About That Proposed National Cemetery Law . . . .
Burial in a National Cemetery is a benefit accorded to most veterans. However, as is the case with most government benefits, it’s not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Congress created the benefit, and Congress can set the rules as it sees fit.
Congress occasionally does change the rules about burial in National Cemeteries, or allow the VA to do so.* Today, those rules are considerably more lenient than I’d personally prefer. A veteran with a Dishonorable Discharge is banned by law from burial in a National Cemetery; all others who qualify legally as veterans – including those who accepted discharge in lieu of court-martial or received a Bad Conduct Discharge – can be. (Those with less than an honorable discharge are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and can be buried in National Cemeteries if the VA approves.)
Congress has placed a number of legal restrictions on burial in National Cemeteries. The aforementioned ban on those with a DD being buried therein is one such legal restriction. Another is the fact that even an honorably discharged veteran loses the benefit if he or she (1) is convicted of a capital crime, (2) dies before they can be tried for a capital crime, or (3) if clear and convincing evidence exists that the individual committed a capital crime.
However, there is presently no legal authority for the VA to order the removal remains once interred. And that apparent omission in the law has led to the following conundrum.
A veteran of Afghanistan apparently went “off the rails” in 2012. He murdered one person, injured three others, and then killed himself.
What actually had happened was apparently not clearly known immediately. And before things could be investigated and sorted out, the individual had been buried in a National Cemetery with full military honors – without the VA ever knowing he was under suspicion of murder. All agree it would have been virtually impossible for the VA to have known of the issue prior to the burial, so it’s not a case of the VA “screwing the pooch”. The situation was simply too murky to sort out prior to the funeral.
The victim’s family is understandably bothered by this turn of events. They want the VA to remove the murderer’s remains from the cemetery. And IMO, they have a point; had the facts been known at the time of the funeral, the National Cemetery burial would never have occurred.
Unfortunately, the VA has no legal authority to remove the murderer’s remains. Without such authority, they can’t do so.
A bill has been introduced in Congress to rectify this legal omission. The VA has indicated their support, and that they will work with Congress on the technical aspects of the legislation.
On balance, I’d support the proposed law. I have to admit I have misgivings, though.
In this particular case, the proposal would rectify an obvious injustice. But as always, there’s the law of unintended consequences to be considered.
Here’s one scenario (there are multiple): a bar fight occurs between a vet and a non-vet. The non-vet is the aggressor, and the vet defends himself. Unfortunately, both end up dead.
The investigation plays out, and the vet is eventually posthumously cleared of any wrongdoing. But it takes 2 months for the investigation to be completed.
When does the veteran’s family get to bury their lost relative? Do they have to wait until the end of the investigation? Does the cemetery allow the burial under such circumstances, at the risk that the deceased might have to be exhumed?
I’m not sure there is a perfect solution here. This law fixes what is admittedly a “corner case” omission – one that is already very rare. As I said above, I think the proposed law is probably a good idea. But even so, the unintended consequences and potential for abuse certainly exist. It will really need to be written carefully, or the “cure” could end up being worse than the “disease”.
Thoughts?
*Note: while the Army runs Arlington and the Soldiers-and-Airmans Retirement Home National Cemeteries, in the US the VA generally runs the rest. (The Department of the Interior maintains 14 that are located within National Park/Monument/Historical Site boundaries, but only two of them – Andersonville and Andrew Johnson – are open to new interments.) Outside of the US and its possessions, US military cemeteries are run by the American Battlefield Monuments Commission.
Category: Crime, Legal, Veterans Issues, Veterans' Affairs Department
Crimes committed post service is irrelevant to the nature of one’s actual Service. If the crimes are committed while the individual is serving, then no they should not be buried in a National Cemetery.
If they happen after that person has left the service, it is not a reflection of their service in the Armed Forces and their eligibility should be based on their Service record alone. Sure limit the honors perhaps, but their Service should be what dictates the right to be buried in a National Cemetery.
@1: Agreed.
My take is that since, as admitted by Hondo, these cases are the exception, not the rule, then I think adding another law is just more of the same to fix a problem that isn’t warranted by a new law. If it were a widespread issue, then it could be looked at, but I’m sick of all these add-on laws to make one or two people happy at the expense of everyone else.
rb325th: your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. However, Federal law does not agree with you. See 38 USC 2411. Persons convicted of subversive activities after 1 September 1959 are also not eligible.
A more comprehensive list of persons not eligible may be found on pages 3 and 4 of
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41386.pdf
I’ve got no problem with murderers and those convicted of selected other henious crimes – particularly crimes involving disloyalty to the nation – losing this benefit. As the old saying goes: “A big enough ‘awshit’ wipes out a lifetime’s worth of ‘attaboys’.” Being convicted of a capital crime is a huge “awshit”.
100% with RB325th, what you did in the service is not diminished by what happens afterward. Besides, if ya kill someone after your service, isnt it just because ya caught the PTSD?
Cemeteries and golf courses are the biggest waste of decent land in the history of man….
If we are truly becoming more educated, refined, and civilized it’s time to stop wasting perfectly good real estate as holding tanks for decaying genetic material…
Burials made sense 100s of years ago it was a quick and easy way to keep disease from spreading off of rotting corpses…
I’m not so certain it makes any sense any more…
When I’m dead, I’m hoping a bunch of folks can use my parts to continue to live their lives and then some other folks can learn how to save some lives by learning from my body….after that burn what’s left and drop the ashes on the field at Old Trafford or Allianz Arena….
As Hondo points out, anything Congress grants they can take back…I prefer to not trust the government to do the right thing and I’ve made appropriate plans….
I have no problem with Traitors losing their rights to be buried in National Cemeteries, otherwise if it did not happen during their time in Service then they should not be denied a right that they earned. Certainly you can scale back on what Honors are given, but they earned the burial plot and headstone.
It is my opnion and I will stick with it.
rb325th: fair enough, even though I don’t agree.
I’d also have no problem with folks who got a BCD or a General-OTH being told “fuggedaboutit” for all VA bennies, too. But both can qualify (and sometimes do) if the VARO evaluates their case individually and finds them “deserving”.
One day maybe someone can explain that one to me.
@6 rb325th
I get your point but would you want to be buried next to Timothy McVeigh? Not me, screw that.
Hondo,
You present a scenario that has a very low probability of occurring. I say play the odds and make them wait until their name is cleared. Less problems that way IMO.
well, on the one hand, you have the felons who lose their rights to vote and own guns as a precedent. On he other hand, if the military funeral is strictly based on military service… Lee Harvey Oswald could be in the next plot, or McVeigh as Old Tanker suggested.
Guess my question is whether this is a really a problem? Is this bill an answer to a question that no one is asking? Does this need to be legislatively addressed?
David: it’s not a hypothetical; the situation has indeed happened. Read the linked article for a brief synopsis of the situation.
My concern isn’t that Congress will “pass a new law”; this isn’t really a new law doing something new. Rather, it’s more a correction to an oversight in or problem with an existing law. Congress makes those kinds of changes periodically when it learns of problems.
My concern is how to do that here without making the situation even worse simply because no one stopped to think about the “what ifs” involved. Obviously at least one was missed the first time, and I’d like to see them miss as few as possible in the fix.
Beretverde: that’s true, amigo. And that’s one possible outcome. I can live with that so long as the choice is thought out ahead of time and is the best available choice.
Unfortunately, the original issue here is also a low-probability occurrence. How often does a murderer (1) commit a murder, then (2) off himself, and (3) get buried in a National Cemetery – without someone knowing he had committed murder and starting an investigation between his suicide and the funeral? That’s apparently what happened here. Is it worth changing the law to fix that? And if so, can the law be “fixed” without introducing an even bigger problem?
Dunno. But we’re dealing with funerals, and IMO we should probably really try to get it right. That’s simply not the time people should be dealing with brain-dead laws and regulations.
Hondo,
What effect, if any, would the Constitution’s prohibition of “Ex Post Facto” laws have on this situation? It seems to me that any law passed should only apply from the date of enactment and not be retroactive.
I support rb325th opinion on this one.
I also agree with VOV, though, I’m not a fan of burials to begin with.
AW1 Tim: the SCOTUS has held that the Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to criminal law. Congress can – and often has – passed laws with retroactive provisions relating to other than criminal acts. As I recall, one example of where Congress did this was the Vietnam war tax “surcharge” in 1968. The law passed in mid-year, but was retroactive for the entire year.
Hondo – I think you misunderstood my question – when I ask if this is a real problem, I mean ‘is it an ongoing repetitive situation which needs addressing’ – you already stated above that it has happened. I just fail to see the need for a new law to address what appears to be a one-time situation, and was attempting to ask if indeed that is what this is.
David: fair enough. You seemed to me to be asking if the situation was hypothetical. It’s not; it actually happened.
The fact that it has indeed happened once is enough IMO to show that the original law was defective. The choices are (a) fix it, or (b) leave well enough alone and hope this was a “one-off”.
Whether it’s worth changing the law to fix it IMO depends on whether a change can be found that (a) fixes the original issue, while (b) NOT introducing an even worse issue of its own. I’m not that optimistic, but maybe this is a case where a fix can be found that is apropos and won’t make the situation worse.
Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery is also open to new internments. Not sure if there is a difference between the two you named and this one, just wanted to clarify.
DebbieWilliams: the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery is maintained by the VA, not by Interior. The two National Cemeteries I listed by-name are the only National Cemeteries maintained by Interior that are accepting new interments.
For VA-run National Cemeteries, it’s a mixed bag. Many of the older/smaller VA-run National Cemeteries are closed to new interments entirely or are accepting cremations only. However, a fair number are open for traditional in-ground interments. Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery is one of the newer VA-run National Cemeteries (dedicated in 1999). As you noted, it is indeed open for new in-ground interments.
The VA’s National Cemetery Administration site maintains a list of VA-run national cemeteries that indicates which are open for what type of interment at present.
http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/cems/listcem.asp?isFlash=0
Yeah, well, if Audie Murphy didn’t get to choose who he’d be buried next to, then I don’t much care who my company is either. If the issue matters so much to family members, there are alternatives to burial in a VA cemetery.
I’m for the law. Do you remember the guy (M Larry Lawrence)who said he was in the Merchant Marine and was torpedoed off the coast of Russia, and suffered a head injury? He was buried at Arlington and his story was a COMPLETE LIE! He never served in the Merchant Marine and was a full-time student in college at the time.
He was “disinterred” (dug up)due to the outcry!
@5 I respect and understand your point about burials. My reasoning to be buried in a national cemetery is that maybe several hundred years from now, it will be the only green space for our future generations for them to enjoy. Just a thought.
@20 I completely respect your position, and the position of anyone who chooses burial as a proper methodology. It’s not for me to state what’s right for anyone but me regarding final wishes…I always respect your words and your positions.
Whenever I visit DC and go to Arlington I am struck by the level of emotion and solemnity of the location…from that perspective I understand the necessity to remind the nation of how many have promised to give their all to the nation, and how many actually have done so.