In my May 6 post re: a fitting memorial, I raised the issue of awarding the Medal of Honor to people on FLT 93. My blogger friend Gunner20 drew on his military experience, and explained in full what that involved.

The correct name of the decoration is "The Medal of Honor," not the "Congressional Medal . . . ."

The Medal of Honor was established by Joint Resolution of Congress in July 1862 and was amended by acts of Congress in 1918 and 1963. It governed by section 3741, title 10, United States Code (10 USC 3741).

The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress (hence the mistaken notion that it is a congressional medal) to a military member who distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. (From Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) dated 25 February 1995)

The awarding of the Medal to groups, rather than specific individuals, was exactly one reason for the congressional amendment to the award in 1918. This act tightened eligibility criteria and revoked some awards; for example, there was a mass award of the Medal to a whole regiment of Union soldiers who re-enlisted during the Civil War in exchange for the Medal. It was also made illegal to receive the Medal from more than one service for the same act (five soldiers were awarded the Medal by both the Army and the Navy for the same action, and 14 men received the Medal twice, for two different actions).

Almost half the 3400+ Medals awarded and still considered valid were awarded during the Civil War. There were no lesser medals for valor in that war, the Bronze Star Medal, the Silver Star and the Distinguished Service Cross all were created much later.

Charles Lindbergh was awarded the Medal for his famous solo flight to Paris, on the gossamer-thin justification that he was a captain in Army Reserve. It was not a combat award, obviously.

Brigadier-General Billy Mitchell was awarded the Medal posthumously, in 1946, apparently for no other reason than WW II had proved him right and his detractors wrong about the use of air power, which had caused him to be drummed out of the service in the 1920s. The Medal's citation gives no description of any act to justify Mitchell's Medal. This award, btw, really was a "Congressional" Medal, because its award was specifically authorized by the Congress which also funded the award's cost.

To me, this was an act of true justice. Without Mitchell, America would have lost the war in the Pacific. His treatment is reminiscent of Col. John Boyd, whose revolutionary "OODA Loop" and other ideas are as important to our present war as Mitchell's airpower was to WW2.

Chuck Yeager was also awarded the Medal for non-combat service by special act of Congress during the Ford administration.

Each Unknown Soldier entombed at Arlington National Cemetery was awarded the Medal. The Congress also authorized the award of the Medal to the WW I unknown soldiers of Belgium, France, Rumania and Great Britain.

That's very clarifying. Donald goes on:

In my opinion, awarding the Medal of Honor to each crew member and American passenger on Flight 93 should not be done. The clear intention of the Congress since 1918 is that individual criteria of exacting standard of extraordinary merit must be met, and this is not possible for those on Flight 93.

On this point, we disagree. Between the cell phone calls and the cockpit voice recorders, it's possible for some passengers to meet this standard of proof.

Before I found the "Hallowed Ground" article, I would have said that awarding it to those for whom we have proof may not be strictly fair, but that the criteria were the criteria. The larger message handed down from the U.S. Constitution of each citizen a militia member was important, and justified awarding the medal where possible.

Part of me still thinks that. Part of me sees the point made in that article, which notes:

In those early days, the Pennsylvania legislature considered a measure to honor those four who had already become instantly famous. Quickly, however, state officials intervened to replace it with a resolution honoring all the passengers.

"We feel we have forty heroes, and not just four. A lot of the families feel that way," says Karen Model, coordinator of the state's September 11 victim-assistance program. Several families felt slighted and angered by the disproportionate publicity, she says. "Someone would say to me, 'My son was trained in combat. Do you think he was sitting there, not doing anything?' "

Does making an important point to the nation justify slighting the relatives of someone who may well have been a hero? Tough call. My head says yes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. My heart says the needs of the one sometimes have special call. Those who demonstrate ultimate respect for an ideal should not then be slighted by its representatives, no matter how expedient it may be.

"Gunner" suggested some options:

Congress could pass legislation that awards the Medal to all of those persons together, with the Medal to be displayed in the memorial you are pushing. Or Congress may authorize a medal (not the MOH) to be designed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and so awarded (this has been done before in American history).

The more I thought about it, the more sense his first suggestion made.

I still think the medal in question should be the Medal of Honor, for all the reasons outlined in "Heroes." As they were joined in the vote they took, as they were joined by inextricably shared fate, as they were "cremated together" upon impact, so they should be joined in honor. Together. As they were in life: E Pluribus Unum.

UPDATE: "Dog's Life" blogger Gregory Hlatky further suggests that we declare the Shanksville site a National Battleground, formally recognize all passengers as militia, and make it a National Military Park. I'm all for it, as long as that last suggestion doesn't shut the civilians of Shanksville out of their caretaking role.

Winds of Change FLT 93 Series

May 01: "Heroes"
May 06: "FLT 93: A Fitting Memorial..."
May 18: "FLT 93: The Legend Grows"
May 18: "FLT 93 and the Medal of Honor"