"President Donald Trump on Thursday accused half a dozen Democratic lawmakers of sedition
'punishable by DEATH' after
the lawmakers — all veterans of the armed services and intelligence community —
called on U.S. military members to uphold the constitution and defy 'illegal orders.'"
"Troops, especially uniformed commanders, have a specific obligation to reject an order
that’s unlawful, if they make that determination."
"However, while commanders have military lawyers on their staffs to consult with in helping make
such a determination, rank-and-file troops who are tasked with carrying out those orders are rarely
in a similar position."
"However, the U.S. military legal code, known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice or UCMJ,
will punish troops for failing to follow an order should it turn out to be lawful.
Troops can be criminally charged with Article 90 of the UCMJ, willfully disobeying a superior
commissioned officer, and Article 92, failure to obey an order."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-democrats-video-message-to-military-is-seditious-behavior-punishable-by-deathComments: Rank-and-file troops are placed in a difficult position if they suspect unlawful orders are given.
For once, I agree with President Donald Trump when he states sedition should be
'punishable by DEATH.'I realize that public executions are frowned upon these days but public hangings might go a long way towards
dissuading the MAGA crowd from commiting seditious acts like the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capital.
Comments
The Orange pile of Detritus is SEDITION, Exhibit A.
THE MAN IS DERANGED. THIS CRAP MUST BE STOPPED.
Ms. Leavitt immediately replied "no."
She went on to state (paraphrasing here) that sitting members of Congress created a video
which encourages military members to defy the president's lawful orders.
This is obviously false — the video encourages military members to refuse illegal orders.
The president and vice-president previously accused the "other side" of fomenting political violence.
When Ms. Leavitt was asked about this contradiction, she engaged in classic whataboutism.
FD1000's use of this tactic could be vastly improved by closely studying Ms. Leavitt's technique.
(corresponding segment from 26:45 - 30:01)
I can only write that illegal, insane and/or crazy arise in different circumstances that may or may not find large levels of 'duress'. My knowledge only arises from the study of history related military actions. The exception being more real-time in my lifetime and 'My Lai'. AND Kent State, which took place when I was in the Air Force. I'm not able to discuss this with two (both passed) I knew who chose the Michigan National Guard to avoid the draft and found themselves on Jeeps during the Detroit Riots. I only know they were afraid for their lives.
BUT the current domestic actions from 'our' government offers a much different circumstance.
The UCMJ section that addresses illegal orders is Article 92, which covers "Failure to obey order or regulation" and applies only to lawful orders. Service members have a duty to disobey an order that is manifestly illegal, such as one that directs a crime, but should first ask for clarification if possible. Refusing an order is risky, as a service member could face punishment if the order is later determined to be lawful.
Understanding Article 92 and illegal orders
Lawful vs. unlawful: Article 92 requires obedience to "lawful orders". The UCMJ does not define "lawful," but a lawful order is generally one that is not contrary to the Constitution, laws of the United States, or other lawful superior orders. An illegal order is one that a person of ordinary common sense would know to be unlawful.
Duty to refuse: If an order is patently illegal, service members have a duty to refuse it. Examples include orders to target civilians, torture detainees, or falsify records.
Consequences of disobedience: Refusing a lawful order can lead to serious consequences, including court-martial. However, refusing an illegal order is not a violation of Article 92, and obeying it could lead to criminal liability for the service member.
The "just following orders" defense: The defense of "just following orders" is not a valid excuse for obeying an illegal order and is considered a violation of international law.
What to do: If you receive an order you believe may be illegal, you should first ask for clarification. If you are still instructed to carry out the order, you have a duty to disobey it. It is highly recommended to consult with a military defense attorney as soon as possible to understand your rights and the potential risks.
What precisely constitutes "orders to target civilians"? My dictionary suggests the following: The problem with questions like this one is the lack of precise definition.