Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ; photo, left), a USMC veteran and member of the House Veterans Affairs committee, says veterans and service members who assaulted the Capitol on January 6, 2021, should be “stripped of all benefits.” About 1 of every 8 of the Capitol rioters, or nearly 2,000 of them, were veterans.
He argues, “Insurrectionists should not enjoy benefits they no longer deserve.”
That’s harsh. Even convicted felons serving prison time don’t lose all their veteran’s benefits, although if they’re on disability compensation, they’re reduced to the 10% disability rate.
Moreover, it’s unclear how Gallego intends to do this, or who it would apply to (he sent letters to V.A. secretary, attorney general, and defense secretary), but I’m guessing because benefits are an entitlement created by Congress, it would require legislation; due process would require it only apply to those convicted of crimes; and legislation creating new penalties, applied retroactively, might run afoul of the ex poste facto clause.
In any case, right now it’s only an idea being floated by a member of Congress, and it may not go anywhere. And while it’s an idea that could gain traction among Democrats, given Republicans’ track record of looking the other way at Trump’s election lies and the violent insurrection he inspired, I would expect it to hit a wall in the Senate.
Read story here.
Related: Read an opinion piece here calling on veterans’ groups to “speak with one voice.” Excerpts:
“‘Thank you for your service.’ Since 9/11, we have heard these words of appreciation. But what if … veterans were distrusted and considered dangerous to our civil liberties? … All of us swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and any veteran who crossed the line from peaceful protester to violent insurrectionist should be arrested, charged, prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law. We condemn their actions in the strongest terms.”
I agree.
The first issue is how is Rep Ruben Gallego defining insurrectionist. I don’t believe the description applies to any rioter there that day. Certainly not to all the rioters. How does the action not run afoul of first amendment protections. [This comment has been edited.]
I’d assume he’s talking about those facing criminal charges. The crowd was a mix of insurrectionists, rioters, and protesters. Lawful protest obviously is protected by the First Amendment, but once they crossed the police barriers their protest wasn’t lawful anymore, and the F.A. doesn’t preclude them from being prosecuted for trespass, entering a restricted building, assault, etc.