Below is my column in USA Today on the revival of sedition as a speech crime in the United States. Despite my criticism of the Democratic members of Congress over their recent message to American military personnel, this is not a prosecutorial offense and would collapse quickly in court. More importantly, it is the return of a crime long ago criticized by James Madison as a “monster” that should not be prosecuted in the United States.
Here is the column:
Not since the Adams administration has there been more talk of sedition in the United States. After Democratic congressional members posted a video encouraging military personnel to refuse to follow illegal orders from the Trump administration, cries of sedition were again heard in the Capitol as many called for prosecution.
These lawmakers, however, are not guilty of any federal crimes, let alone sedition. However, the controversy should be a reminder that we have yet to break our sedition addiction, a crime that should be struck from our books as largely as a speech crime.
The video was reckless and worthy of criticism. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Michigan, later admitted that she did not know of any actual illegal orders given to the military. Even so, the video seemed to encourage military personnel to refuse to carry out orders and fueled the narrative on the left that the United States was in the grips of a “fascist” or authoritarian takeover.
The president has prevailed in many of the challenges to his authority, and he is likely to prevail in his use of force against alleged drug-smuggling boats outside the country.
Regardless of the outcome of these cases, they are being litigated in court, and the administration has complied with adverse decisions.
Trump joins a long tradition of noxious ‘sedition’ accusations
President Donald Trump and others had good cause to object, but then reached for the familiar and infamous crime of seditious speech. The president even raised the possibility of the death penalty, though he later insisted that he was not threatening the congressional members.
Any effort to prosecute these Democratic lawmakers would collapse immediately upon filing with a federal court. The video is protected speech. The military has long recognized that personnel may refuse illegal orders, and the United States helped establish this principle in the Nuremberg trials after World War II.
The government cannot punish members or any citizen for raising such rules or even suggesting that the president is engaged in unlawful conduct. I would expect the Supreme Court to unanimously uphold the equally unanimous lower courts in rejecting any such criminal charge based on this video.
Yet, sedition has always served as such as a political and legal purpose. As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,”sedition was a noxious import from Great Britain. British judges had balked at the effort to accuse citizens of treason for things like telling bawdy jokes about the queen in some pub.
The response of the crown was to create a new crime that was a type of treason-lite offense with equally heavy penalties. The charges were brought in a new secret court, the infamous Star Chamber. Figures were routinely charged with such offenses as giving “base and distracting speeches.”
Under British rule, a wide array of speech and even dress was prosecuted as sedition or other offenses. Jonathan White, the speaker of the Pennsylvania House, was charged with sedition after observing to guests in his home that “the proposed laws were cursed laws” and then expressing his exasperation by exclaiming, “Hang it, damn them all.”
Free speech is uniquely American, and precious
Once the United States was formed, such crimes ran against the grain of the First Amendment. The most uniquely American part of the Constitution was our sweeping protection for free speech. While many parts of the Constitution were adopted from the British system, this was a uniquely American protection. The British never protected free speech in such terms and still don’t.
James Madison would later refer to sedition prosecutions as “a monster that must forever disgrace its parents.” Indeed, it is. In every age of rage, we release that monster when we are very afraid or very angry. We release it on our neighbors to punish them for dangerous thoughts or views.
In my book, I call for the country to finally fulfill Madison’s call to eliminate sedition and break our sedition addiction once and for all. We can punish people for their conduct without criminalizing their speech.
The problem is that punishing people for their views or values is irresistible for many in government. I was highly critical of the return of sedition-based charges against a few of the defendants in the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. The charges were virtually superfluous with the other charges, but the Biden administration clearly wanted to add the patina of sedition to the prosecution.
That is why it is so distressing to see the return of the cries of sedition now.
Again, these Democratic congressional members can be rightfully criticized for the video, but we can amplify those objections without resorting to the scourge of sedition.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Obama himself blew people to smitherings in nations that we were not at war with. Did anyone tell us that after the drone strikes that we went in to save the survivors. I have yet to see any film footage of a survivor being shot in the water. Before you believe this crap you should keep in mind that they first told us that they were just harmless fisherman. When the video came out there wasn’t a fishing net or fishing pole to be found on any of the boats. They started off with a lie about them just being fishermen yet somehow now you believe them when they say that fisherman (drug traffickers) were killed in the water.
Somebody fell of off the gullible boat into the sea of unreality.
The tech is so advanced packing the drugs can be seen down to the serial numbers on the boat motors. There’s no doubt. Soon it’ll all be remote control.
Pretty sure the drug cartels will be cleaned out within 3 years.
People must adapt to freedom; freedom does not adapt to people; dictatorship does.
The freedom of speech is absolute.
No law shall abridge the freedom of speech or press.
Americans may speak and write of anything, including sedition and treason, and Americans may incite.
Americans may not conduct activities that constitute war or hostilities or assist enemies that are doing so.
Below, AI is wrong; incitement is not a crime and is constitutionally protected freedom of speech and press, while levying war, conducting hostilities, and aiding and abetting are criminal.
Genuine traitors and those engaged in sedition would have the greatest motivation to keep their free speech secret, covert, and unknown before they commit an actual crime.
Any court precedent finding any speech criminal is itself incorrect, criminal, and de facto corrupt.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;….
_______________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Incitement is the act of encouraging others to commit a crime, while treason is the act of levying war against one’s country or giving “aid and comfort” to its enemies.
Treason is a much more narrowly defined and severe crime than incitement, which can be charged for urging illegal acts even if the main crime is not committed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Incitement is a type of speech, but it is a category of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment in the United States because it is directed at causing or producing imminent lawless action.
For speech to be considered incitement, it must be intended to incite illegal activity and likely to do so, according to the standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
X says The video didn’t actually encourage military personnel to refuse orders, as he falsely claims. Instead, it simply reminded service members that they have the right to disobey unlawful orders, which is clearly stated in military law.
That old communist Democrat party apparatchik favorite: Nothing To See Here, Please Believe X and The Hateful Six, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
This actually was just exactly what it looks like. A carefully planned and coordinated group action of insulting and defaming the most senior officers in the military (and federal law enforcement and the CIA), defaming them by insinuating to those under their command that their most senior leadership were issuing them illegal commands. Using their former service in the military in attempted appeal to authority.
An attempt to do so with the glaringly obvious inability to provide any example they could articulate as they did so, and no example they could articulate when being challenged and questioned after doing so.
Which extends to insulting those under the leadership they’re insulting as well. This deliberate defamation of senior leadership implies that those serving under them may be smart enough to be in the CIA, the FBI, the military – but they’re simply too stupid to recognize an illegal command from the officers set above them, unless they have the invaluable help and reminder of these six.
The pilots flying the same jet that low ranking Captain Kelly did are smart enough to fly that same aircraft in more combat missions than he did – but not as smart as he is to be able to recognize an illegal order. (which of course, now Senator Kelly could not provide them with an example of)
What’s most telling about X’s pathetic lie for today is that this was supposedly well meaning on the part of these six. (but give him time, he may provide worse before the day is out.)
Yet during Biden’s Oval Office House Plant stumbling and Alzheimer’s presidency, not a single one of them (never mind all of them getting together to plot this) issued a similar “remnder” regarding the most senior leaders of the military, federal law enforcement, the CIA, etc. Not one, not single time, while they silently watched but defended four years of The Oval Office House Plant as Commander In Chief, holding the nuclear football and declaring that his First Felon Bagman Son was his most senior advisor.
Not even speaking out in alarm after watching our most senior military leadership willingly abandon hundreds of American citizens in Afghanistan, to instead focus on finding “white rage” in the ranks and a major effort to push Critical Racist Marxist Theory down through the chain of command.
Nor speaking out in alarm during or even now as they watched the most senior leadership in the FBI and DoJ continuing to commit felonies to deprive Americans of their civil rights by color of law.
George X’s fraudulent defense of the Hate Filled Six has all the credibility of those hate filled six fraudulently claiming it was normal to issue such a warning whether the president was Obama, Biden, or Trump.
Americans in Afghanistan had a year or more of warning that the US military was leaving. While the US government has an obligation to aid American citizens in foreign countries it does not have the right to force them to leave. Biden even delayed closing that door for several months.
Rabble:
If you think the civilians weren’t aware, and weren’t part of that pullout plan, I have a patch of land up in Scotland to sell ye, mi’lord.
Implication being interpreted as Accusation, that’s what this boils down to. Kelly and his gang used implication (that he has or will have issued illegal orders), using illusionary language that implies guilt and accusation that a military member need reminded of their responsibility. They could also be using the term ‘Notorious’ which does not require proof, as in evidence of treason or sedition? What a bunch of Moronic fools, rushing about with their hair on fire, yelling he has to be a criminal, he just has to be!
While “sedition” has a meaning in the legal world, so does the word “insurrection” – and don’t forget the word “treason”. We have come to a point in this country where these words have lost much of their meaning due to an almost daily obsessive emotional misuse of those words to throw them at others as pejorative attacks on the person, rather than focusing on the issue at hand. In the main by the Democrat-Mainstream Media Propaganda Complex, but also by Republicans as well.
If a person regardless of party affiliation feels they must use such words because otherwise they can’t criticize actions or a policy without these as pejoratives, then their case is weak. As my opinion, Trump and his administration would have had a much better political response to condemn these six for the insults and defamation of our most senior military and law enforcement while they insinuated without any evidence whatsoever that they were issuing illegal orders to those under their command. No requirement to throw prejoratives in there and the potential for investigation – just remind Americans of how base these insults and insinuations are.
You don’t need the word “sedition” or any other word thrown around as a pejorative to condemn what these six former members got together and organized to do, and how they would collectively do it, to insult and and and defame them to foment distrust of our most senior leadership in the military and law enforcement.
As to whether their insults and defamation of the most senior members of our military is legally actionable, I assume it is up to the JAG or others to determine. The same applies to the same insults and defamation applied to those heading our federal law enforcement agencies, CIA, etc as they insinuated they were issuing illegal orders to those serving under them.
We do know not one of these six who plotted to get together to issue this “warning” about our current military leadership felt compelled to issue any similar warning – not even alarm – when Biden’s senior military leadership were focused on investigating their troops for “white rage” while going along with abandoning Americans in Afghanistan and pushing Critical Marxist Race Theory down the chain of command.
Nor did any of them issue warnings or even express alarm after learning Biden’s leadership in the DoJ and FBI were sending their underlings out with illegal orders to deprive Americans of their civil rights through color of law and perjury to the courts.
Obama brought us into the age of populist politics and we’re now surrounded by emotional populist politics on all sides. Obama showed that emotional populist appeals – and condemnations (as in his declarations that America was “systemically white racist”) – work. And political strategies and tactics that work are likely to be copied on all sides. Trump and other Republicans are now doing the same in response.
I am sure that at some point Professor Turley has written a similar column where he also deals with instances where elected Democrats in government chose to use the word “traitor”, “treason”, and “insurrectionist” as pejoratives to describe Trump. After all, the deliberate misuse of those words has happened dozens of times since 2016 and the creation of the felonious Clinton/Obama ‘Trump-Russia Dossier’.
I just can’t remember Professor Turley writing such a similar column devoted to Democrats and the deliberate misuse of those words to address Trump. I doubt he has.
Dear Prof Turley,
Smuggling illegal drugs is a crime. Not an act of war. .. and the distinction between a crime and a war is rather important.
‘Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance’ ~ Gen. Patton
During the 21st century, in particular, the U.S. has managed to blur the lines between criminal acts (subject to ‘law’) and acts of war to almost nothingness with the catch-all ‘terrorist’ – from ‘Islamic’ terrorists and the ‘global war on terror’ to, more recently, Caribbean ‘narco’ terrorists and the ‘war on drugs’.
In the not-so-distant past, war was once exclusively between established nation-states. .. everything else a crime subject to law, rules of evidence and various international treaties.
It’s what separates us from the animals.
*even during the ‘fog of war’, killing unarmed survivors clinging to debris in the Caribbean by ‘finishing shots’ was once considered a war crime.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/3-key-questions-about-the-us-boat-strikes-that-killed-survivors/ar-AA1RzFZC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=5bc52aa5500b432ae672c8351d861fa0&ei=10
War can be defined as an “Invasion”. An invasion by; Humans, by Animals, by Substances, by Technology, …
War can be defined as an “Act”. As in a declaration.
Combatants vs. Casualties of War
Drug Smugglers are Enemy Combatants in the War-on-Drugs as the Drugs ‘invade’ the sovereignty of the United States.
Enemy Combatants and Civilians can be considered the Casualties of War.
You are making the an argument that these Casualties are Civilians not Enemy Combatants. That’s the difference between the two perspectives. (just defining it)
War on Drugs have been declared since the “Great Opium War(s)”
Re:
The “Great Opium War” refers to two conflicts, the First Opium War (1839–1842) and the Second Opium War (1856–1860), fought between China’s Qing Dynasty and Western powers, primarily the British. The wars were a result of trade disputes, particularly Britain’s illegal opium trade with China, which the Qing government tried to suppress. Both wars ended in British victory, leading to unequal treaties that forced China to open its ports, cede territory (like Hong Kong to Britain), and pay reparations, marking the beginning of what is known as China’s “century of humiliation”.
An interesting connection to the Great Opium War and the present is that this Administration is similarly pursuing Tariff Trade in conjunction with the War on Drugs in same era.
Both Parties have continued the War on Drugs: Reagan, Bush-I, Bush-II, Trump-I&II … etc.
Dems:
Tough Questions on Latin America Drug War Await Obama
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=Kqw0raKEiKo
How Joe Biden Led The War on Drugs
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=7zrc79OQ1XY
USA – Clinton wages war on drugs
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=_C6C7J9tA8o
This is a Forever War.
FYI:
Worse than fentanyl: How smugglers get a new, deadly drug into Canada (Nitazene)
The weapon is killer drugs. It doesn’t need be guns. That and the foods are laced with lead for mental retardation, radioactivity to kill you, botulism, listeria etc. Do you know how many enemies the USA has? Every despot on earth who would enslave and rob at will except for the US saying No.
Let’s face it. The Democrats are calling for service members to not carry out their orders because Trump is blowing up drug boats outside of an actual war zone.
Scale of Strikes: Obama authorized a total of 563 strikes (largely by drones) outside of active war zones (Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen) during his two terms, compared to 57 under Bush. In his first year alone, he authorized more strikes (54 in Pakistan) than Bush did during his entire presidency.
Congress did not authorize a war against the nations that Obama bombed with drones.
Republican ex service members did not call for the troops to defy orders at the time. Back in the barracks the word of the day would have been slime ball politicians veterans or not.
Let’s be clear: the Democrats are not advising service members to disobey orders because Trump is targeting drug boats outside of a real war zone. They are simply clarifying that military personnel have the right to refuse illegal or unlawful commands. There is no actual war zone in the Caribbean — only one armed force present, and that is the United States. Drug boats are not attacking military vessels, and the assertion that they should be considered legitimate targets because they endanger U.S. citizens is ridiculous.
Tell us. georgie (who knows everything about everything), did Obama’s drones kill hundreds of CIVILIANS in Pakistan and Somalia and others? Were we at war with Pakistan, goergie? Were we at war with Somalia, georgie? Did Obama get permission from Congress, georgie? Go ahead, do your search on Wikipedia. we’ll wait.
Rabble:
George, as an active duty sailor, I will earnestly tell you to f* right the hell off, you don’t know what the f*ing crap you’re talking about, piggy.
Bush got more people killed after 9/11 in the US military than bin Laden got civilians killed on 9/11.
At least Obama was effective and completed the mission that Bush was unable to do.
Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen are perpetual war zones of one kind or another. AFAIK the strikes in Pakistan were against al Qaeda and not the military or civilians in Pakistan; similarly in Somalia and Yemen. The Pakistan military were literally aiding Osama bin Laden to hide from the US.
They called Jan 6 an attempt to overthrow the government by a few hundred without the guns an the proper training to do so but calling for the overthrow of the government by thousands of men and women who do have guns and the proper training to do the deed is somehow not a more egregious act of insurrection. Any means possible is allowed.
“overthrow the government..” What do you mean by overthrow? Overthrow does not entail using firearms and training. Next time think it through. You’re welcome.
Please tell us how would.
This should be interesting.
So Anonymous what are the troops going to use if they are prosecuted for defying an order?
Sling shots. When asked to name one single unlawful order that Trump has issued they couldn’t come up with a single thing. Encouraging the troops to defy a lawful order by a President who was elected to defend the nation by the American people is a despicable cowardly act not done to protect the nation but to further the ambition of politician. You my dear were also all in on the RussiaGate hoax from the very beginning and you have issued no apology for your actions even after The New York Times and The Washington Post admitted that they got the story wrong. You have defended wife beating MS-13 members, fishermen carrying drugs that have killed easily over 100,000 Americans and chid trafficking. Have you even thought for a moment what life must be like for a child who is sold to the highest bidder. You very often speak of the need for charity in this nation but you don’t give a damn about people dying from drug overdoses or young girls passed around from man to man. Over a long period of time we have come to know who you are and the ugliness is undeniable. To get Trump you are willing to allow young girls to be slaves, death by drug overdose to thousands and then you try to tell us your not sick with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Get thee to a sewer dredge.
TiT,
Well said and spot on! Good way to own the annony moron!
The comment about not obeying illegal orders it was in the future tense, not the past tense. This would indicate no belief that illegal orders had been issued, just that, in the event that illegal orders are issued, they should not be followed.
Over 100,000 desperate drug addicts have killed themselves because the US criminalizes drug distribution outside of Big Pharma, leading to poor control of dosage. Those Americans could have chosen not to use street sourced drugs, but they didn’t. They also did not find the help they needed. America turned its back on them and the risk of death was their acceptable option. For them, life is warm and peaceful and then nothing. They feel good, fall asleep and cease breathing.
You seem to think that Americans are, in large numbers, raping children. So many there is economic opportunity in importing them. Why are there so few stories about those rapists? Trump seems OK with the practice, moving Maxwell to a walk-about resort facility, in spite of a conviction and sentence that did not allow that.
To overthrow the coming Biden administration the Jan 6th rioters needed to have the false slates of electors passed to the House. To do that they needed to stop the count of the Electoral votes and have Pence be forced to send the existing slates back. Pence betrayed Trump and refused to leave.
Who is calling for armed overthrow of the government?
This concerns me. It seems like we are increasingly backing away from holding people accountable for treasonous actions. Undermining a sitting president used to be one of those things that could get you on trial with the possibility of the death penalty. Now, not so much! You can openly defy the commander-in-chief and undermine his authority on the world stage, and at worst, you’ll receive a strongly worded letter. 😔🤨
Those “treasonous actions” you refer to are can be construed with 1st Amendment rights. So one man’s treasonous action is another man’s criticism of government.
Good thing you’re not a lawyer.
There is a thing called a standard or threshold. Good thing you’re not a lawyer
What kind of govt do you have if you are not “allowed” to openly defy the president?
You better have DEEP pockets and a bevy of Lawyers if your refusal lacks incontrovertible evidence, oh and don’t worry about having spare time; you’ll have plenty when the cage door locks.
Military members do not have that right specifically. It’s very narrowly tailored for an exception. Private citizens, different story, does not apply. Members of congress, no real restrictions however they too can do things that go against the constitution where their lauded speech and debate can’t protect them.
Perhaps charges of sedition would not fly in federal court, so it would be a waste of time and money to attempt to prosecute the six in federal court. Mark Kelly, however, is a retired Navy officer, subject to recall (as are all retired military officers) and prosecution under the UCMJ, so Kelly could, and should (in my opinion) be recalled and prosecuted for suggesting with no evidence that his Commander-in-Chief is issuing illegal orders and for encouraging active military members to willfully disobey legal orders issued by their Commander-in-Chief.
Since no one suggested that Trump had issued illegal orders there is nothing to prosecute for.
Please review the English lessons on “past tense,” “present tense,” and “future tense.”
Had they said “You should not have obeyed illegal orders” that would be a suggestion that illegal orders had been given. This is called past tense.
Captain William Bligh of the HMAV Bounty had an issue with Fletcher Christian in the year of our Lord 1789.
There is a straight line from Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail “Look The repression inherent in the system!”, and Ronald Reagan’s “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” One a British subject, the other an American citizen. And a President to boot. Same complaint. Distrust of being governed badly. The difference is we built a core of natural rights of the individual into a Bill of Rights in the Constitution that never belonged to the government. The first being the right to speak out, backed up by the second, which points the right of self defense at a government that has gone foaming at the mouth rabid. Sedition is government’s Linus security blanket when confronted by the governed. Here sedition faces liberty as a weapon. In the U.K. sedition faces liberty as a hope.
“Here sedition faces liberty as a weapon” yes, as in a treasonous act.
“In the U.K. sedition faces liberty as a hope” yes, as in a rebellious act.
Definitions from Oxford Languages:
se·di·tion | /səˈdiSHən/
noun: sedition; plural noun: seditions
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
Origin
late Middle English (in the sense ‘violent strife’): from Old French, or from Latin seditio(n- ), from sed- ‘apart’ + itio(n- ) ‘going’ (from the verb ire ).
Similar:
incitement (to riot/rebellion)
agitation
rabble-rousing
fomentation (of discontent)
troublemaking
provocation
inflaming
rebellion
revolt
insurrection
rioting
mutiny
insurgence
insurgency
subversion
civil disorder
insubordination
disobedience
resistance
defiance
Thank You for the Python’s Quest (LoL)
That’s also the definition of the American Revolution. We might agree that liberty has to win the fight. Again. Last time it was over an Old World government blueprint. Here today the concern is bad people infesting a good blueprint. I’m far from throwing in the towel on getting that done with votes. My point is when government reaches for its Linus sedition blanket, liberty reaches for Chesty Puller’s view: they are in front us, behind us, and on both sides of us. They won’t get away this time.
re: -Mike Gilmore
In an effort to define Trump’s semantics of the word ‘Sedition’ as ‘The Commander in Chief’ the following:
AI: (Military Law definition of Sedition)
In military law, sedition is defined as creating, with others, a revolt, violence, or disturbance with the intent to overthrow or destroy lawful civil authority. This differs from mutiny, which involves a refusal to obey orders or perform duty to usurp or override lawful military authority. Members of the military are also guilty of sedition if they fail to suppress or report such acts to a superior office
Key elements of sedition
Intent: The specific intent is to overthrow or destroy lawful civil authority.
Concerted action: It requires acting in concert with other people. Overt act: The act must be more than mere preparation and create a revolt, violence, or other disturbance.
Failure to act: A service member can also be charged if they fail to prevent, suppress, or report a seditious act they know is occurring.
Penalties:
Service members found guilty of sedition can face a maximum punishment of death, as determined by a court-martial.
Distinctions from other offenses:
Mutiny: Sedition is distinct from mutiny because it specifically involves overthrowing civil authority, while mutiny is about overriding military authority (like refusing to obey orders).
Treason: While sedition is a serious offense, it is considered less severe than treason, which involves betraying one’s country, or espionage, which involves spying.
—
Semantically speaking in terms of the understandings on the different sides of the Pond, agreed that there are (2) distinct differences, and offer the Military definition as the 3rd. To apply this to Trump’s application the meaning would fall under the Military definition. Particularly since the ‘directive’ given to the Military Personnel by Government Officials (The group of lawmakers included: Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania)*.
*Ref.:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-inquiry-six-democrats-illegal-orders-video/
Anon, thank you for the explanation. As treason, Americans don’t know who was the ream, the committee in power while the puppet Biden held office. It may be foreign powers as well as American citizens. Foreign powers owe allegiance to their nations and cannot commit treason.
The same holds true for each noncitizen within the jurisdiction of the United States. They too cannot commit treason. I’ve heard there are millions both legal and illegal as well as permanent residents noncitizens. This is a deeply concerning circumstance.
^^^ as to treason
Ream should be team
Corrections. Apologies for not using grammarly.
This language hits more of a coup de etat suggestion not only to standing Federal Military bodies but also States’ NGs.
This isn’t merely speech and it is deeply concerning.
This is eevul. It isn’t humorous. Many Americans have perished or have fled the United States.
Thanks for pointing out that Grammarly caught the “ream”. The “team” called themselves the “Politburo”.
Recall how the American fight for freedom also freed all the American slaves? No? Because the fight wasn’t about freedom to decide for themselves, it was freedom to continue to enslave. Even the non-slave states depended on the raw materials supplied by the slave states for a huge chunk of their wealth.
Thinking the key-catch-word “Sedition” is being hurled at the wrong People.
Hunter Biden would be a prime candidate for the target of “Sedition” given his part in the wake of the current Ukrainian disaster.
Most of K-Street for that matter could come under the liable (sic) of “Sedition” for that matter. “Sedition” has a unique place in National Interest, and I would agree with Jonathan that it’s potential for abuse would be great. Perhaps if the word “Sedition” were restricted to use only by that of the SCOTUS, Congress as a whole, it would be palatable. Honestly, we can all attest to the fact that actions of the Actors of the Russian Gate Hoax, Arctic Frost, (the acts of ruin performed in the 2020 Election) were ‘Seditious’ acts to overthrow the Government’s Election processes. There is no “grey-area” in these Acts, it was orchestrated upon a wide spread variety of numerous Acts over time. So if we eviscerate “Sedition”, one can reasonably see that we move the notion directly to Treason.
Treason for Bidens and his politburo, the citizens on shore that is. Silly lunch bucket thought he could just make a foreign phone call from a foreign nation. He thought he was running for the senate.
“the administration has complied with adverse decisions” This portion of Professor Turley’s hits the nail on the head when discussing the “NO KINGS” movement. They do not want to listen to or acknowledge the fact that he is complying with the courts decisions win or lose. Again the spoiled brat only sees things from their perspective.
*. Thoughts and words are our dreams. This is the spirit. The spirit of our words and our thoughts have form. If you speak it, you have done it.
I dream of peace.
I think their comments come at a time when Americans are struggling to unite.
Not sedition. How about 18 USC Ch.115:2387?
I voted for Trump three times but I think he makes mistakes. And I consider hurling accusations of sedition at his opponents to be a serious error. If Trump and those who work with him give orders and then defend giving those orders in a court of law, when Democrats start their brain dead screeching about disobeying ‘illegal orders’ it seems more than sufficient to me for Trump and others to point that such an suggestion is nonsense and leave it at that. I don’t think making an accusation of sedition is justified or even needed. In other words, give the American people who support Trump and even the independents credit for being capable of sorting out some things on their own.
A healthy republic is like a healthy body: most of the work is daily responsibility. Doctors come after we fail ourselves; government should be the same. When citizens stop doing the upkeep of freedom, institutions step in to manage what we neglected — and then begin to control what they manage. Liberty survives only where citizens act as the first line of defense.
I disagree. The definition of “sedition” is “rebellion”. That’s exactly what these congressional individuals were calling for, is it not?
No they did not. Can you read minds?
No they did not. Can you read minds?
You hope to cosplay as being the one who can read minds?
They intended to sow distrust in senior leadership by insinuating our military’s most senior officers were issuing those under their command illegal orders. These contemptible Democrats using their former service as some special type of authority did not issue such a “reminder” when The Oval Office House Plant’s senior officers were focused on “white rage”, critical Marxist race theory, and deserting Americans left behind in Afghanistan.
If you claim to know otherwise, convince us you are capable of reading the minds of those Democrats.
Rabble:
The first part of the video had them talking about how the current administration is setting dangerous (read: “illegal”) precedence, and threatening the Constitution not from without, but within. Establishing the administration as an enemy and an illegal/illegitimate entity.
Then they “reminded” the military that they “must refuse illegal orders.” I.E. they are illegitimate, so everything they say is illegal.
I won’t engage neutrally with anyone who takes a microsecond of the video and claims it as the truth.
Liberty is a lagging system by design. We punish real harm, not evil intent. The alternative is preemptive justice and thought crimes, which destroy liberty itself. The solution isn’t more government, but restored rights, especially speedy trials, and an enlightened, self-reliant citizenry willing to hold people accountable for actions, not speech.
Free people don’t trade liberty for security. They accept liberty’s risks and shoulder its responsibilities.
Olly, you say…evil intent is not punished? What of “with malice” or a depraved heart.
Eugene Debs was imprisoned for sedition. President Wilson loved that law almost as much as he loved segregation which was with deep devotion. Even the often applauded Justice Holmes sustained the conviction in a unanimous Supreme Court decision. President Warren G. Harding commuted the sentence in 1921. Holmes later back away from his Debs decision perhaps under the influence of Judge Learned Hand.