UPDATE: Is there an inherent difference between military and civil service?

This is another feel good sop……..and waste of Congressional time [which is sort of redundant].

As a former Marine and current civilian GS employee, I agree 100% with not trying to make equivilant military and civilian deaths (not in the line of duty that is).

While still valid of course, the examples above in the OP don’t have all the greys that are out there: in my agency for example, here’s a wall of marble in my agency that is engraved with the dozens of civilian employees who died in the line of duty: embassasy bombings, shootings, kidnappings/murder, and the like. And they certainly were serving thier country when they died, often in dangerous areas.

Yea, they could have quit before that happened if they were ordered somewhere they didn’t like, or not volunteered. But they didn’t, and they went.

Look, I know doggone well that a general embassasy employee who volunteers to serve in a “interesting” part of the world generally doesn’t have his/her ass in the breeze the same as the Lance Corporal (et al) walking patrols and getting into regular fights in the ‘Stan does. (There are however other ‘civilian’ employees who do put thier butts on the line however, on a regular basis, and who should not be ignored here simply because they aren’t subject to the UCMJ.)

But, either one of these examples dying makes them just as dead to thier family and loved ones as the other. The service there is at a different level and form, but it’s still service to their country.

Accordingly, I have zero problem with giving thier family members funeral flag privledges.

Now giving civilian employees who work in CONUS and who died at the age of 59 from cancer (or a mailman who gets into a car accident, or…..) the same prividges as a military member who died in the line of duty, I’m totally with you-there’s no comparison and there should not be in any form, legally or otherwise.

Regards,
C-

I’m sorry but I think this is much ado about nothing, although I understand the feeling of relativism. The law is poorly written. The executive branch also includes all federal law enforcement, federal firefighters and don’t they already get this. Assassinated State Department get this and I’m sure so did Secretary Brown after his plane went down.

Your example can go both ways. During my time in, I had burial duty at the military cemetery in the Punchbowl and full burial honors was given to an active duty soldier who died hang gliding on his day off.

I contacted both of my CongressCritters this morning and asked very politely that they vote against this bill. The general response from the folks I spoke with was one of disbelief that this would even come to a vote.

I’m not holding my breath about this, but since both of my reps are D’s. However, they were both in the news yesterday as working to stop the VA from closing a mobile clinic in northern Maine, pledging to do all they can to help & support veterans, and to be honest, they HAVE done a reasonable job in that department.

It would be kind of hard for them to vote in favour of this bill after their recent remarks, but we’ll see how it goes.

1. I no sh*t had a Brigade Commander who studied Forestry at Va Tech. He should have gone into the Forest service.

2. If these honors are for someone who’s served overseas and lost their life working for America – then hallelujah and pass the mustard. It means they’ve done their job. If these simple honors motivates those yahoos in the State Department and other agencies, that takes an enormous burden off of the military.

3. As of right now (and has been so for the past 20 years) our Service Members are the diplomats, engineers, financial, cultural and language experts – and because they are E-5 with a HS diploma or a GED, they can’t get heard at the non-military decision-making echelons critical to winning wars.

Well, I just got off the phone with my Congressman’s office and left a message saying “it is beyond ridiculous to equate civil service with military service and when civil servants start FIGHTING under the flag and DYING under the flag, THAT’S when you can start thinking about burying under them under the flag. Until then, I would hope that the Congressman votes NO on this bill”.

Then again, my Congressman is Stephen Lynch…we’ll see.

No TSO, military folks aren’t on that wall-there are no military member “employees” of this agency even if some are assigned here. (Beruit Marines killed in the ’83 embassy bombing-not the barracks bombing-are memorialized with ther rest of their brothers at the memorial in Camp Lejeune IIRC, for example.)

Having the personal military experience as well as the heartache of burying a (Marine) best friend in Arlington killed in the line of duty from a previous conflict, I totally get (and agree with) the opposition to formally equate general civil and military service.

My point was that there’s more “gray” areas out there than the almost diametrically opposed examples of the Forest service employee getting hit by a tree in Virignia and the Army officer dying heriocally in the ‘Stan. And some of those “gray” areas are no less deserving of coming home with a flag on thier coffin and that flag being given to thier loved ones for dying in service to their country.

And yea, the wording sucks in the bill; it’s hard for me to imagine anyone with military experience writing it.

Civil “servants” work for the American taxpayer. The Military fight for the American taxpayer.

I see no gray area. There are dangerous jobs of all sorts. People who do those jobs are very brave, and dedicated, and definitely need to be recognized.
Only the military — and to some extent, law enforcement — make the commitment to go and face a known, sentient, and deadly threat, and offer their lives to the negation of that threat.
The military is unique in that it can ORDER a man to die. No other “employer” has that privilege.

Aunt Helen isn’t crazy, she just has a hormone imbalance. She’s on meds now.

What about a state department foreign officer who is killed in the line of duty in a war zone. He is there to help our country in its support of the war, but is killed. I’m pointing out that there are also federal employees who are put in harms way that could possibly be killed in the line of duty. I think it’s a stupid law, but don’t agree with your absolutes.

What immediatlely comes to mind is that “elevating” federal employees to the distinction of our military is equvilant to let’s say a communist country where a party member has lost his/her life in their service to the party (our federal gov.) by means other than combat, then they would be accorded a red flag and honors being draped over their casket. I bet that goes on and we are headed in the same direction.

“Both are tragic deaths to be sure, but are they both deserving of the same honors”

They were both serving their country. They deserved to be honored with the flag, because the flag is a symbol of this country. Honoring civil servants with a flag a burial does not cheapen the meaning of the flag, if anything it strengthes it. It shows the world the many different ways there are to honor and serve your country. You’re right,civil servants don’t put their lives on the line like soldiers do. This is very much noted by society. There is very little fanfare involved with being a forrest ranger or postal worker. In fact, they get called “idiot sychophants” by random people on the interent. But if they die while making their country a better place, even in a way that may seem insignificant to you, are you really going to deny their loved ones that small comfort of appreciation? If anything, you cheapen the meaning of the flag by shrouding it in elitism. You come of as arrogant, not honorable.

Interesting how no one has mentioned the Fobbits, or Barracks Queens, who are entitled to full military honors and benefits despite only seeing action when fighting for the last bag of peanut M&Ms. As someone who is not military, yet has served my country in several war zones- WITHOUT the benefit of carrying a weapon to protect myself whereas all my DOD colleagues have been able to do so- I wonder exactly what the problem is here. I have several former classmates who’s “service” in the military included only US bases, and yet they believe that everyone should kiss their butts on Veteran’s Day and provide them all sorts of free services and goods. I also have several family members who risked their lives serving in WWII, Vietnam and Iraq who don’t ever ask for a thing. I think the main point I’m trying to make is- not all military service is the same. Not all civilian service is the same. Please avoid the overarching generalizations of civil servants as “tree huggers” who have the biggest risk coming from loose tree branches, and military as being honorable, altruistic, and risking their lives every day in a war zone. There’s crossovers in both categories, and seeing things as only black and white simply illustrates an inability or unwillingness to even try to understand reality.

I love all of the war stories here from the civilian Federal employees and their contributors make compelling arguments, excepting Interested Party. However, the text of the bill includes Federal employees of all persuasions and, in point of fact, explicitly covers USPS employees as well as individuals who are volunteers at Federal agencies. The issue is moot, anyway. Early last month, the House passed the bill by a vote of 425-0.

addendum to the above post…

As stated in the blog you can leave a FSO or Civil Service position anytime you wish but try doing that with a US Military contract. Ain’t happening bubba.

When I read the article in Time Magazine several weeks ago about the fears that the military was becoming an entity separate from the rest of society, and was beginning to see itself as an “us against them” mentality, I laughed. I work with the military every day, and the men I work with are in no way that way inclined. After reading this board, and your responses, I begin to see where I was wrong.

You consider the military above. That much is clear. The hatred spewed against the civil servants (except those few covered under your caveat who serve with the military) and accusations of pencil-pushing and sleeping around, while there is no recognition of the Hanger Queens, and Lazy Military who demand their “sacrifice” be recognized when they never did more than have to relocate to Oklahoma for 2 years, is disturbing. I admit, Time Magazine, I was wrong, and you were right. I’ve always supported the military completely and was actually appalled at the article. Now, I realize, I was perhaps too hasty to judge.

No attempt to troll. No internal struggle- but points for humor on that. Instead, if we are going the way of “psycho babble” let’s call it mirroring. Ya’ll call civilians (from the very get go with our “tree hugger” scheme) some pretty awful names and make some pretty terrible accusations. In fact, the only concession made to civil servants at all is that some (very few) who serve with the military, might be worth while. There’s a hatred for postal workers (who, frankly, I’m not a fan of, but that’s beside the point), social security adminstration workers, and treasury department workers that is pretty contemptous. I’m just drawing the parallels ya’ll are first highlighting.

My point, since I’m obviously not being clear enough, is that in the military, just like in civil service, there are people who are not deserving of any honor above that of the thanks for doing a job that needs done. Those that serve in foreign areas (and not just wars), deserve to be honored for what they do, and deserve the thanks at Veteran’s Day. Those that spent their entire career managing to avoid deployments and serving in the US, don’t deserve to be treated any more specially than anyone else just doing their job. Yes, maybe the signed a contract “up to and including their life” but so do police officers and agents. Yes, maybe they couldn’t quit without facing severe penalties, but that still doesn’t mean they deserve the same treatment and honor that someone who actually served overseas does. And that doesn’t mean they deserve honor above a civil servant who died while serving (not with DOD) in a foreign country.

Parallels, mirroring, whatever- my point is, the military as a collective is not above the rest of society. Some really do deserve honor, and I will gratefully give it. Some don’t. There’s a spectrum there- just like with civil service. Stop lumping us into one group and the military into another. There’s chaff in both groups.

@41. “When I read the article in Time Magazine….” That’s a wonderful resource. I also recommend Mad magazine and, for you, especially, anything penned by Gordon Duff of Veterans Today. Now, go away.

“Ya’ll call civilians (from the very get go with our “tree hugger” scheme) some pretty awful names and make some pretty terrible accusations. In fact, the only concession made to civil servants at all is that some (very few) who serve with the military, might be worth while. There’s a hatred for postal workers (who, frankly, I’m not a fan of, but that’s beside the point), social security adminstration workers, and treasury department workers that is pretty contemptous. I’m just drawing the parallels ya’ll are first highlighting.”

^Everything here is pretty much a non-issue for me, and i’m confident i’m not the only one who feels this way.

“My point, since I’m obviously not being clear enough, is that in the military, just like in civil service, there are people who are not deserving of any honor above that of the thanks for doing a job that needs done. Those that serve in foreign areas (and not just wars), deserve to be honored for what they do, and deserve the thanks at Veteran’s Day. Those that spent their entire career managing to avoid deployments and serving in the US, don’t deserve to be treated any more specially than anyone else just doing their job.”

^I will say this about the above though. Since you are a civilian you have absolutely no right to state such a thing. Furthermore, you served in a “combat” zone, by your own admission, without rating a weapon. Kind of leads me to believe you yourself are some form of “fobbit” which you chastise so horribly. Put succinctly, you don’t rate, so do us all a favor and keep your misguided opinions to yourself.

Actually, serving in a combat zone without a weapon is because civil servants aren’t covered under any kind of protection if we kill someone. GIRoA in particular provides us no immunity. It has nothing to do with serving on a FOB, but rather the fact that we don’t have Uncle Sam as coverage if we do shoot someone defending ourselves.

And if a civilian has no right to criticize any aspect of the military, than you really do consider yourselves above. Who does have the right to criticize? Only the “in group” of those who are in the military? So, you don’t consider yourself beholden at all to the United States, and what it actually stands for, but consider yourselves an elite subculture with no civilian authority above you? That’s really quite frightening.

However, I will “do you all a favor” and walk away from this discussion. I’d hate to be any further disillusioned by men like you who display the arrogance and idiocy that causes some to hold the military in contempt. I’ll continue to have my respect and give honor to those that have earned it and do deserve it, and will gracefully bow out of this CF before I lose that gratefulness for those that DO deserve it by equating them with men like you.