Guard at the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier maintains proper decorum.

Gunslinger · Nov 13, 2011

Citizen said:
I hate to be the odd man out, but as a former Marine I have standing to comment.

The First Amendment is not suspended at shrines.

Giggling and joking is far, far from deliberate, calculated disrespect, such as, say, the preacher who was going around to military funerals saying dead soldiers were God's wrath for America's tolerance of homosexuals.

It is one thing for the guard to request--which he did. And, the noisy ones shut up. But, they could just as well have continued--and we would be very wise to support their right to do so.

Majority opinion and majority speech needs no protection in a democratic republic.

Who is the government to decide to seize our tax dollars under threat and then assert that all must be silent and respectful at the locations it chooses?

Especially when the demanded respect helps glorify the dead the government helped get killed? Glorification, honoring the dead? These play right into the hands of the sociopaths who lie us into war, I suspect. Below is a link to a very interesting video--a clip from an old movie. When taken together with Gen. Smedley Butler's (USMC) book, War is a Racket, the clip is definitely food for thought.

So, while we may or may not be personally affronted by the giggling and laughing, I would recommend against supporting too strongly the government (guard) shutting up the "offenders"

The mother has been pretending her husband and son are still alive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIeYppX-lRg&feature=related

This one, particular memorial wasn't paid for by the government. It was 'paid for' by our most precious commodity: the blood of one who rests in honored glory. "Glorifying the dead" in this case is justified completely by what they died for. Without this justification, the other topics we discuss on this site would be moot.

rscottie · Nov 13, 2011

Honor Our Fallen Soldiers

I think that the basic point is being drowned out here by people asserting that someone can laugh wherever they wish.

While this is entirely true and is supported by the 1st Amendment, there are places where people need to know how to act and what is appropriate.

The sentry standing watch over our fallen warriors did nothing more than remind the crowd that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier deserved the utmost in respect. He did not roughen anyone up, he did not threaten anyone.

The soldiers buried in that tomb died for this country. They did so without their remains being identified. They represent every anonymous soldier that fights and dies for our rights in this country and the huge sacrifice that they have made.

Asking for visitors to honor the dignity of that sacrifice by not carrying on like one is on vacation and laughing it up is not too much to ask.

2a4all · Nov 13, 2011

Citizen said:
A couple random observations. Just to keep the conversation going.

1. The sentry is armed with a bayonetted rifle. Presumably to prevent physical desecration of the grave.

There is a big wide difference between physical desecration and mere transitory laughter.

Does a shrine really need an armed sentry to prevent disrespectful unsilence? Are the sentry's supporters really prepared to say that mere words or laughter can actually desecrate the stone of the tomb? Much less penetrate inside and physically disturb some tiny fragment of the remains? Does a sentry really need a bayonet to spear the laughter sound waves before they reach the tomb?

2. Of course, there is the bad manners and lack of respect for other viewers behind the velvet rope. But, the discussion and the laughter are merely transitory. Are we really willing to say that an armed sentry is needed to solve the problem, and empower him to violate 1A speech rights, when a non-infringing solution is for any offended viewers to just wait a moment until the unrespectful ones leave? And, wouldn't it be better to just put up a sign reminding clueless visitors that silence is appreciated by other visitors?

It's been a while since I last visited Arlington, but I do recall signs (written in English) reminding visitors to show respect.

Now, we know that these individuals understand English, as they immediatley complied with the Sentry's request. Is it too much of a stretch to assume that they can also read English?

Citizen · Nov 13, 2011

Gunslinger said:
SNIP I'm surprised at your post, Citizen.

! As I am by yours, my friend. I apologize if I've touched a nerve.

All readers, lets review just a moment. I am not saying the laughter (or the joke that preceded it) is not disrespectful. I am discussing an armed government sentry violating 1A rights. I am recommending against cheering the sentry.

Yes, laughter is a bit tasteless and disrespectful. But, disrespectful of what? Let's answer that in a moment. Another aspect of this disrespect issue, precisely on my point, is whether an armed government sentry is violating 1A speech rights by demanding silence.

Disrespectful of what? Lets examine closely. No offense to anybody, but that is just another way of saying, lets look further than initial reactions, otherwise known as knee-jerk reactions. Again, no offense. But, we owe it to ourselves--and the very veterans who made sacrifices!--to be vigilent about rights.

Disrespectful of what? I see two or three possibilities. Permit me to address the most obvious--the Unknowns. How can one possibly injure them by disrespect? It is impossible. If one believes in a spirit or soul, he must say that the spirits or souls of the Unknowns departed long before interrment. The beings are not present to be insulted. If one disbelieves in a soul or spirit, you end up at the same result--it is impossible to insult the calcium, carbon, phosphorus, etc. that remains.

Another possibility, as Gunslinger mentioned, is the disrespect to all veterans. All living veterans cannot possibly be insulted because they aren't present. The only possibility is those few who happen to be present at the time of the laughter, or those who view the video (as we see by this thread.) Since, the dead are not present to be insulted, I'll leave out that fraction of veterans. By asserting disrespect for the living veterans who might be insulted, aren't we really just demanding respect for an idea? And, does not a man (living veterans who witness the disrespect) bear some responsibility (causation) for his own ideas and whether he feels insulted?

A third possibility is the sentry himself. Lets lump him in with the veterans since the same will apply to him.

This discussion is little different than the heresy discussions that must have pervaded Spain during the Inquisition. And, the apostacy discussions that pervade some of Islam today. Do you see the similarities? Respect Allah, from who all blessings flow! Respect veterans, we wouldn't have rights without them!

What we have here, really, is a clash of ideas. The very thing the 1A was intended to protect by its speech, press, and religion clauses.

But, remember, this discussion is about more than just disrespect. It is also about government enforcing its ideas of what should be respected.

Citizen · Nov 13, 2011

As I was writing that last post, a few things occurred to me. Permit me to mention them here.

1. Lets suppose that a few veterans who would feel insulted are present at the Tomb. Why are they there? To pay respects? To enjoy the shrine, meaning to take away from the visit some sense of acknowledgement from society towards their fallen friends? To get a certain feeling from standing at hallowed ground?

Are these not entirely subjective? Meaning, are these not all things that happen inside one's head? Does he not have to manufacture any feelings himself? The Tomb does not emanate "hallowed" waves.

2. Lets think about this unknown business for a moment. A serviceman gets his identity blown off of him and now there's a shrine? He wasn't unknown five minutes earlier--his buddies knew his name. Depending on the exact circumstances, his buddies may have even seen him fall. He was only unknown to Graves Registration. And, quite possibly that only because his buddies couldn't get back to him because of battlefield necessity and tell Graves Registration, "Yeah, Steve was running right here when that shell hit, that must be him."

-------

Yes, its a bit tasteless to joke and laugh at a solemn shrine. Would I object if a civilian spoke up and said, "Hey, do you mind? There are veterans here paying their respects."? No, I wouldn't object. A live veteran deserves a little catharsis; give him some peace so he can. Even a non-veteran deserves some peace to reflect on war, sacrifice, and so on.

But, I will object vigorously to government demanding respect.

Daylen · Nov 13, 2011

Citizen said:
! As I am by yours, my friend. I apologize if I've touched a nerve.

All readers, lets review just a moment. I am not saying the laughter (or the joke that preceded it) is not disrespectful. I am discussing an armed government sentry violating 1A rights. I am recommending against cheering the sentry.

Yes, laughter is a bit tasteless and disrespectful. But, disrespectful of what? Let's answer that in a moment. Another aspect of this disrespect issue, precisely on my point, is whether an armed government sentry is violating 1A speech rights by demanding silence.
...

I don't think their 1A rights were violated. The sentry made a request, and was even specific enough to say "it is requested...". I do not think that a request is coercion because such would mean if I am armed and want to ask someone to be quiet I have probably committed a crime. This would mean I have to keep my mouth shut when armed and if I want to say anything I must disarm first. I reject any conjecture that one can only exercise 1A or 2A not both at the same time, and thus by extension this sentry should be able to make a request even in a tone as he did.

Citizen · Nov 13, 2011

Daylen said:
I don't think their 1A rights were violated. The sentry made a request, and was even specific enough to say "it is requested...". I do not think that a request is coercion because such would mean if I am armed and want to ask someone to be quiet I have probably committed a crime. This would mean I have to keep my mouth shut when armed and if I want to say anything I must disarm first. I reject any conjecture that one can only exercise 1A or 2A not both at the same time, and thus by extension this sentry should be able to make a request even in a tone as he did.

I've already addressed all this, specifically refuting some of your assertions here.

Are you going to go back and counter my refutations? Or, just keep saying it is so because you say it is so?

Daylen · Nov 13, 2011

Citizen said:
I've already addressed all this, specifically refuting some of your assertions here.

Are you going to go back and counter my refutations? Or, just keep saying it is so because you say it is so?

I don't think your cite applies. There was no arrest, no legal harm done, no threat of harm.

Citizen · Nov 13, 2011

Daylen said:
I don't think your cite applies. There was no arrest, no legal harm done, no threat of harm.

That's it? No explanation of how the court's rationale about weapons and show of authority making for compulsion is wrong? Just, "I don't think your cite applies" followed by differences that are not at issue, while carefully avoiding the similarities that are?

Tell you what. Either you cough up some cogent counter arguments directly on point, or I'm going to stop talking with you. I don't mind spending time bringing information to you for your honest evaluation, but I'll be damned if I am going to go on arguing with someone who can't or won't argue honestly.

Bottom line: The sentry is an armed government agent who demanded silence and a poorly defined respect in the face of a constitutional guarantee that says government agents may not restrict speech. Of all the people present, the sentry is the one guy who can't do it. By this I mean in the spirit of the 1A. I'm not trying to assert that 1A case law does or doesn't authorize it. Certainly, I mean that we shouldn't cheer the sentry.

MilProGuy · Nov 14, 2011

rscottie said:
I think that the basic point is being drowned out here by people asserting that someone can laugh wherever they wish.

While this is entirely true and is supported by the 1st Amendment, there are places where people need to know how to act and what is appropriate.

The sentry standing watch over our fallen warriors did nothing more than remind the crowd that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier deserved the utmost in respect. He did not roughen anyone up, he did not threaten anyone.

The soldiers buried in that tomb died for this country. They did so without their remains being identified. They represent every anonymous soldier that fights and dies for our rights in this country and the huge sacrifice that they have made.

Asking for visitors to honor the dignity of that sacrifice by not carrying on like one is on vacation and laughing it up is not too much to ask.

Thank you for your profoundly insightful post.

THIS is what I had hoped to convey in initiating this thread.

MilProGuy · Nov 14, 2011

OC for ME said:
Our 1A right stops at 'X'?

Well, for one thing, they stop here on this forum, and any other Internet forum which are privately owned.

By logging on, we are bound by the rules and guidelines of the respective forum, and reliquish the right to speak as freely as we might speak to the next door neighbor over the back fence.

When vacationers enter the complex of the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier, they relinguish the same free speech rights they can enjoy on the beach or at a picnic table in a campground.

It all boils down to common sense and common courtesy and decorum.

Gunslinger · Nov 14, 2011

Citizen said:
As I was writing that last post, a few things occurred to me. Permit me to mention them here.

1. Lets suppose that a few veterans who would feel insulted are present at the Tomb. Why are they there? To pay respects? To enjoy the shrine, meaning to take away from the visit some sense of acknowledgement from society towards their fallen friends? To get a certain feeling from standing at hallowed ground?

Are these not entirely subjective? Meaning, are these not all things that happen inside one's head? Does he not have to manufacture any feelings himself? The Tomb does not emanate "hallowed" waves.....

Yes. That is why I would be there. Further to 1st or any other amendment rights: should I not feel I was capable of acting in a manner that has been legacy at that hallowed shrine since WWI, I would do the honorable thing and stay the hell away. And I would add the Vietnam Wall to a very short list--including Arlington, that respect is 'demanded,' not by any law or armed guard, but by simple decency and acknowldegement of what that memorial means to others.
This is a very rare occasion where we will agree to disagree, my friend. As fellow veterans, and with mutual respect for the other's opinion, we have earned that right.

MilProGuy · Nov 14, 2011

Gunslinger said:
Citizen said:

This is a very rare occasion where we will agree to disagree, my friend. As fellow veterans, and with mutual respect for the other's opinion, we have earned that right.

Click to expand...

Yes sir, we certainly have, and I certainly respect your opinion and the insights you have shared.

Brass Magnet · Nov 14, 2011

I'm with ya Citizen.

Once again, I'm not saying that I believe giggling at the tomb is appropriate; I don't, but 1A specifically protects us from the government limiting our free speech. It doesn't get much more direct than this gentleman; an agent of the government acting under it's authority, "requesting" the crowd to be quiet. As was mentioned earlier, our country was set up and the BoR was written to protect the rights of the minority. The majority needs no such protection as they are the ones making the laws. The BoR protects unpopular speech, protects the rights of the accused that some people would rather see thrown in jail without a key. It protects followers of different religions from being legislated out of existence by a majority of another religion.

Although the giggling was disrespectful, this is not harmful speech. If disrespectful speech fell within the governments interest to regulate damn near everyone would be in jail.

OC for ME said:
Why should we not cheer the sentry, if he was in fact doing his job by 'requesting' a level of silence and respect. It is possible, however improbable, that the sentry et al, may very well be the only one, as a agent of the 'state', who could restrict speech at the Tomb of the Unknowns to maintain/enforce a narrowly defined 'state' interest.[snip]

Why should we not cheer the sentry? Why should we not cheer the German soldiers that were just doing their jobs in WW2? Why should we not cheer police that are "just following orders" to keep those blacks out of that school? I admit to the absurdity of my examples but I believe the question is absurd as well. Once again, it's not what's popular that needs protecting.

OC for ME said:
[/snip]Somehow I think the 'poorly defined respect', as you call it, is not so poorly defined for most folks whether they be veterans or not. I believe the vast majority of folks 'get it' and keep it down in venues such as the Tomb of the Unknowns. The remainder are just not used to getting put in their place when they are acting like jackasses, in public.

This perfectly illustrates the point that the 1A protects the speech of minority. The majority of us agree that these gigglers were disrespectful. There's; evidently, a minority of us that just believe it's conduct protected from our majority view.

What if a group of Iraqi Americans decided to protest at ground zero because their loved ones were among the tens of thousands killed by U.S. forces in Iraq? Would that seem disrespectful? Most likely yes and probably to many. Would it be protected conduct? Yes.

In the case at hand, the only gray area I see is whether or not this "request" should actually be viewed as one. Citizen brought up the 4A case law which is also used when people are coerced into showing ID and even 5A jurisprudence. My question is whether or not the sentry could have made the "request" in any other tone or manner and still maintained proper decorum. Following that, could he have made it differently?

Gunslinger · Nov 14, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
I'm with ya Citizen.

Why should we not cheer the sentry? Why should we not cheer the German soldiers that were just doing their jobs in WW2? Why should we not cheer police that are "just following orders" to keep those blacks out of that school? I admit to the absurdity of my examples but I believe the question is absurd as well. Once again, it's not what's popular that needs protecting.

YGTBFKM! You're comparing an Honor Guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to SS extermination camp guards? An Honor Guard who is at the burial site of one who fought against the Nazi butchers? That goes way beyond absurd and reaches moronic.

Jim675 · Nov 14, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
I'm with ya Citizen.
SNIP...
My question is whether or not the sentry could have made the "request" in any other tone or manner and still maintained proper decorum. Following that, could he have made it differently?

I agree with you and Citizen. On this part I would suggest that a private citizen is not required to understand military protocol to correctly interpret the guard's stance and tone of voice. Veterans of course understand coming to attention and port arms and using sounding off i a command voice. Non-vets would (correctly) see the guard change his path, focus on them, maneuver his weapon, and yell at them. Obviously has the power to intimidate the unknowing.

"...maintain a level of silence and respect..." perhaps his special instructions were to say "...maintain a respectful silence...". And he probably did want to butt-stroke the people, which would certainly fluster him a bit. But that desire is exactly what must be suppressed when acting as an agent of the state.

Brass Magnet · Nov 14, 2011

Gunslinger said:
YGTBFKM! You're comparing an Honor Guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to SS extermination camp guards? An Honor Guard who is at the burial site of one who fought against the Nazi butchers? That goes way beyond absurd and reaches moronic.

I said it was an absurd example and I said German soldiers not "Nazi butchers". Are you implying that all German soldiers were Nazi butchers? See how dumb that sounds? You guy's apparent problem is control of your emotions. Come on.

Gunslinger · Nov 14, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
I said it was an absurd example and I said German soldiers not "Nazi butchers". Are you implying that all German soldiers were Nazi butchers? See how dumb that sounds? You guy's apparent problem is control of your emotions. Come on.

The "just doing their job" was the affirmative defense offered at Nuremburg. It did not apply to the run of the mill German soldier, but those accused of atrocity--those I mention. Therefore your choice of words, as I said, was moronic.

Brass Magnet · Nov 14, 2011

Gunslinger said:
The "just doing their job" was the affirmative defense offered at Nuremburg. It did not apply to the run of the mill German soldier, but those accused of atrocity--those I mention. Therefore your choice of words, as I said, was moronic.

Anti's think it's moronic when we compare 2A struggles to civil rights struggles too. What I'm comparing has no bearing on the man or the differential in action. Regardless of your opinion and embellishment of my words, the example I was trying to make stands: The majority opinion is not in specific need of protection.

Brass Magnet · Nov 14, 2011

Jim675 said:
I agree with you and Citizen. On this part I would suggest that a private citizen is not required to understand military protocol to correctly interpret the guard's stance and tone of voice. Veterans of course understand coming to attention and port arms and using sounding off i a command voice. Non-vets would (correctly) see the guard change his path, focus on them, maneuver his weapon, and yell at them. Obviously has the power to intimidate the unknowing.

"...maintain a level of silence and respect..." perhaps his special instructions were to say "...maintain a respectful silence...". And he probably did want to butt-stroke the people, which would certainly fluster him a bit. But that desire is exactly what must be suppressed when acting as an agent of the state.

Someone brought up the "reasonable man" doctrine right? I suppose it applies. A reasonable man in that situation probably could have viewed it as an order. How could he have both, gotten the attention of the crowd, and relayed the request without making sound like an order though? That's the tricky part I'm trying to figure out.

Guard at the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier maintains proper decorum.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member