeballs when you really can’t get them on much else. (unless I’m mistaken) They’re obviously bettering themselves with their lies. I’m sure I’m reading all of this wrong anyway, since I’m certainly no lawyer.

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    It never gives up, does it, JL?

  6. AW1 Tim says:

    Don’t respond to the gas man. He isn’t worth a response. The only reason he comes on here is to rile folks up. Just ignore him. THAT is the better response, as it denies him his childish “pleasure” and makes him look like the vapid jackwagon he is.

  7. Chip@NASA says:

    @6 AW1 Tim,
    “Jackwagon”…I LOVE R Lee Ermey

  8. AW1 Tim says:

    Me too, Chip. I wish he’d stride into Congress and give the lot of ‘em the full benefit of his experience in dealing with jackwagons.

  9. FatCircles0311 says:

    More punishing the 1% in action.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *