Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Marine stripped of purple heart---Bush had photo op with him

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
MoJoWorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:35 AM
Original message
Marine stripped of purple heart---Bush had photo op with him
Edited on Wed Feb-09-05 09:36 AM by MoJoWorkin
I presume BEFORE he was stripped of his medal. Pic included in story.
(I saw this on the dreaded AOL news page--they said was from AP, but I haven't located it anywhere else yet.)

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050209015609990011

Revocation of Marines' Medals Adds Insult to Injuries


ATCHISON, Kan. (Feb. 9) - Nearly two years ago, Marine Cpl. Travis Eichelberger watched as his commandant pinned a Purple Heart to his hospital gown at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.

Now the same commandant, Gen. William Nyland, is revoking that medal and removing it from Eichelberger's record because he was run over by a tank driven by an American.

Eichelberger, 22, of Atchison, is one of 11 Marines who have received "letters of error" within the past two months telling them that they were given their medals by mistake.

Nyland said it was necessary to revoke Eichelberger's medal because his injuries weren't "caused directly or indirectly by enemy action."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WildClarySage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. I didn't think it was necessary for an injury to be caused by enemy action
but in any case, if that is true, maybe we need a new medal for friendly fire victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Wound must be related to an enemy action.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/PurHrt.htm

The War Department announced the new award in General Order No. 3, February 22, 1932:

By order of the President of the United States, the Purple Heart established by General George Washington at Newburgh, August 7, 1782, during the War of the Revolution, is hereby revived out of respect to his memory and military achievements.

By Order of the Secretary War:

Douglas MacArthur,
General
Chief of Staff

The association of the Purple Heart with wounds or fatality suffered in the line of meritorious service also stems from this time. Eligibility for the new award was defined to include:

Those in possession of a Meritorious Service Citation Certificate issued by the Commander-in Chief of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I. The Certificates had to be exchanged for the Purple Heat or the award and Oak Leaf Clusters as appropriate. This preserved the ideal of presenting the award for military merit and loyal service.

Those authorized by Army Regulations 600-95 to wear wound chevrons. These men also had to apply for the new award.

Those not authorized wound chevrons prior to February 22, 1931, but who would otherwise be authorized them under stipulations of Army Regulations 600-95.

Revisions to AR 600-45 at the time, defining conditions of the award, elaborated upon the "singularly meritorious act of extraordinary fidelity service" required. "A wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy, may, in the judgment of the commander authorized to make the award, be construed as resulting from a singularly meritorious act of essential service." War Department Circular No 6 dated February 22, 1931, carried the same instructions.

The Navy Department at this time saw no reason to authorize the Purple Heart for its officers and men. The Department maintained that the award was "purely an army decoration."

No record survives today of the identity of the first individual to revive the revived and redesigned Purple Heart. Local posts of the American Legion held ceremonies to honor recipients, and it was also common to invite the Adjutant General of state National Guards to preside over the ceremonies and present awards, but the practice was nowhere standard.

Developments concerning the Purple Heart after 1931 served to define further eligibility requirements for the award and to identify it even more closely with bloodshed or loss of life in the nation’s service.

In Executive Order 9277 of December 3, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt extended the use of the award to the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard after December 6, 1941, and established a uniform application of standards for the award in the Army and the Navy.

President Harry S. Truman, in Executive Order 10409 of November 12, 1952, retroactively extended Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard eligibility for the Purple Heart back to April 5, 1917, to cover World War I.

President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11016 on April 25, 1962, extending eligibility as well to "any civilian national of the United States, who while serving under competent authority in any capacity with an armed force…, has been, or may hereafter be, wounded."

Current eligibility and conditions for the award are defined in Army Regulations 600-8-22. Paragraph 2-8e, added June 20, 1969, carries the notice that "any member of the Army who was awarded the Purple Heart for meritorious achievement or service, as opposed to wounds received in action, between 7 December 1941 and 22 September 1943, may apply for award of an appropriate decoration instead of the Purple Heart."

The Purple Heart is ranked immediately behind the bronze star in order of precedence among the personal awards; however, it is generally acknowledged to be among the most aesthetically pleasing of American awards and decorations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. Boy do I not see the point to that.
Is it something about benefits? Do purple hearts get extra VA benefits?

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakemeupwhenitsover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. yes, veterans with purple hearts
Edited on Wed Feb-09-05 11:45 AM by wakemeupwhenitsover
get free health care-no co pays on prescriptions, etc. That's why dumbya is taking them away. There are plenty of vets from 'Nam, Korea, WWII, etc. that were injured in 'friendly fire', got purple hearts & no beef from the VA. Now it's a big deal & they're trying to take them away. Gotta saves costs somewhere! (sarcasm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. Will the General receive a "Letter of Error"
for his service record? The Corporal is certainly not at fault if the Medal was given incorrectly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
4. probably setting precedent so they can go after kerry again
in some way...........

hm

we support our troops, ya right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. Even if they took away all of his purple hearts,
he would still have the more significant medals and they can't send him back to Vietnam retroactively (getting out of Vietnam being the important effect of his getting 3 purple hearts). I don't think he would have trouble paying out of pocket for medical treatment and I think it would anger him more than hurt him if any thing of the sort was done. Politicly, it couldn't hurt him, he's not a hero because he got shot, he's a hero because he's a hero. (To me, he's more a hero for standing up to Nixon)

I really don't think this has anything to do with Kerry - it's sick, but it might be the medical benefits mentioned. I do hope that Kerry (or other Congress vets) do bring up this issue, because it is outrageous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. i was being half asshole
but you are right. and it is sick. and it is sick what this administration is doing all over the polace to our military in so many different ways. why people dont have a clue i dont know. i am just disgusted with it all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. They are trying desperately to "Keep the numbers down." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
6. WTF? Because he was run over by an American his wounds don't count?
unbelievable... I'm sure that he wouldn't qualify for that increased death benefit if he died later... after all, it wouldn't be in battle... it would be in a hospital.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. Cpl. Travis Eichelberger has been memory holed from the WH website
Edited on Wed Feb-09-05 10:04 AM by paineinthearse
Search photos or text at the WH website for "purple heart" and there are scores of hits for many soldiers (* visists PFC XYZ at Bethesda.....). Search for Cpl. Travis Eichelberger (or just Eichelberger) and you get squat.

Can anyone ascertain the date of *'s visit to the hospital so I can narrow the search?

Or are we too late? Has the WH removed all photos?

Any AOL member who can capture the video, please do - go to https://my.screenname.aol.com/_cqr/login/login.psp?mcState=initialized&siteId=aolnewsprod&siteState=OrigUrl%3dhttp%253a%252f%252faolsvc.news.aol.com%252fnews%252farticle.adp%253fid%253d20050209065509990017%26RefUrl%3dhttp%253a%252f%252faolsvc.news.aol.com%252fnews%252fobject.adp%253fframe%253darticle%2526type%253dphotogalleries%2526id%253d2895%2526data%253dhideBox%2525200%2526title%253d%25253ca%252520name%25253d%252522%252523gallery%252522%25253ePainful%252520Decision%25253c%25252fa%25253e&authLev=0
If link does not work, go to http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050209015609990011
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
8. They're doing this to eleven others as well
Taking back purple hearts because they claim the wounds were accidental. It probablly does have something to do with benefits, otherwise I can't understand why they would do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. This was on CNN this morning
They said it was to protect the sanctity of the medal.

I don't get it either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. The "sanctity" of the Purple Heart?
I thought the final kibosh for that had been delivered at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waldnorm Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Hey, In Their Eyes It's Not Much Removing a Purple Heart . . .
after all they're like Band-Aids! What's the big deal? :grr: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
9. Didn't Pat Tillman receive the Purple Heart?? and if so, when will it be
taken back???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I think he got the Bronze Star
I may be mistaken, but I do believe that's what he was (posthumously) awarded fater he was killed by friendly fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
10. Boy, that's petty.
Anyway, there's no question his injuries were caused indirectly by enemy action: if there was no enemy action, would they be driving a tank around??

Guess I don't get that military thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tighthead Prop Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
15. For Christ's sake...
the man was ran over by a tank!!! Couldn't the army at least give him a cookie or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. This was the Marines
The army probably has a few thousand to take back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
19. try KCTV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC