A veteran's sign upsets the recruiters next door

New York Times ^ | Monica Davey

[clawrence3]

Thank you for your service, and welcome aboard!

[clawrence3]

Sorry - I guess the "slippery slope" argument is yours. Bottom line: it's a logical fallacy - we can always impeach the President who takes any power too far.

[clawrence3]

I could not agree more - did you see that Gary Capan, the Army recruiter who asked them to take down the sign, posted above?

[TankerKC]

The guy is running for office as a Democrat - that sign is in his CAMPAIGN Office window - coincidence?

What? He's running for office and put up a sign? How can our Republic stand against this?!

[clawrence3]

Did you see your thread got the Army recruiter on board?

[clawrence3]

Did you even read the post above about WHY they asked the sign be removed?

[TankerKC]

Did you even read the post above about WHY they asked the sign be removed?

Yes.

The guy who put it up is an inconsiderate fool. In this country, you are free to be an inconsiderate fool. Which is lucky for you, because in this country you can even be the kind of fool who calls for spying on those that you disagree with.

[clawrence3]

I agree (obviously) that even in wartime, in this great country, you and I are free to be an inconsiderate fools. What this guy did went way beyond that - see his suspicious activity above re: lingering problems from Vietnam and what the NYT is doing to exploit them - I would doubt the Secret Service wants anyone unbalanced like him close to the President, for instance. I'm not calling for him to be spied on because of this sign - it's his behavior since then that raises red flags.

[antiRepublicrat]

Sorry - I guess the "slippery slope" argument is yours. Bottom line: it's a logical fallacy

It is not always a logical fallacy.

The more steps between action A and bad end result Z makes it more a fallacy. Here there are no steps -- he has the ability, and it can be abused. Also, how far-fetched the slope is applies. Here plentiful historical evidence of past abuse exists to show that such powers will likely be abused in the future if allowed.

No slippery slope fallacy here.

we can always impeach the President who takes any power too far.

After the damage has been done, if the abuse is discovered despite the secrecy. Remember, it took a burglary to uncover the fact that COINTELPRO even existed, 15 years after its inception (and it was just a formalization of decades of previous abuses). Can't impeach a dead ex-president.

[auboy]

Thank you for your service, and for "the rest of the story".

I have a question for Mr. Cameron. Where's his sign honoring the fallen and wounded soldiers who have served in Afghanistan? Or is he only interested in keeping a list on Iraq?

[Non-Sequitur]

I can find NO words that allow for the kind of protests that the antiwar movement did in the 1960s and 1970s and are starting to do now. And there is no protection for criminals who destroy property and toss fire at police or other bystanders.

What is violent or criminal about what this guy is doing?

If they are protesting to help the enemies of the American people they should be monitored 24/7 period.

And how do you prove that? He'll deny that that is his intent, of course. And he no doubt believes it. Do you say that all protest helps the enemy, as many on this forum seem to believe? Then you've done away with all forms of protest completely, and trashed a good part of the Constitution.

[Non-Sequitur]

And how is this 'adhereing to the enemy'? By your definition any protest could be treasonous if somebody believes that the protestor is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. How do you prove it?

[clawrence3]

It doesn't matter what I believe - it is up to a prosecutor to prove those elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (and for treason itself, that includes 2 eyewitnesses or confession in open court).

[Non-Sequitur]

It doesn't matter what I believe - it is up to a prosecutor to prove those elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (and for treason itself, that includes 2 eyewitnesses or confession in open court).

Which is no doubt why we don't see any prosecutors jumping up ready to indict someone for peacefully protesting a war that is unpopular in some camps.

[clawrence3]

Perhaps the prosecutions are not going to be for "peacefully protesting a war that is unpopular in some camps" - if more of this continues (especially in Red States, there will be prosecutions) - unfortunately, as the article pointed out, it is nearly impossible to gauge how concerted counter-recruiting efforts have affected military recruiting, if at all, said S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.: "There's been a good bit of activity this year," Mr. Smith said of the counter-recruiting efforts. "But in terms of impact, it's very hard to say." In this fiscal year, the Army hopes to recruit more than 105,000 active-duty and reserve soldiers by next fall. As of the end of November, Mr. Smith said, the Army was slightly ahead of its year-to-date goals. So, we shall see.

[Non-Sequitur]

...unfortunately, as the article pointed out, it is nearly impossible to gauge how concerted counter-recruiting efforts have affected military recruiting, if at all...

Even if you could prove a connection between this protest and a drop in military recruiting I still don't see a crime. I may not agree with them on this but I spent most of my adult life defending their right to disagree with the administration on this issue or any other.

[clawrence3]

Like I said, it is up to the prosecutor to prove the elements of any crime charged (I gave just 2 examples above). I really don't know what use it is to keep going over and over the same stuff.

[armymarinemom]

However, hyping the tuition assistance you get while in the military is misleading (TA pays 75% or more of tuition while you're in). Lots of troops never get the chance to use it, while those in garrison with regular hours can, with little money of their own, easily knock out an associate's degree during a four-year enlistment.

A lot of our troops are using ArmyEU even during deployment.

[1stcav]

"Probably the first thing is to authenticate his story....then to from there....."

Found this on a thread from 2004. Think this could be the one and same Scott Cameron?
Quote:

---

http://aavet.bravejournal.com/entry/6743

Posted by Scott Cameron:
Enlisted 17Jan68. Either that or 5 months in jail. Served RVN 28Aug68 to 5Apr69. Wounded 11Feb69. With Advisory Team 60, MACV, Sadec, RVN. Looking for anyone who was there. My chopper pilot died next to me and I don't know his name or unit. He was stationed in Vinh Long in the Delta. Would end my quest for 38 years. Really would help my PTSD and give me closure. WIA, 11Feb69 @2:03PM, attached to 9th ARVN div, 16th Reg. I was RTO .Anyone there please contact me. :(
Friday, November 26th 2004 @ 12:21:59 (398 days, 14h, 43min ago)

---

OBSERVATIONS and COMMENTS:
a) I would think he would know someone from his unit after all these years?
b) Was he fishing in 2004 about needing a PTSD source buddy?
c) The KIA chopper pilot he mentions from Vinh Long would have most likely been from Advisory Team 73.
d) He ENLISTED during the heat of the VN war
e) He was in trouble with the law before he enlisted
f) The mention of him being in the Delta matches what was told on MSNBC 12-29-05 by NBC reporter, Janet Shamlian, on Scarborough Country.
g) One was usually assigned to an ARVN unit as a RTO unless they had volunteered and been approved by an Advisor?
h) Was wounded 11Feb69 but didn't leave RVN until 5Apr69?
1) Why would he have been kept incountry RVN with the spinal and lung wounds mentioned in the NYT article?

As a Vietnam Vet myself, if his story is true, then he can darn well say what he wants. However, shame on him if he is embellishing and/or lying.

[wallcrawlr]

Thanks for posting, welcome to Freep!


Here is another thread that was posted earlier.

You may remember a fella or two as they called you.

Take a look.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1537049/posts