Six Democrats in Congress — Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, U.S. Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania — caused quite a stir, recently, producing a video “to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.”
What did these former military and intelligence agency vets-turned-congressmen tell our current soldiers and spooks?
“You can refuse illegal orders.”
While that’s true, and important … what orders are they talking about?
Perhaps the continued bombing of ships in the Caribbean and killing of crews, all on accusations by the White House that these are drug smugglers — without any check or real accountability — is such a case.*
Yet, these powerful senators and representatives are not making it.
Instead, they’ve not even identified one breach. And by refusing to identify any of President Trump’s specific orders, their call devolves into second-guessing the chain of command and encouraging dissension in the ranks, dissuading military personnel from always being “at the ready.”
Further, these wielders of legislative power in Washington have taken no serious action to protect the Constitution nor promoted any legislative action to hold executive action accountable.
Instead, they pass the buck to the soldier (or CIA analyst) to determine the legality of orders on the fly.
As Haley Fuller wrote at Military.com last week, “[A]sking individual service members to make on-the-spot legal judgments without guidance can put them at enormous personal risk.”
Was this Democrat video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” as Trump posted on social media? I don’t think so.
It is, however, tragically emblematic of the complete and total abdication of responsibility by these pretend leaders in Congress.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* Reminds me of President Obama’s policy of killing American citizens abroad by drone strikes without, as even he acknowledged, any real process of checks and accountability. Thank goodness for Sen. Rand Paul’s 2013 filibuster raising concerns about this unaccountable power to execute.
Illustration created with Nano Banana and Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
11 replies on “The Irresponsible vs. The Unaccountable”
We need to understand both that the six Senators stayed well within the bounds of speech that the state must permit under the First Amendment, and that one of their motives was to stir-up insubordination by members of the armed forces even in the case of perfectly legal orders.
In sum, we have people who were acting as major, passive-aggressive jerks, but our legal system allows people to be jerks of various sorts, and ought to allow people to be jerks of various sorts, even though jerks are generally socially corrosive.
Voters in upcoming elections should seek to replace jerks with people who are not jerks, but each party will make doing so difficult, as they generally nominate jerks.
Sadly, I 100% agree.
Life is a 24/7/365 process of making “on-the-spot legal judgments.”
Military personnel receive — or at least received as of 40 years ago when I went to boot camp — quite a bit of “guidance,” in the form of instruction on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Law of Land Warfare, etc. That EXACTLY matches what the politicians who made that video said. They must obey lawful orders and must not obey unlawful orders.
We all have to make decisions all the time, and we’re all responsible for what we do. Including military personnel, who shouldn’t be handed deadly weapons, put in harms way — and then infantalized as toddlers who aren’t qualifed to judge the legality of what they’re doing.
24 hours each day; seven days each week; 52 week each years.
Undermining the chain of command is a federal crime. Folks that do that can face civil charges in federal court. Ex-military members who retired from the military, rather than completing enlistment and being discharged, particularly officer retirees like Kelly, are held to a higher standard of conduct and discipline and are still accountable to the military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice, a much higher standard than civilians are held to, which includes “reasonable doubt “. And the UCMJ explicitly states that even “indirectly” undermining the military chain of command is a crime. Federal law — specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — prohibits acts intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the armed forces. Which means that the ex-military personnel suspected of this can be recalled to active duty, called before a military tribunal, and subjected whatever penalty they decide, including censure, loss of pension, court marshal, dishonorable discharge, and/or imprisonment up to as much as 10 years.
And as a career officer, he would know that.
“Was this Democrat video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” as Trump posted on social media? I don’t think so. ” Really? Why not when they are trying to create dissension in the ranks? As someone who lived through a revolution that turned communist and saw the same divisive strategy at play, that’s not only seditious, but it is also treason.
Stupidity on your part! None of these congressmen/women can do anything since both the house and senate are controlled by lackeys to Trump!
If they couldn’t do anything, then they shouldn’t even show-up for work.
Obviously the can do things. They can speak to specifics, instead of vaguely; they can sponsor bills; they can support Republicans such as Paul and Massie. And they have standing to bring suit against a President wielding unconstitutional war powers, though of course if their suit prevails then likewise Democratic Presidents will lose such power.
As stated above, what they said might not be technically seditious, but maybe they could be censured for being jackasses. ?
…and they call themselves lawmakers? Nope. Law breakers. Nothing happened to that traitor Milley either, the worst CJCS in American history. When you’ve got a congresswoman, a lawmaker, who says that just because someone commits a crime doesn’t make them a criminal, well I echo the words of Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.” Yes, Mr. Franklin, a Republic if you can keep it…from the power of the one who needs the stupidity of the other. Let us give thanks that we have a POTUS who still believes that America is “One nation under God”.
“The Constitution Is the Supreme Law
Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause)
The Constitution, federal laws, and treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
This means:
• Any order that contradicts the Constitution or federal law is void.
• No official is permitted to enforce an unconstitutional or unlawful order.
⸻
2. Military and Federal Officers Swear an Oath to the Constitution — Not to a Person
Article VI, Clause 3
All officers, both civilian and military, must swear an oath to support the Constitution.
This means:
• Military members and federal officers are legally bound to refuse unconstitutional orders, even from the President.
• Loyalty is to the Constitution, not to a commander.
The military justice system reinforces this: the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes obeying lawful orders mandatory — implying that unlawful orders must not be obeyed.
⸻
3. The President Must “Take Care” That the Laws Are Faithfully Executed
Article II, Section 3
The President must ensure laws are followed, not violated.
If a President issues an order that violates federal law or the Constitution, it violates the Take Care Clause.”