A few days ago, several lawmakers got together to urge troops to disobey unlawful orders. In typical fashion, POTUS said that people who told the military to defy illegal orders committed sedition at the highest level. This is factually incorrect, unless POTUS intends to issue illegal orders; and even then, it's a dubious claim.
The general definition of sedition is the act of inciting people to rebel against the government. By this definition, it could reasonably be argued that our current Commanded in Chief engaged in seditious behavior, because his words had the net impact of inciting Americans to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Sorry, I'm digressing... back to my point.
It is NOT seditious behavior to tell people to obey the law, or more accurately to remind military personnel that they have the right -- nay, the DUTY -- to disobey orders if they are against the law. In fact, sedition requires that the instigators cause rebellion against the government. This would imply the government as a whole. The president is not the entire government.
Furthermore, the Geneva Convention, American Law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (AKA military law) all state, very clearly, that military personnel are required to follow lawful orders. In fact, we have a long-established history of refusing to acknowledge the "I was just following orders" defense if those orders were unlawful. So, Mr. President, when you say sedition, I do not think it means what you think it means.
No comments:
Post a Comment