273
ILLEGALLY detaining a SOLDIER is how you KNOW Republicans LOVE Soldiers!
top 49 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
new
old
Not illegal. You can't make political statements in uniform, they knew that and they chose to accept a dd on principle.
They can pretty much torture you (solitary confinement is just that) without even a trial during peacetime for a what is ultimately a petty arbitrary offence. Not to mention that this person is UNIQUELY being subjected to cruelties ENTIRELY to satisfy the sick wishes of mentally ill partisan bad actors who just want make an example. And all this shit is happily and unquestionably carried out by dysfunctional brainwashed automatons.
It really is a system that's barely moved beyond times of flogging and branding.
Such a massive waste of money, people and resources. At some point the military needs to be abolished or hosed out with high pressure boiling water.
That's the difference between immoral and illegal. Jailing him isn't illegal it's immoral.
Love these political communities. Get downvoted just for providing information. Only comments of anger, doom/gloom, and hyperbole are upvoted.
I respect this man for what he's done. He made a choice knowing the consequences would be bad, and could be worse given the administrations penchant for cruelty.
Before everyone starts clutching their pearls, keep in mind it's against US military regulations for service members to make these kinds of public political statement while in uniform, and it's been that way for a long long time.
The article even mentions this in the second paragraph
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) contains provisions barring officers from engaging in public political activities that are typically protected for civilians, including criticizing the president and other elected officials.
Typically, that's why news outlets always get "Retired General XYZ" to give opinions since they're no longer under the UCMJ. Official statements come from the executive branch.
The right thing to do is either complete your contract or resign commission and make whatever political statement you want, or stay and quietly use your influence to try to better things.
Legality isn't morality.
You're missing the point completely. He made a choice to protest while in uniform. A choice he knew would fuck up the rest of his life.
When someone puts on the uniform, they no longer represent just themselves. The whole purpose of the regulation is to prevent giving the image that one service member's views represent the views of the entire branch.
Regardless of your politics or morality, he didn't have authorization to speak for the entire air force, the DoD, or the US, which is exactly what he attempted to do by protesting in uniform.
He may have violated the UCMJ, but since when does that mean that constitutionally guaranteed protections against cruel and unusual punishment (which solitary confinement for 24hrs a day indefinitely without a trial absolutely is) don't apply?
Only if you interpret it that way would you see him speaking for all branches.
He protested in uniform because it would cause an uproar and he would get in trouble and we’d be talking about it.
He sacrificed his regular everyday life so we’d be having this conversation.
He’s a fucking hero.
He didn’t claim to speak on the behalf of all armed forces personnel he showed the others that the armed force personnel weren’t all blindly in lockstep.
Yes, by wearing the uniform he violated those rules and I don’t think anybody is saying otherwise.
It’s the treatment he’s received because of his actions that indicate why his actions were so necessary.
He should have been held at Bolling instead of extradited to Maryland to be segregated. He shouldn’t have been perp walked in plain clothes. He is afforded specific rights under the UCMJ which are being violated.
Why even wade in to say what you’re saying? What exactly do you think you’re tempering here?
It's taught that you represent the military while in uniform making public statements. You get told this all the time while in the military.
Also, I don't think this person was trying to disagree with anyone about what the military mans intent was.
I believe reply OP just wanted to highlight that it's against the UCMJ, which a lot of people didn't seem to know.
so are you given your uniform or do you have to purchase it. Because if you have to purchase it then that is some BT.
It depends. Enlisted are paid a uniform allowance, Officers are not. Special uniform parts needed for performing your duty are given to you.
Yeah, I agree. Shouldn't have to pay for something that's mandatory. Ask Congress about it.
Yeah its kinda anti capitalist to limit its use if you bought it. Its like if you want to limit how its used then it should be some kinda loan. Maybe you can pay a used price when you retire if you want to keep it. Medals and such should be a gift to so that should always be allowed to be worn as the recipient sees fit.
Agreed. A lot of people will hand down rank patches to the rank below so that they don't have to buy new ones. It's helpful and usually a sign of respect to your younger troops.
thats even more amazing. you would think they would make it a point to control the rank insignia. Like you have to hand in your old one when you get your new one and such.
I mean, you can just buy the stuff online? Why does it need to be controlled?
exactly because of that. Like you know what was it the marines or something that copywrited a camoflouge pattern. I mean would make much more sense to control insignia. Its not that it needs to be controlled as much as its beneficial to. Its like saying why does currency need to be controlled.
Well, there's a 2 part answer to that. MARPAT, which you are referencing, contains little EGAs (Eagle, Globe, Anchor - the trademarked logo of the marines) and it's intent was to both distinguish it from other branches uniforms and reduce the amount of commercial knock offs.
For rank, we've borrowed rank insignia from predecessors, so you can't really trademark that.
The rank honestly means nothing to anyone outside the military. And it only matters when you're trying to figure out who has the authority to make certain decisions. Faking rank or impersonating a different rank will get you into trouble FAST.
Unlike currency, which has value on it's own, the rank means nothing without the paperwork to back it. There's paperwork behind your rank, and THAT'S what matters. Not the insignia itself.
yeah but as you said faking it is something you don't want. Thus you want to make it has hard to do in the first place so you don't get to the point of going after the person. I mean counterfitting will get you in trouble fast to if your caught. Im kinda surprised they never said. Hey we are redoing insignia so that its unique to us.
Sure, but cost/benefit analysis says it's not worth the time and effort. The rank insignia have tradition behind them that the military wants to maintain.
It's HARD to fake the paperwork. And that's what you'd really need to fake it effectively. People will catch you very quickly.
I also don't think there's enough benefit to anyone faking it for it to matter either. People do "stolen valor" all the time, and what do they actually get out of it?
So what's the motivation to fake it in the first place?
I don't think every interaction between military personelle involves checking one anothers paperwork. As I said it basically like currency. Why would somone want to make a duplicate of a police badge. Well that would be to pretend to be a policeman. why would someone duplicate some rank insignia. well to pretend to be someone in the particular thing at that particular rank.
I think we may be talking past each other.
People fake money, because then they can spend more money than they have.
There really aren't any benefits to faking being in the military of a certain rank.
People WILL check you paperwork in the military, when you show up. I'm not going to just do whatever some random Lt Col tells me, unless I KNOW who they are.
It's like being in school. Your teacher expects certain students to be there. If they see someone they don't know, they find out why.
There is literally no reason to protect insignia from being produced by whomever. It holds no value by itself.
yeah all the same on any particular day a substitute can show up and none of the students are going to check credentials. I get it but im sure there is some scenario where someone might try. I get it though. Its pretty far fetched and not worth it for them to bother. Still I don't feel its to far fetched for them deciding to have an exclusize thing with it like with the camo.
Totally, if someone really wants to, they can, but it would be hard to do anything useful with it. And the school example was meant to be something relatable to you, since most people have been to a school, but haven't been in the military.
It is more rigorous in the military. People DO ask if someone new shows up without a sponsor.
Also, to even get on a military base, you have to have a military ID.
Doing it in public though? Super easy.
The statement added little but finger wagging to what the article already said.
When they break morals they break the contract. Uniform and clothes at no point in time are relevant in that manner to that Soldier fulfilling said contract being broken, snipping properly.
I can’t parse what you’re saying, can you word it differently or explain it for my dumb-brain
Read the contract they signed if you want to understand. It's not as complicated as apparently no one here bothered to read it anyway.
My dude I’m saying literally your phrasing is hard to understand.
You wrote a sentence that is difficult to parse.
I know. If you read the contract, it's not the same kind of difficulty, though, because then you know when you can and must say, "No." Do you play their blame game or swing it like a batter at the softest ball you may not have even noticed being thrown at you?
I believe you are missing the point. No where is anyone denying the charges, they are pointing out the administrations own disregard of the law. He is being punished prior to being convicted.
No, you're missing the point completely. The objections are more to do with the "solitary" part, and less to do with the "confinement" part.
While I accept what you're saying there, this amounts to torture IMO:
On Friday, Watson’s lawyer, Christopher Mutimer, told CNN that after nearly two months, Watson is “still in solitary confinement 24 hours a day,” which he said amounted to “cruel and unusual” punishment.
so one. the issue is solitary confinement. and two all service members take an oath to defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Speaking out is the least he could do for the oath.
Which UCMJ provision says he should be held in solitary confinement before his trial?
It's called being a conscientious objector, exacting civil disobedience.
In reasonable societies, this is protected as a right to protest, and although might exclude you from employment in certain institutions, typically only warrants torture when power has bodies to hide.
I'm not sure what you mean by "right thing" to do.
I think he is doing the right thing, it just has consequences. You don't deserve all the down votes though, a lot of people don't understand what the UCMJ is.
They're still under ucmj, any current or former military personnel at any time can be recalled and made to stand tribunal. If they make statements off duty and out of uniform they can say most anything they want without ucmj applying.
I wonder if they would be in the same position had they made a political comment that praised diaper don.
Quoting the UCMJ here has to be irony, right?
The right thing to do is either complete your contract or resign commission and make whatever political statement you want, or stay and quietly use your influence to try to better things.
Or you know, just don't join the Israeli Colonial Auxiliary Penal Reserve Militia (or whatever the US Armed Forces are collectively called these days) to begin with.
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2026
273 points (99.6% liked)
Progressive Politics
5073 readers
861 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS