Ah, the tempest teapot of vice-presidential campaigns: Republican veep nominee JD Vance, Senator from Ohio, accuses Democratic veep nominee apparent Tim Walz, governor of Minnesota, of engaging in “stolen valor garbage.”

Vance’s allegations seem to involve three components:

First, that Walz retired from the National Guard after 24 years in infantry and artillery jobs, instead of adding another hitch so as to deploy with his unit to Iraq (the unit received its orders two months after he submitted his retirement paperwork).

Second, that while Minnesota’s official government web site described Walz’s rank at retirement as Command Sergeant Major, he actually retired as a Master Sergeant because he hadn’t completed the Sergeants Major Academy while holding the job of (envelope, please) Command Sergeant Major.

And third, that Walz referred in passing to “weapons of war, that I carried in war” in an anti-gun-rights rant. Walz never carried a weapon in war, if for no other reason than that the US hasn’t been — legally/constitutionally speaking — at war since 1945, two decades before his birth. He almost certainly carried, at least, a side arm, during periods when the US military was engaged in combat, even though he didn’t see any himself.

Vance, on the other hand, served one enlistment in the US Marine Corps, deploying to Iraq as a “combat correspondent” who, by his own admission, saw no “combat.” I suspect he carried a weapon in that (pseudo-)war. So valor! Much rifle!

I seldom speak “as a veteran,” but “as a veteran” (and, by the way, a Marine who ran for vice-president 16 years before Vance, appearing on the ballot in Tennessee for the Boston Tea Party), I find this line of gotcha name-calling, and the whole concept of “stolen valor,” boring and silly.

A veteran is just a former government employee who may have held, but didn’t necessarily hold, a job with “kill people” in its description of usual duties. There’s nothing inherently more “valorous” about that than there is to any other government jobs/workfare program; “valor” is a rare individual occurrence, not an automatic attribute of “service.”

As for false or embellished claims as to the character of a veteran’s work, who cares?

Family-friendly version of an old saying: The difference between a fairy tale and a sea story is that a fairy tale begins “once upon a time …” while a sea story begins “no kidding, you’re not gonna believe this …”

Neither of these two politicians seems to have embellished his record to any wild degree — if I had a dollar for every “former US Navy SEAL” I’ve met, I’d have more dollars than the number of SEALs who’ve ever existed — and given Vance’s need to nitpick at this level of triviality, I doubt any new bombshells are wired for later detonation.

And if the idea of “stolen valor” bothers you, you’ve got too much time on your hands and probably a tendency toward unjustified grievance. Some idiot wearing an “unearned” Medal of Honor neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. Get over it.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On July 31, retired brigadier general Susan K. Escallier signed a pretrial agreement under which Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi would have pleaded guilty to various roles in the terror attacks of 9/11 in return for sentences of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. On August 1, bending to outrage (real and feigned) over the matter, US defense secretary Lloyd Austin revoked the deal.

The case may seem unrelated to last month’s US Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States, granting presidential immunity for “official acts” — an immunity manufactured from whole cloth in contradiction to both the plain text of  the US Constitution and the entire history of American jurisprudence.  The two stories however, are of a piece.

The three defendants have spent their last two decades in US custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If they’d been charged and tried as ordinary criminals in federal court, they’d have almost certainly found themselves quickly convicted, shortly thereafter sentenced to death, and long since dead, like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (about six years from crime to execution).

That’s not a comment on their guilt or innocence; it’s just recognition that finding a jury which WOULDN’T convict them and recommend a sentence of death would have been extraordinarily unlikely given the climate of the time.

But former president George W. Bush just wasn’t having any of this Constitution stuff. Whether or not he actually called the Supreme Law of the Land “just a goddamned piece of paper,” as a later retracted article claimed, he certainly treated it that way.

The US government, under Bush and with the cooperation of Congress and, in parts, the Supreme Court, simply seized power to declare people “unlawful enemy combatants,” try them via military tribunal instead of the constitutionally required court/jury system — if it tried them at all instead of just having them murdered, as Barack Obama and Donald Trump later did — all while holding them indefinitely in violation of the Constitution’s “speedy public trial” requirements and torturing them in violation of its “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibition (as well as international law).

Let me say this again by way of emphasis, because it’s important:

If the constitutional requirements had been followed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi would almost certainly have been killed by lethal injection years ago.

The way these three alleged terrorist masterminds were treated wasn’t about achieving justice.

It wasn’t about “winning the war on terror.”

It wasn’t about preventing future attacks.

It was about implementing George W. Bush’s kingly view of presidential power: “I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.”

The SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity in Trump’s case affirmed that claim, ensuring that neither Bush nor his predecessors or successors need ever fear they’ll face justice — even the kind of justice denied Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi — and that their victims will never RECEIVE justice for crimes committed against them by modern American monarchs.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Thirty-five trillion.

Wow, that’s a really, really big number — big enough that it deserves my exploitation of it as the entire opening paragraph of this column.

OK, so add “dollars” after that really, really big number if you must, or put a dollar sign before it, as in “on July 26, the US national debt pass the $35 trillion mark.”

That feels like a real milestone — around $7 trillion more than last year’s Gross Domestic Product, which supposedly represents the value of all goods and services produced in the US  — but it didn’t generate nearly as much panicked media notice as I’d expected it to.

Maybe the American press is a bit distracted by the weirdest presidential campaign season in decades (and that’s saying something!).

Or maybe the national debt has just grown so large, and its growth accelerated to such speeds, that it’s become the usual and really only merits the “footnote and yawn” treatment these days.

I’m old enough to remember when American politicians engaged in vigorous public hand-wringing about their debt (all the while, of course, pretending it was YOUR debt), occasionally even tinkering with tiny spending cuts or not so tiny tax hikes to “do something” about it.

Those days are long gone. “If we don’t raise the debt ceiling and borrow more money, the world will end!” is the new “if we don’t stop spending more than we bring in, we’re screwed!” Perhaps that’s because the politicians kept spending more than they brought in until the screwing became inevitable.

Personally, I think they’ve taken an often misinterpreted quote from a long-dead economist to heart and turned it into their plan of action.

“The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs,” John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1923. “In the long run we are all dead.”

Keynes meant that as a call for vigorous short-term economic action on the part of government in times of crisis, as opposed to waiting for the ship to right itself over a longer time frame.

Today’s politicians treat it instead as permission to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave and hope they’re dead — or at least retired — before the bills come due and the ship goes down.

And, make no mistake, it WILL go down. The politicians will eventually default on their debt, either openly or with accounting tricks … and do their damnedest to stick you with most of the negative consequences.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY