In ancient Rome, even defeated foes were given funeral rites. It was a basic mark of civilized honor that rose above the fighting. Now Congress is arguing about whether that basic decency still exists here.
The U.S. military has traditions that honor service, not judge final moments. The folded flag. Taps. The rifle salute. They say thanks for what someone did, not how they died.
Now some in Washington want to rewrite those traditions with political scorecards.
This week the Senate turned into a battlefield over military funeral honors for a veteran who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan seven times. Seriously — seven times. The Air Force had already approved the honors, recognizing years spent in harm’s way.
The veteran at the center of the fight is Ashli Babbitt, shot and killed on January 6, 2021. Babbitt was never convicted of any crime. She died an American citizen who had repeatedly risked her life for this country … and yet Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona filed a resolution trying to strip her of military funeral honors.
Thankfully, Republican leader Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) refused to let that stand. From ‘BizPac Review’:
“This resolution is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to strip away the earned honors of a veteran who deployed seven times during her many years in the United States Air Force.
Ashli Babbitt earned these funeral honors through her service to this nation. It’s disgraceful, and it’s un-American. In case my colleague is unaware of this, the Constitution still applies even to those you disagree with politically.”
Let’s be blunt: a sitting U.S. Senator wanted Congress to reach beyond the grave to punish a military veteran. Not because of any conviction. Not because of misconduct during service. But because of his political take on her last day.
The Air Force already recognized her service and offered the honors she’d earned. These are not political perks. They’re the standard recognition given to qualifying veterans. Gallego wanted to make an exception. He wanted to turn her death into a political prop.
The Precedent We Set
We’re talking about a grieving family who lost a daughter, a wife. They aren’t asking for monuments. They just wanted the routine military honors that follow seven combat deployments. But Democrats like Gallego couldn’t allow even that small comfort because for them politics trumps people.
What precedent does this create? Should Congress vet every deceased veteran’s politics before granting honors? Should we form committees to decide which veterans were politically pure enough to deserve recognition? Can you believe we’re having this debate?
Tuberville called it “petty,” but that word doesn’t cut it. This was cruel. This was vindictive. The same senators lecturing about compassion for violent criminals wanted to deny basic military rites to someone never convicted of a crime.
The Constitution doesn’t stop applying when someone dies. Due process doesn’t become optional because politicians need an example. Babbitt never faced trial, never had her day in court, never was convicted of the “treason” Gallego proclaimed from his Senate perch. Yet he wanted to execute her memory.
This isn’t about January 6th anymore — it’s about who we are as a nation. Do we honor service, or make honor contingent on political approval? Thankfully, at least one senator remembered what American principles actually mean.
Key Takeaways
• Democrats attempted to strip military honors from an unconvicted veteran
• Seven combat deployments earned Babbitt standard funeral recognition
• Tuberville blocked the unprecedented political weaponization of military traditions
Sources: BizPac Review, AOL.com, The Hill
Leave a Comment