Member Of the U.S. military Joined An Anti-ICE Protest In Dallas And Said, "We Won’t Be Pawns In Stripping away constitutional rights."

X ^ | 06/10/25

[Enlightened1]

Member of the U.S. military joined an anti-ICE protest in Dallas and said, "We won’t be pawns in stripping away constitutional rights."

 

 

https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1932648094975299925

 

 

[Spacetrucker]

She is FORMER Army. Can still be prosecuted for claiming to represent by wearing her uniform though; very legit codes and laws against what she did. Question is, will the right people see it, and do they have the nerve to take it to the wall? Survey says
..

[Spacetrucker]

She is former, got out in 2020.

[A Navy Vet]

"This young lady could still be subject to reserve requirements, e.g. subject to recall to active duty in the event of a national emergency."

I'm not sure the 6 year obligation applies anymore to enlisted. Anyone?

[thinden]

article 15?

unfit?

general discharge?

[Campion]

Constitutionally protected Rights are for AMERICAN CITIZENS!

That's not entirely true. Neither I or the government can run around intentionally killing aliens without due process of law (presumably involving a capital offense).

But there's no constitutionally protected "right" against prompt and courteous deportation. That's true of any country in the world; if you're not a citizen, you're there on the basis of the (possibly self-interested) good will of the host government, and they can take that good will away at any time.

And if that goes for legal aliens, how much more is it true for illegal ones!

[jpp113]

Yep, and the only due process rights that they are due is STATUTORY, not CONSTITUTIONAL, by virtue of the statutes passed by the US Congress and signed into law: a deportation hearing, an Appeal, and deportation to either their home country, or if the home country refuses to accept them, to anyplace the AG of the US decides is no danger to the illegal. Nowhere in the immigration statutes is any indication that Article III Federal Judges have any jurisdiction over, or right to interpret, or right to ignore those statutory laws.

[rottndog]

Um...no...you will follow orders or you can go hibernate for a couple of decades in Leavenworth.

[HIDEK6]

I think they should say, “Former members ..”

[HIDEK6]

.... doesn’t the armed forces of these United States of America educate uniformed personnel on The Constitution ...?

No, not when I was in it.

[HIDEK6]

I think they should say, “Former members ..”

[Colt1851Navy]

Lets make that former member.

[Bigg Red]

Female? It figures.

[MayflowerMadam]

Give her the Philip Nolan treatment - The Man without A Country. For the rest of her life.

[HollyB]

I bet she’s not even active . She grabbed the uniform from the back of the closet. Perhaps because she was discharged.

[metmom]

Says the pawn.....

[MayflowerMadam]

Hegseth needs to make an example of her and PDQ.

Nip it!

[AndyJackson]

Apparently a typical minimum service obligation is 8 years total, active and reserve.

[7thson]

I agree with you and ansel12.

Find out who she is. If she is former military or never in the military, I do not believe she is subject to the UCMJ.

However - and someone correct me if I am wrong - don't we have laws making it illegal for others outside the military to encourage Service members to mutiny?

[A Navy Vet]

Guess I’m out of touch. I was a Reserve Recruiter and remember 6 years total, including 2 years of Inactive Reserves. Oh well, the memory isn’t the best at 75 years.

[EandH Dad]

-A nonsensical statement.-

It’s what she was told to say.