Sometimes I look at what Democrats do and say “I can see where that makes sense.” Most of the time I shake my heads and say “What in the wide world of fuck are you doing?” Today is one of those times.
It started with a video put out by former military and intelligence folks currently serving in Congress. Their message was clear: enlisted military have no obligation to obey unlawful orders. Seems harmless enough, right?
Wellllll…this is where things get messy.
As a personal aside, I will admit my knowledge of military justice is as limited as the range on Nerf gun. Therefore, I am going off my understanding of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and welcome any corrections, words of encouragement, and rotten produce you are willing to send my way.
The aforementioned UCMJ is designed to deal with legal matters within the military so that they can be dealt with in a way that doesn’t disrupt their duties. Which is killing the enemy and/or breaking their shit while at the same time making sure the same doesn’t happen to us.
Anyway, there are provisions within the UCMJ dealing with unlawful orders, namely military personnel don’t have to follow them. And that’s what the Democrats in the video are expressing, so there’s no real harm, right?
That’s where the wonderful world of sedition comes into play. Our good friends at Merriam-Webster define sedition thus:
incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
Our laws go into greater detail, but you get the drift. Sedition is a big no-no, which I would hope former military and intelligence personnel now serving in Congress understand. Then, President Trump entered the chat and accused the Democrats in the video of seditious acts. He even went so far as to say the punishment for sedition is death.
Unfortunately for him, he got it wrong. The actual punishment is possible fines and imprisonment, so there’s that. But is he wrong about the video being seditious?
Wellllll…he kinda is. The Democrats’ defense on this is they were just reminding our military they can refuse to obey unlawful orders, which tracks. But then I started wondering why now. This message is the kind of shit military personnel get drilled into their skulls during basic training. From a military/tactical standpoint, there’s nothing objectionable in reinforcing basic knowledge. Legally, the Democrats in the video are in the clear, too.
From a political standpoint, though, that’s where there may be a case for sedition. The President has taken actions many on the Left find objectionable, from sending in the National Guard to police city streets or making drug running boats into the world’s most expensive and addictive flotsam. This latter example is the one the Left seems fixated on at the moment, with some on the Left calling it murder.
As you might expect, the UCMJ kinda frowns on murder, so to float the idea that what the military is doing to drug runners is murder might weigh heavily on the heads and hearts of those brave men and women. (Still two genders, kids!) With what they endure on a daily basis, it’s only a matter of time before someone cracks and decides to defy the chain of command by refusing a direct order he or she believes to be illegal.
That little seed of doubt is all it takes for our military to weaken just enough to break. Unlike in the world outside the military, order is what keeps things moving. It is the first, last, and only line of defense against a fully dysfunctional family feud with heavy artillery.
And these Democrats who served our country know that, or at least should know that.
That’s where I think the sedition charge sticks, if it even sticks at all. Politicians are known for being slicker than a non-stick pan covered in baby oil, and since this is more of a political line of attack, there’s a good chance they are relatively safe legally.
That’s not to say I condone what these six Congresscritters did in the name of politics. When pressed to give examples of illegal acts, these motherfuckers sputter more than Speed Buggy. Instead, they mention they’ve talked to military personnel who just so happen to say what the Left’s narrative is at the moment. Pretty convenient, I’d say.
You know, if I was a complete dipshit.
The video wraps deception in an American flag and tries to pretend it’s just a friendly reminder when it has the potential to be a bunker buster to the heart of the world’s most powerful military. I’d say they should be ashamed of themselves, but I’m not sure there’s an ounce of shame among them.
And if I may be so bold, I want to give the President some advice here. First, stay off social media before you fact check what you’re going to say. No filter works great, but not when it comes to proclaiming a punishment that is more severe than it legally is.
Second, let’s try some alternative thinking here. Don’t charge these assholes with sedition. Instead, charge them with something else and make the punishment having them pull KP duty until the Rapture.
Tag: us military
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The year was 2001, and it was an even bigger odyssey than Arthur C. Clarke or Stanley Kubrick could have ever imagined. We were still reeling from a contested election, and making all sorts of hanging chad jokes in the process. We were still learning about the evil that is Nickelback. And there was the War on Terror, which sent thousands of young men and women to the Middle East to fight with different factions, such as the Taliban.
Now, 20 years later, we’re leaving Afghanistan (at least in part) and leaving it to…the Taliban.
As much as I like reruns, there is a logical limit to everything, except Leftist rhetoric. While the Left is trying to put a positive spin on the debacle…I mean successful withdrawal from Afghanistan, we would be remiss if we didn’t take a look at the new boss, who is the same as the old boss.
the Taliban
What the Left thinks it means – bad guys who are better than the far right in America
What it really means – terrorists who should have been wiped from the face of the Earth when we had the chance
In the aftermath of 9/11, we were looking for the people responsible for the multiple attacks on America and landed on the Taliban, both figuratively and literally. After some fighting, the Taliban were removed like David Duke at the NAACP Image Awards. Then, we did something which, in retrospect, was kinda dumb. Like inviting David Duke to the NAACP Image Awards.
We let them go.
Instead of curb stomping them, we let them get away, including one Osama bin Laden. You know, the mastermind behind 9/11? Although we eventually found and killed bin Laden, that didn’t kill the Taliban. Quite the opposite, actually. That’s because of the nature of Middle Eastern terrorism.
Even though there are multiple terrorists groups operating in the Middle East, they aren’t exactly working out of different Q’orans. Their main purpose is to spread Islam worldwide through conversion, coercion, or, their personal favorite, killing the non-believers. So far, they haven’t been that successful with the first two methods, but with the third option, they’ve done a bang-up job. Literally.
And the Taliban are no different. They will be as bad as they were in 2001, if not worse. That means women and children will be endangered, rights will be restricted, and we will have to learn more hard-to-pronounce names to at least appear to be educated on the goings on. And it means our political leaders will have no clue of what’s going on in the first place.
Case in point, the Biden Administration. Instead of worrying about the destabilization of the reason and the geopolitical implications of the Taliban regaining power in Afghanistan, our fearless leader and his ever-on=the-ball Administration are concerned with…the Taliban being inclusive. And remember, kids, Joe Biden is supposed to be the foreign policy expert.
In other words, we’re boned.
Although the Biden Administration is willing to take the Taliban at their word, there are two big reasons we shouldn’t. One, they have no reason to follow through with any agreement they make with us. Granted, I’m no expert on the Muslim faith, but when their interpretation of their holy book makes it okay to lie to and kill non-believers, I’m pretty sure they’re less trustworthy than a car dealership working straight commission and with a lot full of lemons that would make Country Time want to file a lawsuit against them.
Oh, and the second reason? They’re freaking terrorists!
Of course, this hasn’t been a problem in the past because we used to have a good intelligence network in that part of the world. Then, some Leftists (such as the Commander in Briefs, Bill Clinton) got it in their heads that getting intelligence from terrorists might make us look bad. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the Left, but the best intelligence against the bad guys comes from the bad guys. The result of our insane pearl-clutching can be seen where the Twin Towers once stood.
Am I blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11? No, but it’s hard to argue his actions didn’t have at least some bearing on what lead up to it, including the infamous briefing that amounted to “Osama bin Laden may try to do something with airplanes at some point down the road” written by the same group of people that thought satellites could do a better job of getting secret information from terrorists than having actual people on the inside.
The point is the Left got us into this mess by inadvertently giving terrorists what they want and getting nothing in return. This is because the Left’s version of foreign policy is always having to say we’re sorry. That’s sure to get you a lot of friends, but very few will be allies, especially if there’s hard work to be done. You know, like trying to execute a mass exit from a country where the enemy is heavily entrenched and now has access to the toys we’re abandoning?
The Left isn’t the sole party to blame here, but they are the ones who keep setting the rules of engagement and making the blunders that lead us into having to deal with groups like the Taliban on a regular basis. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot we can do until our leaders change their minds on how to deal with the Taliban. And if I could humbly offer a suggestion, one that I’ve held since 9/11.
Go back to the original rules of engagement, namely 1) take out the enemy, 2) take or break their stuff, and 3) do steps 1 and 2 in such as way that it makes the enemy reconsider whether they want to continue hostilities. If so, repeat steps 1-3. If not, then they might be willing to knock off their shenanigans for fear of us repeating steps 1-3. In recent years, we haven’t had the courage to even attempt step 1 without feeling guilty. We need to stop feeling guilty when it comes to dealing with people who want us dead.
Until then, we will have to put up with history repeating itself. in other words, a geopolitical version summer TV.