I’m not sure whether this should have been in GQ or not, but considering the way it may go, I decided just to put it in GD and have done with it.
In this thread which was discussing the legislation issues surrounding the Terri Schaivo case, BrainGlutton said:
This is the first I’d heard of McVeigh being denied a millitary burial. What were the reasons given?
Yes, I know, McVeigh was an evil, rotten son of a bitch who killed both civilians and employees of the government, but what does that have to do with his millitary service?
Is there some sort of law (other than the one passed just for McVeigh) which removes “honorable” status if people commit crimes after their service ends? Would, for example, an ex-Marine convicted and executed for the rape and murder of a child have his right to a millitary funeral stripped? Furthermore, was the new law just for McVeigh, or would anyone copying his crimes be subjected to the same posthumous punishment?
Again, I agree that McVeigh was a piece of garbage, but this doesn’t quite sit right with me. Does he “deserve” a millitary funeral-- or is the question whether his service earned it, despite his subsuquent actions?
McVeigh paid with his life for his crimes. Somehow, it seems pointless to strip him of the funeral. While I know that emotions run high surrounding this incident, I’ve never thought that legislation based solely on moral outrage is a good thing.
Just imagine what public reaction would have been if he had been given a military funeral.
Look at it this way: McVeigh didn’t just commit crimes after his service ended, he betrayed the most basic principles of military service. A soldier’s duty is to protect his own people, not to wantonly murder them. Furthermore, in terms both symbolic and material, his crime was a direct attack on the government he once was sworn to serve. If murder weren’t enough, he could have been convicted of treason (provided two witnesses could be found, as the Constitution requires). Traitors shouldn’t get military funerals.
Pretty much what BG said. I think OJ Simpson, to put this in perspective, was removed from the Football Hall of Fame (I could be wrong here…this is from memory), so there is precidence (if I’m right) for this kind of thing.
Yes, I can understand, but what does public perception have to do with entitlement?
The fact that a law had to be passed says to me that this is not the norm-- that other ex-military criminals, no matter how heinious their acts, are not treated the same.
Most likely McVeigh’s family wouldn’t have requested a military funeral, and as I understand, you have to make special arrangements to have one-- was the legislation even necessary, or just merely a symbolic gesture of a nation’s anger?
Yes, but there are other ex-military servicepeople who violate this precept as well who are not stripped of due honors.
Then, why not try him for treason? It seems unfair, even unAmerican, to punish someone for treasonous acts without trying them first.
Okay, this example bothers me even more. At least McVeigh was convicted. OJ’s acts had nothing to do with his football career. There have been other sports “heros” who had questionable personal lives-- should we single out individuals when the same standard is not applied across the board?
Nope, just a big fan of due process. It’s what seperates us from the rabble.
Hey, I have no problem with McVeigh being stripped of a military burial-- as long as proper procedures were followed. I have a problem with creating laws because one particular individual strikes us as particularly evil. I believe the same standard should be applied to everyone. It’s the American way, after all.
Would be kind of overkill, don’t you think, as he was tried, convicted and executed already. Besides, prosecuters try people based on what they think they can get, not on ever single thing they COULD try him on.
Basically I don’t see the problem. Why SHOULD he be allowed full military honors when he did what he did? Because in the past he was (perhaps) a good soldier? You think that once you do good early in life it makes up for doing bad later or something? If I’m good all my life and then go on a rampage and murder hundreds of people, why should my past behavior count towards anything? Why should I get special privileges because when I was younger I wasn’t the monster I later became.
Put another way, do you believe Hitler should have been buried with full military honors? I mean, the man was a decorated war veteran of the first world war. Even if he SHOULD be buried with full military honors (something I’m highly doubtful of), do you see any problems with actually burying him that way?
Well, I could be wrong about this too…I’m going from memory and it’s fairly late here. And of course I’m too lazy to look it up. That said, if he WAS removed, it was because the general concensus is that he DID kill his wife and basically got off on a technicality. And in the end he would have been removed for the same reason McVeigh was denied full military honors…because it would look pretty bad even if it were the right thing to do (something I’m unconvinced is the case with McVeigh anyway).
As a historical note, George Lincoln Rockwell, the head of the American Nazi Party and a former Korean War veteran, was denied a military burial that his family requested.
There were a lot of opinions expressed at the time that it should be done, but the view that Hall membership is only about football (and where do we stop?) prevailed. FWIW, he had to sell his Heisman trophy as part of paying off the settlement.
Then you will be pleased. Whilst the 1997 law was inspired by McVeigh’s case, it was not a private bill. Specifically, 38 U.S.C. § 2411 denies military burial benefits to all persons convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death or life without parole.
While special legislation may have been needed in McVeigh’s case, the law has since been amended to make this a general regulation on the part of the uniformed services and the veterans agencies.
From the United States Code:
Now, it might be productive, given this, to discuss whether murderers should be stripped of military funeral benefits, as provided for in this legislation, without having to discuss the understandable inflammatory example of Timothy McVeigh.
Is this request a pro forma matter, or can somebody in the military say “No” to such a request?
In the former case, the rules/laws clearly should be changed so that somebody can strip the honor from people who have clearly forfeited it (such as McVeigh).
In the latter case, Congress was simply grandstanding – surely they didn’t think the military would actually accord him any honors unless their hands were tied.
If I am convicted under the UCMJ, sentenced to death, and executed (not that there’s any chance of that), am I also excluded from a military funeral? In other words, who is responsible for my disposition once the military is done with me?
