January 27, 2010 04:57 AM UTC

My Letter to David Harsayni about the DPost editorial on Rick Strandlof

•  
• by: SSG_Dan

(Because the Denver Post needs to remember how to do research. – promoted by Middle of the Road)

Update: David Harsayni has emailed me and asked me to post the following in response to the editorial Dan is replying to:

I’m not the editor of the Denver

Post editorial page, so I’m not sure why the letter posted on Pols is

addressed to me specifically. Perhaps the letter writer believes that

I wrote the editorial. I’m not sure why.

Mr. Harsayni:

Like the subject line says, I have a question about your role on the Denver Post Editorial Board. Exactly, what is it?

The reason I ask is the opinion piece in Sunday’s paper entitled “False claims of military valor are hardly criminal.” Now, since I don’t know what role you played in, a lot of what I’ve got to say is pretty general. But here goes.

First off, I assume that when the Post published an opinion piece, there’s some research involved. For example, if you were going to weigh in on Dick Wadhams lawsuit against voter-approved limits on campaign contributions, you’d get a copy of the motion, research the law, etc etc etc. Can you tell me what research was done regarding the article?

Secondly, did anyone contact Rep Salazar’s office for info regarding the actual law? Or, for that matter, any of the Veteran’s Groups who endorsed it? Maybe Doug Sterner, the one person in the US who contributed quite a bit to writing the act? (If you don’t know who he is, go here: http://www.homeofheroes.com/)

From the Veteran community, did anyone even check the Veteran web & blog sites for the prevailing opinion of that community? If we need to stay in the Conservative Blogosphere, you could even limit yourself to the American Legion’s blog, the Burn Pit ( http://burnpit.legion.org/.)

On the plantiff’s side, did anyone contact the Rutherford Foundation, regarding their reasons for joining the lawsuit? I assume the Post would never soil their Conservative reputation by contacting the ACLU.

Here’s why I ask – it appears this column is all emotion and self-contained reasoning, and not based on any sort of normal editorial standards, like research. Because there are some key pieces of information missing from the column that would deflate it.

First and foremost, Military Rank, Awards and Decorations have their authority and practice granted to them by Congress. They are not random claims of quality (“Coldest Beer in Town!”) nor are they obtained by a arbitrary set of standards. All come from the Military Chain of Command, have strict guidelines and review processes, and as such, are the same as a professional designation like “Lawyer,” “Policeman,” or “Doctor.”

As such practicing anything while claiming the profession is punishable under the Stolen Valor law. Since there are similar laws on the books (Local, State and Federal) to punish those wayward individuals who claim to be, say, a policeman, then a law which punishes the false claim of being a Federal Official should hold up as well.

Secondly, the act is quite specific. It does NOT criminalize the “mere act of lying.” It criminalizes the claim of specific military awards and decorations….very specifically. Mr. Strandlof/Duncan is not being charged for all of his YouTube postings where he claims “I was wounded in Iraq by an IED.” If so, the charges would total over 40 counts. No, he is charged for 5 specific instances where he claimed to have a Purple Hear or a Silver Star.

Lastly, there is the declaration that ” The First Amendment protects even deplorable, distasteful speech, particularly in cases where that speech doesn’t injure someone else.” This above anything else, fails the test of research.

Mr Strandlof’s lies caused considerable harm. Had one phone call been placed to, say, the OIF/OEF clinic at the Denver VA Hospital, or to the DAV Thrift Store, ample evidence would have been presented to the harm caused. In addition, reading of the indictment, as well as some of the witness affidavits would provide evidence of harm as well.

One more thing – if you use “The Google” on my name, (or even search the Post’s archives) you will see quickly how close I am to this case. I could personally write a letter to the Post, and personally provide rebuttal points to every paragraph in the column.

But I can’t do that – as personally reprehensible as Rick Strandlof is, he is an American Citizen. And he is entitled to his day in court. And when I testify (or if, depending on the result of the motion) this column will seem pointless, empty and overall, a pretty bad piece of journalism.