The Morning Rant

The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution is a very interesting thing. Many people misinterpret it, in particular the so-called "Establishment Clause," which prevents the establishment of a state religion, rather than the more popular assumption that it prevents all government involvement.

The third clause, "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech," is perhaps even more widely confused with a blanket prohibition against penalizing speech in any context by any person or organization. And that is simply wrong.

The government cannot control my speech. That is clear. But there are many circumstances that allow government interference with speech, including threats of violence, incitement to violence, slander and libel (tough to prove though), and others. And one of those circumstances is in the military, which has a broad prohibition against political speech when service members are in uniform. That is a very good thing, because the bright line between the military and politics is one of the bulwarks against tyranny that our republic has developed over the years. The military should be...must be...apolitical. It is axiomatic in a free society, and the many examples in world history of militaries being political tools for one party, or the ruling power, rarely ended well.

US Air Force Officer Calls for Trump Impeachment, Demands JD Vance's Removal Before Arrest

Air Force Maj. Jason Watson joined a protest organized by the Removal Coalition and was taken into custody by Capitol Police for demonstrating in a restricted area.

The arrest followed a press conference where Watson, in uniform, accused the administration of multiple constitutional violations.

“Our Constitution binds us all together as Americans,” Watson said. “Like countless veterans before me, military members serving now, I’ve devoted my life in service to our Democratic Republic.”

Long-time commenter and contributor "Diogenes" had some thoughts...

Violation of the following:
Article 88: Contempt toward officials
Article 94: Mutiny or sedition
Article 133: Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman
Article 134: General article.

94 may be a stretch, but in my opinion, not impossible. It is important because it carries the death penalty.

I wonder if any of his fellow officers knew he was going to do this, particularly his immediate commander?

This is an example of the post-modern conceit that everyone's opinion is valuable, and should be widely disseminated without any responsibility. I am fully supportive of Major Watson's freedom to say anything he wants about our government, its conduct, and its officials, as long as he does it as a private citizen. If he were so exercised by the President, then perhaps he should have done the honorable thing and resigned his commission, and then spoken out about what he saw as unacceptable.

By acting in such a disrespectful manner, he dishonored his uniform, he dishonored the armed forces, and he dishonored the Constitution.

It is incumbent upon his superiors to take his actions seriously, both to maintain the rule of law within the armed forces, and even more important, to maintain the independence of the armed forces from political involvement!

[Crossposted at CutJibNewsletter and X/Twitter]. If you folks who are on X/Twitter would follow us it would be much appreciated!

posted by CBD at 11:00 AM

| Access Comments