Catching a Code

When I saw that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced this department was opening an investigation into U.S. Senator, former astronaut and retired Navy Captain Mark Kelly for his participation in the video with five others Democrats that explained (according the the Uniform Military Code of Justice) members of the military are not required to follow "illegal" orders -- as to whether he should be returned to active service leading to a court martial.  (Fun Fact: "Captain" in the Navy is one rank below Rear Admiral.)

I responded with a tweet that read -- "HEADLINE: "Former Fox Host Brings Non-Existent Charges Against American Hero. Alcohol Suspected."

This is going to end as the latest massive embarrassment for Hegseths's tenure as a lackey for Trump.

It also added weight to the amount of time I've spent online the last few days responding to MAGOP officials in Congress and in the White House attacking the six Democrats (all of them either who served high in the military or the U.S. intelligence services) who posted a video explaining that no one in the military has to follow illegal orders.  And almost all the attacks each said pretty much the same thing. 

​Mind you, no, I don’t expect any of them are reading what I say, nor do they care.  But I’m replying so that anyone in the middle who might believe what the MAGOPs are saying or are uncertain are able to see a contrary thought that shows the attacks are not what they seem.

The MAGOP attacks I’m referring to are those against the six Democrats who posted a video explaining that no one in the military has to follow illegal orders.  And in fact, by the Uniform Military Code of Justice they are required not to.

Almost all of the attacks have followed the same pattern.  They left out the word “illegal,” and say the Democrats are lying to the military by telling them they don’t have to follow orders, and call the action “seditious” (indeed, the supposedly clever name they’ve come up is the “Seditious Six”).  And suggest they should be brought up on charges.

Not to worry -- though I saw I've been spending time responding to all this, it's fairly easy.  Since most of the attacks are so similar, then depending the tweet I’m answering, I have almost a template.  It's more annoying that our MAGOP officials are being this deceitful, ignorant and foolish than it is time consuming.  And so, my replies tend to be some adaptation of the following:

1. No, they did NOT say that. You are lying. 2. They said (clearly & repeatedly) members of the military are not required to follow "illegal" orders. 3. This is in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 4. That is NOT "sedition." (P.S. Sedition requires use of force.) “P.S.  I do have a question for you though – Do you think that people in the military should follow illegal orders?  It’s an easy question:  yes or no?”

​To be clear, I’m not remotely the only person in social media who is pushing back.  The number has steadily grown.  While MAGOPs at first seemed to believe that they had a great issue at hand have started to see that their efforts of leaving out the word "illegal" are backfiring on them a bit.  That’s why, I suspect, a few of them are trying a new tact.  They appear to think it's a great "gotcha" attack.  Actually, it’s an incredibly empty one, though.

This new attempt focuses on how so far none of the six Democrats have named one illegal order that Trump has given.  (Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has been most prevalent with this try, though he’s not alone  "JD Vance" and Rep. Nancy Mace have been busy.)  And the MAGOPs seem to suggest that the Democrats are lying and have nothing.  

The problem for them, of course, is that many people online start listing a range of illegal orders that Trump has given, notably bombing fishing boats without due process, but also others orders.  I tend not to (leaving that to others) but do throw a related comment in on occasion.  For the most part, my response to these charges is –

“While courts have overturned some of Trump’s orders as illegal – like last Friday the court saying that the order to send the National Guard into D.C. was illegal -- the video only states that members of the military need not follow “illegal” orders.    But mostly, it’s just letting the military know that any order in the future that’s illegal should not be followed, as described in the Uniform Military Code of Justice.  Do you not agree that those in the military should not follow illegal orders??”

There's an alternative version, though, I use that tends to fit certain of these attacks better, the ones that try hard to make the case that since no illegal orders were given, the six Democrats have broken military law.  What I respond is –

“When members of the military enlist, they swear to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice that says they should not follow illegal orders. But no illegal orders are specified or have yet been issued to them. Why do you have a problem with that??!”

But there are two particular MAGOP tweets that stand out to me as my favorites. 

The first came from Roger Stone, who went on about how the six Democrats were violating the law (for reasons he didn’t explain…) and that they should be prosecuted.  It was too hard to pass up, so I replied, “Says the man who literally violated the law and went to prison for it.”

But the best came from the aforementioned Mike Lee (who I always try to remind people that he posted on social media in October, 2020 that “We’re not a democracy”).  In this effort, sure that he had a great point wrote –

“Why would one encourage troops to ignore orders from the commander in chief—based on an apparent presumption the he issues illegal orders—in the absence of illegal orders?”

I decided to get right to the heart of the matter.  And replied:

“Thanks for asking -- because Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies, adjudicated of rape and guilty of fraud, showing disdain for the law...and many of his orders have already been thrown out of court as illegal, so it is reasonable to think he may issue illegal orders ahead.”

After having gone through this for the past few days, I was so pleased to read about what Joe Scarborough said Monday morning on his MS NOW program, saying with much greater fervor the points I was trying to get across.  He was almost giddy and stunned that, in his words, Republicans were making utter fools of themselves, falling into what was, in essence, a Democratic trap.

“I saw one lughead,” he commented, “who goes on CNN regularly saying, ‘They are clearly trying to take down the chain of command,’” Scarborough added. “No! This is, if he knew anything about the military, he would know that when they raise their right hand, they swear an oath. They swear an oath to the Constitution to not follow illegal orders.”

“I can't believe I have to say that, this was a brilliant move,” Scarborough later went on. “I cannot believe I'm even saying this about the Democratic Party. This was a brilliant move by Democrats for two reasons.”

“One, they have Republicans actually defending illegal orders — like these people in the MAGAshpere,” he laughed before repeating, “Like people — I saw one lughead who goes on CNN. They're so stupid that they're defending illegal orders. So bravo, Democrats there. Like they played right into your trap.  And number two, all weekend, what did you have?  You had Democrats, who served this country in the military, who served this country in the CIA…[and] for the face of the Democratic Party, they knew this was going to cause a controversy, every single person there will have served this country in uniform or in the CIA.  And it was a brilliant move.  And I’ve got to say,” Scarborough went on, “…the most extreme MAGA defenders walked right into their trap.”

Yeah, defending the position that members of the military should follow illegal orders is quite a fascinating concept.

Especially when the Commander-in-Chief, and leader of your party, has been convicted of 34 felonies, adjudicated of rape, found guilty of fraud, has dementia...and an approval of just 33%.