Ear, tin, 1ea. American Idol

Performer Andy Garcia stylin' with his ribbons - or, "metals" as many of the commenters on the now-defunct-and-removed comment thread called them.

They have deprived us of this classic crie de coeur:

So what if Andrew wears the metals, big flippin' deal.

Isn't it interesting how the military brainwashes people. Don't EVEN get me started about the politics of war. We'll be here till eternity.

That flash of insight was from Flash_Underwear whose current mood "is pissin' all over herself, anxiously waiting for AI9"   I'm sure her parents are proud of that piece of information, though I'm rather guessing she wouldn't care.  And perhaps her 'rents don't, either.

Chuck Z of From My Position put up this response (there was much heat and fire from both sides, hence the thread removal as the moderators couldn't keep up flensing the scat):

Doesn't matter his motivations.

He. Broke. The. Law.

Whether he knows it or not is irrelevant, the Stolen Valor Act specifically prohibits the wearing of military medals if not earned by the individual who wears them.

Period.

It doesn't matter whether he simply thought they complimented his wardrobe, if they belonged to his grandfather, or if they were sent to him by his great-aunt's hairdresser's son's brother-in-law.

If he did it for any reason, or even if he wore them for no reason,

He. Broke. The. Law.

It doesn't "honor" a veteran to wear their medals for them. It doesn't "honor" a veteran to wear medals that you didn't earn. On of the greatest men I know lost his son in Iraq--and he would would never wear his son's medals or uniform. He simply wears one of his sons' dog tags, everywhere he goes.
I don't realluy care what Garcia's motivations were.

He. Broke. The. Law.

Worse yet, not one single person on the Idol set had any inkling that what he was doing was illegal, nor did any of them have the sense to imagine some people would take umbrage with it, since he never explained why he wore them.

I too, am an Iraq vet, with over 15 years of service, and the fact that he's wearing medals that don't belong to him does upset me greatly. By wearing them like costume jewelry, he cheapens the honor that those medals display to the rest of the world. Given that 99% of Americans would be hard-pressed to identify even one of them, putting up with his wearing them cheapens the meaning to the veterans who have earned them.

I admit I have reservations about the generalized reach of the Stolen Valor law, and am watching with interest the current litigation testing its constitutionality.  I don't mind the thrust and intent - to provide a way to punish people who abuse military service for personal gain, but I am a touch leery of bringing the full force of the Federal government down on schmoes with issues - vice the ones who are working an angle for personal gain.  But I also understand the anger vets feel when they see things that have great personal meaning to them used in cavalier, and ultimately, disrespectful ways. 

Of course, I also have a problem with making behavior criminal that is merely offensive to someone.  PC speech codes, anyone? There is lots of room for mischief there, too, and I find that making more and more everyday human activity criminal simply plays into the hands of people in power who wish to criminlize more and more in order to extend their span of control and influence.

But I understand the anger.

Back when I was in college, the drama department at my former high school asked the Auld Soldier if they could borrow his medals for a theatrical production. He said sure, thinking they were for some war hero character or something.

Then, when the production was over, they returned his medals (in good shape) along with a picture of how they were used.

They were splattered randomly over the chest of Annie Oakley, as her "shootin' medals" for the musical "Annie Get Your Gun."

Yep, the Silver Star, Bronze Star w/V, and Purple Heart with 6/OLC (along with the myriad others) just flopping in the breeze as Annie pranced around the stage.

The Auld Soldier was pretty upset. Usually a controlled and phlegmatic man, many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

But I'm pretty sure the Auld Soldier wouldn't have wanted to press charges.  The problem here is the issue of differing taste, and, to my mind, the legal concept of mens rea.  The intent matters, to me, in the assessment of criminality.  It's an aspect of the old common law that is increasingly gone AWOL in favor of "the law says this, you did this, you are guilty and shall be punished as the law allows" even as we make more and more activity criminal that shouldn't be - and oh, btw, how many of you keep up with all the changes?

There's a continuum.  The guy who parlays medals and uniforms into dinners and benefits is an easy target.  The ones, like my nephew, who took the Auld Soldier's field jacket as a memento of his grandfather, had a little trouble understanding my explanation that I would be really peeved if I found him wearing it around - as it was just as the Colonel hung it up - CIB, rank, combat patch, etc.  I told him that if he wanted to wear it - he would have to remove the patches.  And that his grandfather would back me up on that.  If I hadn't told him that - I'm sure I would have seen him wearing it at some point.