The Case Against and For Army Sergeant
[Let me make ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, this is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer. I am not EVER going to be a JAG, and I only know what I read. So, do not MISCONSTRUE this. I’m merely discussing what I think, since in all likelihood, I might get dragged into this one. I will help AS get a lawyer if it comes to that, but it won’t be me. And if anyone listens to my legal advice, they really ought to consult a psychiatrist. Bar Exam folks, please read this disclaimer 3 times in a mirror and the ghost of Big E. Smalls lawyer may appear.]
Sometimes we throw out red meat to get you people all fired up over something. This is like rotten meat here, because I am only bound to piss off the people who are my allies, and all in defense of someone who is nominally my “enemy” in what I think is the most important thing to occur in my life time. But, on the inside of my Citadel ring I have inscribed the words “May life leave my body before honor” and I like to read those words and remind myself from time to time, so I can tread the path I need to with less of a burden. I had a squad leader who once said honor is taking the hard right over the easy wrong. Well, consider this post the hard right, since it brings me little to no pleasure writing it, and will likely alienate some of you.
So, let’s start with a few “what I know”s. IVAW is a wretched group of liars and malcontents. The vast majority can’t get their stories straight, and when they do, they generally espouse positions more to assuage their feelings of guilt than through any logic. I know this because their arguments make no sense whatsoever, and when confronted by that they simply resort to name calling and changing the discussion. Largely I think that immaturity plays a HUGE role, and the fact that at heart they are all anti-social misfits, and they’ve created their little clique and want to fit in. So each tops the previous by being slightly more retarded and inane.
I know that the wars overseas are neither illegal nor immoral. I know that our Commanders in Chief might not always do right, but they MUST do what needs to be done. I support them in that, and believe that wars are best conducted by a unitary executive, selected by the people. I might not agree with their actions, but I won’t resort to trumping up bull shit to dissuade them.
Back at the Sniper, Army Sergeant showed up quite a while ago, in one of my first posts on IVAW. Honestly, I just assumed it was a gay guy that got booted from the military. He was always writing pie in the sky, “hey, check out the unicorn” type of nonsense. But, at least he was respectful for the most part. I called Army Sergeant our “frenemy” and even linked his blog.
Later I would discover it was a girl, and that she was active duty. Should have realized it earlier, but it didn’t. Anyway, knowing how much I loathed IVAW, she invited Jonn and me to Winter Soldier. She was the one who verified the stories of the guys who would testify. Then ensued the DeWald and Knappenberger fiascos, in which I thought AS showed excellent judgment in how she handled it.
From what I know now, AS actually believes the crazy bullshit stories. I can’t explain WHY she thinks that, but it is clear to me she does. If one of those guys claimed to have been abducted by aliens and given an anal probe, she would concoct some story that could explain it. Mind you, the whole of it makes no sense, and we all know that, but it wasn’t AS lying, she actually believes that shit.
So, Army Sergeant, now identified as SGT Selena Coppa met me at Winter Soldier. First, she verbally beat the hell out of some assclown from VVA who wouldn’t let me in. She was PISSED. In her world, she believed that the stories were real, and she thought that if Jonn and I heard them apparently we would have an epiphany and join her cause. Again, you and I know this would never happen, but in her unicorn world, she actually believed it.
Selena is now being investigated by the Army for Disloyal Statements, and Dereliction of Duty. It would appear that the genesis (and/or catalyst) for this has been the actions of her VFW Post commander, which personally pisses me off to no end. So, let’s look at those charges, and maybe see what she can look forward to in her trial, if it ever comes to that.
[As an aside, I expect both sides to be raging in the comments on this one, though I hope I am wrong. But, let’s try to keep it semi-civil if we could. Just because I don’t think Selena should be charged does not make me a communist or anything else. Ideally, I would like to see the military state unequivocally that IVAW is a terrorist supporting organization and ban all membership to active duty troops, but since they have yet to take that bold step, the laws AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE is all I am discussing.]
The first charge, Dereliction of Duty falls under Article 92 of the UCMJ.
Text.
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Now, she’s allegedly being charged under #3, which is about the only one she could be since I haven’t seen her violate any specific orders. Under that subheading:
A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. I t refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. “Culpable inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.
I hate it when stuff is written like that. In order to have “willfully or negligently” failed to perform a duty, someone ought to be able to pin point what the duty was. Anyone have a clue what duty it is here?
She’s totally screwed on this here (at about 4 mins), where she wore her uniform and spoke at that jackass walk they had. I don’t know what the hell she was thinking, but that was just dumb. But, it doesn’t really raise to the court martial level. She should have just been slapped with an Art 15 at the time and everyone move on.
Now, the other charge is for disloyal statements under article 134:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
The Manual for Courts-martial states that:
Certain disloyal statements by military personnel may not constitute an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2385, 2387, and 2388, but may, under the circumstances, be punishable under this article. Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration.
—Manual for Courts-Martial (US Government, 2002), Chapter 4, Paragraph 72
SO, those are the charges, and I find myself scratching my head at 2 things:
1) Why go after AS on these things, that appear to me to be so minor?
2) Why give her the opportunity to be a martyr by pursuing it?
So, those of you who openly hate her….explain to me what she has said (her specifically, NOT IVAW) that you think violates these provisions of the UCMJ. And kindly include what specific elements. If she violated a duty, what was that duty. Complaining about the war, lamenting the sorry shape of enlistees, talking about foreign deaths etc are constitutionally protected, and not violative of the UCMJ as far as I can tell from reading this stuff. And I don’t remember her calling Bush a “big fat poopy head” or anything similiar, but if you find it, let me know.
So, in the comments, you explain to me why you think we ought to go after AS, when we haven’t done anything about all the other IVAW asshats running around lying? And, can someone give me a valid reason that IVAW hasn’t been put on the list of subversive organizations by the military?
Category: Politics
AS has always struck me as someone reasonable enough to “agree to disagree” with you, and that to me is commendable in that I fully accept that not everyone is going to agree in a free market of ideas, but that’s kind of the whole effin’ point of this country. What ticks me off is not people who express an opinion, but who want to shut off other people’s opinions that differ from their own. I think there have been far more heinous people doing far more heinous things than AS, and I’m with you on “why go balls to the wall on this one?” That said, time to play devil’s advocate, which is actually my favorite part of legal discourse. You have to be able to think like the other side. It’s the best part of arguing. Mind you I’m not saying the Military is the other side here. I’m incredibly supportive of the Military and recognize that, like any institution that’s bigger than me, it’s not my interests that have to be served, but the interests of the larger body. Having the strength to be an individual of ideals and your own free thought? Good. Thinking that you as an individual deserve to be special and always get your way? Mewling infant in a crib, grow up. So…what did she do wrong? Is it actionable. Okay, we all agree the “in uniform” thing is a dumbass move and an NCO really should have known better. You don’t wear your uniform to support a political cause. It implies military support of said cause. The Military is, and must be, apolitical. It exists to get the job done, not further the aims of the elephants or donkeys. Here’s the sticky point, the point where I could see them making a case against her. The quote “attacking the war aims of the United States” Look, whether you think it was a good idea to go into Iraq or Afghanistan, or Bosnia, or Grenada, or Vietnam, or Normandy…whatever you think about those things, it’s not your job as a soldier to say… Read more »
Correction, I now recognize that the “attacking the war aims of the United States” section is not in either of the articles she was charged under. In that case, poor move on their part.
TSO Wrote: Actually, I guess it is bud. But, I’m not sure what “war aim” she attacked. I suppose it is arguable, but pin pointing one is beyond me, especially since, and this kills me to say, I’m not even sure what our war aims are.
I have to agree with this that considering what they are claiming that their case is rather weak.
AS really is a unicorn, that’s why.
Other than that, great job breaking down the legalese. I know its not easy to defend someone who believes things you certainly do not, and I respect you greatly for doing so.
Class act, TSO. I daresay if the situation were reversed, we’d be reading an entertaining stream of posts that have the intellectual equivalence of a short bus full of Obama’s bowling team headed to Chuckie Cheese’s.
TSO,
It would have been best if AS hadn’t got involved in the IVAW stuff in the first place. During my enlistment, I can remember some guys at Benjamin Franklin Village in Mannheim trying to get me to sign a petition about the hair regs. I agreed with them but I sure as hell wasn’t going to sign my name to that petition and have it end up biting me in the butt down the road for insubordination.
So in other words, watch out who you hang with. The IVAW are not people that a good soldier should hang with.
TSO Wrote: No argument here friend. My research assistant stated that it is living proof of the old maxim that if you lay with dogs, you awake with fleas. I just wish the Army would go after something that might be more productive. Frankly, I think AS’s presence in IVAW is somewhat of a calming factor, so I would like nothing better than for the socialists and communists to take over fully, but, I just don’t want to see her (more importantly her family) get screwed because she chose the wrong friends.
FACT: ALL MEMBERS OF IVAW ARE MOTHERFUCKERS.
FACT: I CAN ASSIGN SWEEPING MORAL VALUES TO ARMED CONFLICTS.
FACT: THE WAR OF 1812 WAS NEITHER ILLEGAL NOR IMMORAL.
FACT: DURRR.
TSO Wrote: Um. I really don’t know what to make of that, but thanks for reading.
Personally, I think one of her own IVAW cronies ratted her out for not rolling over & quoting party line solidarity with them – and I agree that the Army could make more productive use of its time going after some of the truly treasonous bastards out there, than just trying to crucify some screwed up person who was naive and easily conned. Agreed on the wearing the uniform issue. Dumb.
But good God, people – Hanoi Jane still walks the streets, effing DESERTERS are being interviewed in the media, gutless traitors get a slap on the wrist if anything – and now, suddenly, this poor idiot is public enemy number one?
FWIW, if you need to take up some kind of legal fund, to help this poor geek, put up an address and I’ll see if I can kick in a couple of bucks.
That Ass Clown A/S chewed out is Thompson Bradley, a committed Marxist and former Professor at Swartmore, and big time Veterans For Peace puke.
While at Swarthmore, Cathy Wilkerson was a meber of the SDS at Swartmore while Bradley was its’ faculty leader. Kathy Boudin was his student. Wilkerson and Boudine will go on to survive the accidental explosion of the SDS bomb factory in Greenich Village. I say SDS because at that point they had not called themselves “Weathermen”.
In a recent interview with one of the WCU kiddies playing radical and calling themsleves SDS, Thompson Bradley admits that while Cathy Wilkerson was “underground” i.e., a federal funeral, he met with her in Philadelphia twice and “corresponded” with her clandestinely. Thompson Bradley hid a woman from police who conspired to kill hundreds of Soldiers at a dance at Fort Dix.
Thpompson Bradley also travelled to Budpest in the late 60s and met with the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong). He came back and published an account of that trip. Two points he preached. The enemy won Tet, which we know is a lie because General Giap says they lost. Bradley and the media encouraged the enemy to hang on, resulting in the deaths of American troops.
Second, Thompson Bradley defended the Viet Cong program of publically executing local governemt officials in front of the villigers. That it was moral. Now of course today Thompson Bradley goes to the annual freak show at Ft benning and rails about the “School of the Assasins”.
In that interview, Thompson Bradley also admits that half the 60s anti-war movement was comitted to helping the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese win the war. So they were never “peace” protesters, they were traitors. Thompson Bradley was a traitor. And that’s who help organize and run IVAW’s Winter Soldier.
For Christ’s sake A/S, see the light and leave IVAW behind.
CORRECTION, “federal funeral” should be “federal fugitive”
The couple of times me and AS have argued I was always left with the impression that she was a moonbat extraordinaire. Your explanation of her from your personal interaction helps to explain that, a little. What I have always disagreed with her on is the fact that she once told me she was in MI, Military Intelligence. I remember having a debate with her about whether or not she might have accidentally lost a report or skewed an analysis to suit her narrative, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Of course there is no way to prove either side of the argument and for all intents and purposes it was merely an academic debate. I questioned whether she had exposure to information that she may have leaked out to agencies or persons who shared her beliefs in the hopes of further hampering the war effort or pushing forward an agenda to affect the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Once again I have no proof of either of these allegations and it was just grist for online debate. I agree with you that having her local VFW commander be the one behind the pressing of charges is wrong. The VFW is supposed to a gathering place for veterans of all stripes and in some cases a quasi social services agency. Unless he had actual actionable information with evidence of either a crime or war crime that was perpetrated by Ms Coppa then he has no business pressuring the formal military chain of command into taking any action. I also fault those in the military who are proceeding with action based on the influence of this now civilian. Using Article 134 is as old as the hills and is merely a catch all article that can be used at any time for anything. There is no civilian who can make a judgment on whether a service member is being derelict in their duties simply because they are not in a direct supervisory role or have constant contact with the service members, so why that would even be considered by the chain of… Read more »
I am interested to see if there is any ‘prima facie’ evidence against her. Merely being a member of IVAW is not evidence of misconduct. Are there videos or witness statements of her openly making disloyal statements? (Sorry, I could only stomach about a minute of that you tube vid)
I doubt she will get charged with Derelection of Duty unless she is not doing her job. Its more likely she will be charged with failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation for wearing a uniform to a political rally.
I was not JAG, but I was an XO for an AIT unit, so I have some heavy UCMJ experience.
TSO Wrote: There’s a ton of stuff out there that she has said, and the vast bulk of it begins with her reading a disclaimer that she is speaking as an individual, not as a representative etc. I tried to find specific “disloyal” comments and couldn’t come up with anything. She used the phrase “occupation” a few times, but I doubt that makes it to the level. I asked her if she used the phrase “illegal and immoral” and she said she might have at some point, but doesn’t now. Even that I think would be some weak tea. And I agree again on the uniform thing. She’s probably screwed on that, but when i put that next to desertion, it rates pretty low.
Typo in my name above. Multi-tasking.
I’m sorry, but I don’t care one way or another about AS. I realize I don’t know enough about her other than the silliness I’ve seen her write here, and I know little about the UCMJ, but as a grown woman she should have been a little smarter.
Jonn wrote: Bingo!
First time commenter. The Army sent me to places I did not want to go to. I did not always agree with the politics, but I was not drafted and did what I had to do. AS should probably be Army Private and be discharged. I think an NJP hearing is enough.
TSO, Great Post but I fear probably premature. I am not a JAG but have held four command billits over the years and as such have a fairly good sense of the UCMJ issues.
First I have nevr gotten into a pissing contest with her because her writings strike me as someone who is very immature, dilutional and dangerously stupid. There is little doubt in my mind that she is capable of making all kinds of crazy statements.
Second If charges have been preferred (BTW, the guy at the VFW has zero authority to prefer anything) that indicates that there’s enough here that a commander twice removed from her thought that there was significant evidence of misconduct.
I don’t know what evidence her commanders have seen but the unformed protest video alone would have been enough for me to level have a dozen charges and her little childish ass would already be in prison.
I believe that being a member of IVAW is probably real close to Subversion and it is certainly a signal of piss poor judgement that should disqualify anyone from being an NCO.
Dereliction is almost comically easy to prove and her penchant for intenet use makes me wonder if one of her insane tirades were made while on duty.
I firmly believe in the presumption of innocence…
But the fact that a Non-Commissioned Officer would act the way this loon has been for some time now makes me fae for the NCO Corps.
TSO Wrote: Just to clarify something, the VFW guy contacted her CSM apparently, so he didn’t actually ‘prefer’ them per se. And I think I covered the subversion thing on the other post. And if they charge(d) her for playing on the internet when she’s supposed to be working, I might even understand that as well. And, again, think she ought to lose her clearance. So, not sure I disagree with anything, just want to clarify that the charging selections to me seem kind of odd. Wrote:
“She’s probably screwed on that, but when i put that next to desertion, it rates pretty low.”
Has she ever aided another soldier in deserting? Has she ever incited anyone to desert or not perform their duty?
Article 94 – Mutiny or Sedition
(1) Any person subject to this chapter who—with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny.”
Has anyone at her IVAW meetings ever suggested such a thing?
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
TSO Wrote: Again, a case could be made for that one, but she wasn’t charged with that one. And, my understanding is that she is not a supporter of desertion, but I don’t know, didn’t really research that one.
FFS, she’s an NCO. Can’t her CSM assign her to latrine duties for the remainder of her service?
I can make anyone’s job miserable enough that they’ll quit, even without resorting to smacking them around.
COB6 Wrote: To be clear however, TAH does not reject the “slapping around” option.
Wow. I am not even sure where to start with this. I have known Sgt. Coppa for several years and know her to be highly intllegent, dedicated to serving her country and to be a talented administrator. I admire her courage to stand up for her convictions, even in the face of great adversity. I also admire her steadfast dedication to her oath of enlistment. Many here will likely disagree, but the oath of enlistment is a sacred trust that often requires a judgement call. As written the oath requires all who swear by it, to combat all enemies, foreign and domestic. It does not say, “kill who we want you to.” Or fight all enemies as directed. It requires a judgement call and Sgt. Coppa is doing that to the best of her ability. As a member of the VFW, VFP, IVAW, Funderal Honor Detail and life member of the DAV, I am enraged that the leader of one of these organizations would push for charges by taking advantage of their post is contrary to the mission of VSOs and sets a dangerous precident. Veterans and active duty members come to these organizations seeking support, friendship and comaraderie. I would hate to see any veteran not feel welcome due to political reasons. There are plenty of examples of pro-war political bias effecting intel reports. Hell, it was part of why Robert Gates was not confirmed Director of the CIA. There should be no political litmus test for MI or any other branch of the service. Anyone recall the McCarthy hearings? How many good people were lost over that? I think General Eisenhour said it best, “Here in America we are desceded, both and spirit and in blood, from revolutionists and rebels, men and women who dared to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, never let us confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.” Jonn wrote: OK, I watched you blather on for two long comments and I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re not as smart as you think you are. If you think there’s room for a “judgment… Read more »
“Here in America we are desceded, both and spirit and in blood, from revolutionists and rebels, men and women who dared to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, never let us confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
Most of us don’t confuse dissent from subversion.
I have never really agreed with AS, in fact, I disagree with pretty much everything she spouts, but as a fellow Soldier and NCO, I will defend to the death her right as an American Citizen to state her beliefs. However, if she ever spouted those beliefs in uniform at a political rally, or if she ever used them a part of undue influence over Junior Enlisted: NAIL HER ASS TO THE WALL.
-Lucky
COB6 Wrote: Check this video. It starts at about the 4 minute mark. While you watch this, I’ll get the hammer:
A/S. Hmm. I give her planty of shit, because it is deserved.
Uniform- check. Idiotic support while active and wearing it-check.
I learned that when you hang with a crowd that does bad things and you don’t, when the ship of fools goes down, you go down with it. Period.
I just hope it was worth losing a career over. I don’t have any sympathy, sorry.
Count me wit defendUSA. You make your bed, you lie in it. I can’t say whether she is guilty of dereliction of duty because I haven’t been there, but I do know what happens to lose who hang out with the wrong crowd. While I do respect Sgt Coppa, even though I disagree with her often, she will not get any sympathy from this household. Period.
I third the motion. I couldn’t care less about this poor excuse for an NCO. I hope they throw the book at her.
That fucker at the beginning of the clip is right: The real threat IS here in America: THEM! And he must have been in some other AO than any Civil Affairs elements…….. ’cause, benefiting the Iraqi and American peoples is what we do! BTW, Thomas Paine did not write COMMON SENSE at Valley Forge, he wrote it to be DISTRIBUTED at Valley Forge. He was not there, he was in Philly I believe. The Soldiers there would have used the printing press for firewood.
Sorry, I have to disagree. Military medical care is all screwed up. Socialized medicine at its worst. The number of bad experiences vastly outweighs the few good ones. And I go to the doctor about 1-2 times per yr outside of annual exams. I recently went on a Tues for a follow-up for my ankle. 3hrs later- Left there with a followup appt for high-blood pressure. Another followup appt on Thursday for the elbow- left the clinic grounded for PTSD. And got blamed for causing the Dr to take more than 15mins. WTF? 22yrs of this and it has not gotten any better.
Oh yeah, AS. Always respected her opinions, even if they were wrong. But she pissed off the wrong people. And those people have the power of the regulations on their side.
I have never served and am not a lawyer but I’ll agree with the ‘The Military lawyers have better things to do like going after REAL subversives(can they prove she has ‘recruited’ other military members to be subversives,deserters or mutineers? Not that I believe that level of burden of proof is needed for a conviction of subversion), mutineers, traitors(REAL traitors who’s actions/words aided the enemy and/or caused the death of American citizens and soldiers), and deserters’ comments.
Besides, why court-martial her…when a better punishment would be, as commented, latrine duty for the rest of her Service.
I understand(especially since I don’t know ALL the details) some may consider me soft here, but I think, so far, that the worst she should get is a General or OTH discharge..after the end of her Service at the latrine, and I am of the opinion she proly deserves an OTH discharge.
Well, Keepon, as you stated, you are NOT a Military Lawyer. According to the accusation against her, she IS a real subversive. SHe should, if found guilty, still be Court Martialed, then reduced in rank, made to forfeit pay and allowances, given extra duty until she is chaptered out, and continue to serve penance to society, along with an OTH discharge. Throw the book at her, and lock up Matthis while at it too, he looks as if he would make a very decent and very willing Prison Bride.
As a VFW Post Commander It is my duty to investigate charges brought to my attention.
This was the case with E-5 Coppa. She is not eligible for the VFW & refuses to provide proof of eligibility. As I was checking into this matter I discovered way to many bad things & turned the info over to the Garrison CSM. I was thanked by her unit. That was the end of the story until she started attacking me on her blog. She posted all of my personal contact information from AKO on her blog & threatened the VFW Post here & myself.
Here is an interview from German radio.
It starts in German but goes into English.
Listen to the whole thing before you judge me.
http://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/servlet/content/1675430
Steve Slauson
Commander VFW Post 27
Wiesbaden Germany
If she is not eligible for the VFW, then you should deny her membership, but how do you justify sharing that info with her leadership under the ambit of being a VFW post commander? Is that somewhere in the Post Officers guide that I missed?
What if someone egaged in an extra marital liaison that began at your post, presumably you would also report them to their leadership?
Why were you “checking in” to her claim for membership? She either has documentation of an expeditionary medal, or she does not. What kind of research is neccessary? Do you use wikipedia and shit like that?
I find the whole thing fishy as hell, which is yet another reason I won’t join the VFW. Post Commanders are supposed to uphold the rules, and further the cause of the resolutions supported therein, not engage in a jihad about a soldier who wanted to join. If she’s not eligible, don’t let her in. If she is in and not eligible, why not look into who let her in?
This research into someones background by a federally chartered veterans SERVICE organization strikes me as absurd.
That sort of thing WOULD NOT FLY at any Post in Virginia. Let me be clear. I have heard stories recently o VFW Posts in other States that are a little too overzealous in recruiting, including one in Arkansas that only asked a guy if he was a World War II veteran, without asking which side of the war he was on (He was a Luftwaffe NCO in WWII). Virginia does it better though, we ask for a copy of the potential member’s 214, and if they don’t have the eligibility, sorry, go ask the Legion.
When I got back from Bosnia in 1998 I was eligible for membership because I got an expeditionary medal. I went to the VFW and they told me to leave and come back “when you go to a real war.” When I came back from Afghanistan a friend took me to the Occoquon post and I joined, but then they pissed me off with the VFW PAC list, endorsing some real losers, so I just let my membership drop. It is all hit or miss and I understand that, but the last thing I want to do is join a post and have my commander researching me, sending shit to my employer, and judging me on the basis of what I do on my own time.
And bear in mind that I don’t know of a single VFW position I disagree with, but this kind of research nonsense seems way too draconian.
Her membership is being challenged & you are correct, she should not have been allowed to join to start with. She did not join here in Germany & I can not control what other people do.
I reported her to her command as an American citizen that was a soldier/NCO.
If you would have found the things I had you would have also done the same thing.
I’m willing to bet that everything you found I have read on about 4 occasions. I have also read every book written by IVAW members, and every article written about them that appears in our IVAW tracker found here: http://www.netvibes.com/jlilyea#IVAW_Feeds
And if you found such a wealth of information, and the 2 charges were the ones she is charged with, then you should be irate.
Still think it is bullshit, and I say that as someone who works with the VFW on nearly a daily basis.
And you did not report her as a “American citizen that was a soldier/NCO” you reported her following an investigation undertaken as the Post Commander of a VFW post. And that is the part I think is bullshit. If you were just a citizen, without a personal interest in her, you might have reported the numerous other IVAW members who have said far worse shit in public on numerous occasions. And you didn’t. You ratted out one lowly E5, and this after she came to your post. I find it inexcusable.
She never came to my post.
Who says there are only 2 charges…….
Did she, or did she not try to get a membership in your post?
Did she, or did she not seek to transfer to that post?
If she did not, why were you, a post commander, trying to research the membership of another member of the VFW outside your post?
And, thank you for asking about the 2 charges. that would seem to indicate that there are possibly more, whcih means that her command is leaking information to you, a civilian, making her appeal that much easier on the basis of command interference, since it is in the investigation phase, and ergo her immediate commander has not yet determined. I’d say you just handed here a pretty good line of attack on appeal if it ever makes it there.
I allready said she was never at my post.
As to the 2 charges that was a question I asked you.
I was asked by a VFW member to check into it.
Your story never stops changing does it.
I love a commander in a Veterans Service Organization believing it is his respobsibility to ensure service of legal documents to a veteran who merely tried to transfer to your post.
Frankly, I think you are 100 percent full of shit, no matter whether you are on my side or not.
She never tried to transfer to our post.
My “story” as you put it is still the same.
I am not sure what it is that you do not understand.
THEN WHY THE FUG WERE YOU LOOKING INTO HER ELIGIBILITY?
Do you routinely look into the membership criteria of other posts?
And why would she proffer you her proof of eligibility when you have no say whatsoever in it?
Fact is I do. It was reported to me that she is not eligible & I have the authority as the local VFW Commander to require proof of eligibility.
According to what I am looking at you have the authority only if she either is in your post, or requests transfer to your post. Perhaps you can site that portion where it says you have that authority. Perhaps the Judge Advocate has issued guidance which has not been forwarded?
Fact is I have spoken with VFW national numerous times on this matter.
If you are not in the VFW why do you care/think you need to worry about it?
TSO, I cannot speak for the Occoquan Post, but I am a member of a Post in Fairfax County, and we DO NOT EVER discuss political matters as a Post, nor do we endorse candidates as a Post. We check our politics, and our cigarettes at the door. It has been that way from the start. We don’t care what eachother’s personal politics are, and we gel and get along just fine. I know how it is with the “Real War” thing. When I first joined, even though my father was a member, there was a guy who tried to tell me to come back when I was in a real war and argued with me as to which conflict I was in. These things happen, and he died a couple years back. All is good now. But let me stress, not every Post is like that, hell, we even have a Coastie member!
1) because I don’t see how Internet Sleuthing is any of your responsibility as a VFW post commander
2) because bullshit like this is exactly why membership is declining
3) because I think you are being a douche, and by extention hurting all of us who try to support the soldiers and who try to support the war on terror.
4) because I think you are full of shit with your ever shifting explanations on why you were researching etc.
5) Because the document I have in front of me has no discussion of verifying membership of someone not in your post; and
6) It documents nothing on reporting that information to combatant commands
7) because I work with the VFW lobbyists on almost a daily basis, and I think this puts them in a shitty light
8) because you seem far more interested in hurting this one veteran, and claiming the moral high ground, than you do in actually rooting out sedition, something that jonn and I were doing quite well for a long time prior to your showing up on the scene.
Again, I must stress that this IS NOT how a Post is supposed to operate.