Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jpl
>> But the Medal of Honor would be a grave dishonor to every previous recipient<<

I understand that you do not agree with my suggestion, but a grave dishonor?

That I do not understand.

Mr.Beamer, acting with unusual perspicacity and initiative, used his cellular telephone to ascertain enemy intentions, which were not obvious. Then, he made a decision to attack enemy forces to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians unknown to him personally, with no regard to the likely death of himself or the other American forces following his lead.

I do not think that any recognition that his heroic actions might receive could possibly constitute a "grave dishonor" to anyone.

130 posted on 01/01/2003 2:25:31 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]


To: Jim Noble
Please don't misunderstand, I certainly don't want to diminish what Beamer, Bingham, Burnett, and Glick did. I consider them true heroes in every sense of the word. But I strongly feel that the Medal of Honor should be reserved for uniformed personnel only, with no exceptions. The screening process that Medal recipients go through is intensive, and many recipients wait years (if not decades) to receive the award. Countless men have performed great acts of heroism on the field of battle and never received the Medal, even though they are probably deserving.
131 posted on 01/01/2003 2:40:36 PM PST by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson