Download PDF of this full issue: v27n2.pdf (9.8 MB)

My View

By John Zutz

I have been listening very closely and I haven't heard the uproar I ought to be hearing. In fact, I've hardly heard a peep from veterans' groups in reply to what is the most blatant restriction of veterans' benefits since the Civil War.

It is a little exercise being performed in Washington to help current congressmen and senators get re-elected. It says:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'American Hero Protection Act'.

SECTION 2. PROHIBITION OF PERFORMANCE OF MILITARY HONORS AND PROVISION OF BURIAL BENEFITS UPON DEATH OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF CAPITAL CRIMES.

(a) MILITARY FUNERALS - The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not provide military honors at the funeral of a person who has been convicted of a crime under State or Federal law for which death is a possible punishment and sentenced to death or life imprisonment without parole.

(b) BURIAL IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES - A person described in subsection (a) is not eligible for burial in a national cemetery or for any burial benefit provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under chapter 23 of title 38, United States Code.

(c) APPLICABILITY OF SECTION - This section applies without regard to any other provision of law relating to funeral or burial benefits.

This little gem came about because somebody realized that Tim McVeigh, the convicted bomber of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, could be put to death in a Federal prison and then be buried in a veterans' cemetery, with the right to military honors.

It is called the "American Hero Protection Act," as if those dead veterans needed protection, and that protection could only be given by Congress. Congress is likely to rush this measure through. About the only thing it will accomplish is to help re-elect congressmen.

The fact is, full military honors aren't available at most veterans' cemeteries. Any military honors given at most veterans' cemeteries are left to veterans' groups. It is even difficult to bring out the VFW or DAV color guard for a burial in Milwaukee.

The one place military honors are regularly available is Arlington, but burial there is already restricted. Ordinary people need not apply. Therefore, the first part of the act is meaningless posturing by politicians.

It is the burial part of the act that should have veterans' groups howling - but there is only a silent acquiescence at best. Some national veteran leaders even think this is good.

We call services we expect from our government 'benefits' like the feds gave them to us out of generosity. We ought to start calling them 'rights'. We earned the right to decent health care, and the right to be buried in a federal cemetery. The flag that will be given to our survivors is given as a "token of esteem, by a grateful government."

Veterans' groups should be upset because it shouldn't be possible for those benefits to be denied after the fact. There is no precedence for this; it's probably illegal to apply this act to McVeigh.

Tim McVeigh earned the right to be buried in that veterans' cemetery the old-fashioned way - he served his country, the same way you and I did. In fact, he served in a combat zone.

If Tim McVeigh's benefits can be taken away, what makes you think yours are safe? If veterans' groups don't stand up and fight for Tim McVeigh's benefits, who will stand up to fight when Congress decides to take your rights away?

As far as I know, nobody has surveyed those on death row or serving life to determine how many are vets. It wouldn't surprise me to discover as many as 200 in the country who would be liable to lose their burial benefits under this act.

I just wish the folks in Congress were as worried about millions of real, live law-abiding veterans.

John Zutz is a former VVAW Regional Coordinator. He lives in Milwaukee and makes great beer. He's a Vietnam veteran.