It is unfortunate that the American people seem to want to support the troops, but lack a basic understanding of public policy related to the troops.
To be fair- public policy in this area can be confusing- even to people who did time in uniform.
This confusing article seems to indicate that people in highly respected and specialized units, or people involved in high-profile operations would be eligible for a different benefit package than the average people who were in average units over the years. Investigative reporters may not have had a clear understanding of public policy in this case.
A less confusing update here.
This very popular marketing device for a US auto manufacturer is not connected in any way to public policy:
Take a look at comments below the video and you will see that people truly feel connected to supporting the troops by watching a made for TV car commercial.
The First Lady has made an effort to support military families. Unfortunately- these efforts appear to be completely unrelated to public policy.
Here is a hand selected lady who was surprised (1:12) to get a phone call of support from The First Lady- even though cameras were rolling in her home when the phone rang:
No definite benefit package is offered for people who stay for 20 years in the US Armed Forces.
Honest management of public information could improve the situation.
Many Americans may associate free medical care with people who stay for 20 years in the US Armed Forces.
Insert language into recruiting literature and enlistment documents stating that rules concerning benefits may change at any time & that no definite benefit package will be provided in exchange for 20 years of unrestricted worldwide service. No grandfather clause will apply. Have unit leaders refer to this disclaimer when promoting retention drives, giving re-enlistment speeches, etc.
Stop spending federal money on meaningless support the troops promotions, campaigns and VIP photo ops that are not connected in any way with public policy.
I am no longer recommending the US Armed Forces to young people.
I would have- maybe 10 years ago.
What’s changed in the past 10 years?
“State ferries officials say they had no choice but to fairly enforce security policies that were stepped up in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on the East Coast on Sept. 11, 2001.”
The Washington State Patrol uses dogs to check vehicles at some ferry terminals on some days. Walk-on passengers are not checked at any terminal- at any time.
Puget Sound port security-
If a 100% screening was conducted at the foreign port- how did human cargo make it to downtown Seattle?
What sort of ID is required to prove innocence away from border crossings and ports of entry?
Sensitive Dept. of Homeland Security documents released to the public at a garage sale-
Question to ask:
How do sensitive DHS documents leave the workplace without being signed out for official business?
“We would like to thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Homeland Security Investigations for their hard work, commitment and dedication to this case” said Chief Patrol Agent John Bates of the U.S. Border Patrol, Blaine Sector.
US Border Patrol- secret arrest statistics on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula
Nov 2011- “The report is always limited to one page regardless of the number of arrests made, includes only those arrests selected by the agency for public release and does not include apprehensions that result in ongoing investigations.”
Sounds like something out of the Soviet Union.
A free and independent press plays no role here in questioning public policy- simply passing down dictates from above.
So, if this guy is arrested it might be done in secret if the one page report is already full, the arrest is not selected by the agency for public release or is an apprehension that results in an ongoing investigation?
Suspicionless checkpoints on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula- away from border crossings and ports of entry-
A month later-
We are told the #1 US Border Patrol objective is to stop terrorists.
The US Border Patrol explains this objective at a local public forum- this YouTube video covers Border Patrol objectives at 3:50
At that same forum a lady asked:
“What is the penalty for not identifying oneself to federal agents at an internal, suspicionless checkpoint?”
US Border Patrol said they would call in the Sheriff when a person refused to identify themselves.
Sheriff says they will not respond to a non-emergency situation involving a person peaceably refusing to interact with federal agents.
Question about providing ID is at 0:35
Checkpoints ended here in 2008- possibly due to well-informed citizens and local protests. Looks like they weren’t vital to national security after all.
War on Terror- credibility squandered.
Photo- Port Hadlock Transit Center