Here’s another view that actually looks at the law, er, laws…..
"Sedition is a Real Thing" - by Todd Chase
Anyone pretending that Senator Mark Kelly and his group of coordinated senators did “nothing wrong” is either uninformed or deliberately misleading people.
There is a massive difference between casually expressing an opinion about illegal orders and what actually happened here. These senators did not give their thoughts in a private interview, a newspaper column, or a CNN panel. They issued a coordinated political
communication directed at the entire United States military. That distinction matters. In the military, intent and audience define the act. And when the audience is the armed forces, the legal framework changes instantly.
One thing the loudest voices refuse to acknowledge is the basic foundation of military reality. They keep claiming that “nothing illegal happened” and that these senators simply told the military to follow the law. This is a dishonest representation of what
they did. And when liberals jump into comment sections writing “I served in the military, I know how this works,” that claim is almost always false. Anyone who has actually served knows this for a fact. Chain of command is drilled into you from day one. It
is not optional, it is not vague, and it is not symbolic. It is the backbone of all military structure. If someone claims you can undermine the chain of command without consequences, they are lying or never served a day in their life.
Now here is the part talking heads desperately avoid. The laws that govern what you can and cannot say to the military are not the same as the First Amendment rules for civilians. When a group of federal officials, especially retired officers, address the military
directly about how to act during a political transition, that becomes a legal issue. And while we cannot declare guilt ourselves, the laws that cover this type of conduct are not “right wing opinions.” They are literal black letter statutes.
Here is the framework they pretend doesn’t exist.
18 U.S.C. 2385
This law prohibits advocating resistance against lawful authority. When you tell the military to question the authority of a President or suggest they should treat upcoming orders as suspect or illegitimate, you step directly into the territory this statute
governs. Whether prosecutors pursue it is their call, but the statute applies.
18 U.S.C. 2384
Seditious conspiracy does not require violence. It includes any coordinated effort to hinder or delay the execution of federal law. A jointly signed message directed at the military regarding how to treat election outcomes can be interpreted as an attempt to
influence the execution of authority.
18 U.S.C. 602 and 595
These laws forbid federal officeholders from influencing government employees during political conflict. The military counts as government employees. Coordinated political messaging toward the troops is categorically different from an op-ed or TV interview.
DoD Directive 1344.10
The Department of Defense specifically forbids the use of military personnel as a political audience. You cannot aim partisan messaging at service members. It is a bright red line.
UCMJ Article 88
Retired officers remain subject to recall. Contemptuous or politically loaded speech directed at the civilian leadership by a retired officer falls under this article. It has been enforced in the past and remains enforceable today.
UCMJ Articles 94 and 133
Article 94 covers any conduct intended to cause unlawful refusal of duty or undermine lawful authority. Article 133 covers unbecoming conduct. These are not theoretical. They apply to retirees and have clear precedent.
The talking heads continue to argue that these senators did nothing more than “remind the military to follow the law,” but that argument is dishonest. What happened was not a general reminder of duty. It was a coordinated, politically timed message targeting
the entire military chain of command during a contested political struggle. That is not protected in the same way a private opinion is. The military cannot be influenced, directed, or pressured by sitting senators regarding political transitions. Even the
attempt is prohibited under long-standing law.
The central point is this. When a powerful group of federal officials directs a coordinated message straight into the ranks of the armed forces during a political dispute, that is not harmless commentary. That enters the territory where multiple statutes exist
for a reason, to prevent political actors from shaping military behavior.
Anyone pretending otherwise is either lying, didn’t serve, or does not understand the structure that keeps the military neutral. The chain of command matters. The laws governing influence over the troops matter. And the coordinated nature of what was done is
exactly why people are using terms like sedition.
Whether charges come or not is up to prosecutors, but pretending there is “no possible crime”
Marc Liebman
https://www.facebook.com/marcliebmanauthor/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_sDoFQM5wupNaCeGIvKL1g
Author of:
Cherubs 2 Raider of the Scottish Coast
Big Mother 40 Carronade
Render Harmless Death of a Lady
Forgotten Last Battles
Inner Look For a Few Francs
Moscow Airlift Predators
The Simushir Island Incident Fight We Shall
Flight of the Pawnee Failure to Fire
Insidious Dragon The Red Star of Death
Member of:
The Author’s Guild Military Writers Society of America
Association of Texas Authors North American Snowsport Journalists Association
--