Because I Said So...

I have been accused by some of having a severe case of what is called TDS.  I thought maybe this was a psychological disorder, so I decided to research the condition known as TDS.  Here is what I found:

The term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) was coined by conservative political commentator and editor of National Review, Jonah Goldberg, in 2010, years before Donald Trump's presidency. It was later popularized in political commentary to describe a supposed condition where political opponents have an irrational and extreme aversion to Donald Trump. The term is not a recognized medical diagnosis and has no specific doctor who developed it. 
 
Yet this term is thrown around when anyone may show displeasure with the President.  Now here is a question for you, the reader.  Do you suppose Marjorie Taylor Green has been told she has a case of TDS since her “split” from the President?  After all, the President has called her a “traitor”. 
 
Or is it a “go to phrase” for those who blindly support this administration?
 
I have my opinion…
 
I would like to continue this entry and write about and express my thoughts regarding the video made by six elected officials speaking to a camera and proclaiming military personnel do not have to follow unlawful orders.  The six legislators who appeared in the video regarding "lawful" (specifically, "illegal" or "unlawful") orders are all Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds are:

• Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.)
• Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)
• Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.)
• Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.)
• Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.)
• Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.

While this video may be considered controversial, it is accurate.  I have read portions of the Department of Defense War Manual and this is what I found under Title 18 of the same manual.

18.3 DUTIES OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
Each member of the armed services has a duty to: (1) comply with the law of war in good faith; and (2) refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit violations of the law of war. 

18.3.1.2 Practical Ways in Which the Requirement to Comply With the Law of War in Good Faith is Met by Individual Service Members. Individual service members are not expected to be experts in the law of war. The burden on individual members of the armed forces to know the relevant requirements of the law of war is addressed in practice through the following ways.
 
First, service members should receive training commensurate with their duties on the relevant requirements of the law of war. 

Second, law of war requirements have also been incorporated into domestic law, policy, regulations, and orders, which often are reviewed by counsel for consistency with the law of war.  Moreover, in most cases, the requirements and standards in applicable policies, regulations, and orders will often impose higher standards than the requirements of the law of war.

Third, when appropriate, service members should ask questions through appropriate channels and consult with the command legal adviser on issues relating to the law of war. 

18.3.2 Refuse to Comply With Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations. In addition, orders should not be construed to authorize implicitly violations of law of war. 

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.  Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal.  On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.

And, wanting to be as sure as I could be about this topic, I also read portions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Although the UCMJ doesn’t clearly state military personnel may disobey an unlawful order, what it does indicate is that it is the duty of the military to obey lawful orders.  This implies unlawful orders do not need to be obeyed.  This is written in Article 92 of the UCMJ.

Also, to clarify what an unlawful order is, it is described as a violation of the Constitution, laws of the United States, or regulations of the military, or if military personnel are directed to commit a crime or unethical act.

As one may imagine, this video sparked the ire of the Commander in Chief.  From USA Today, the President’s wrath was summed up in a late night posting on his Social Truth account.

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” Trump wrote.  “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.  Their words cannot be allowed to stand-We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET”

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” he added in a later post.

I have spoken with two Air Force veterans about this situation.  They expressed real concerns about this.  Both indicated that choosing to disobey an order that may be deemed unlawful could cost one a career, a livelihood, a dishonorable discharge, a mental scar.  Yet both veterans understood the consequence of obeying an unlawful order, something that may mar a person’s psychological make-up for years to come.  It seemed to me, both veterans were telling me there is no correct, moral answer.

In other words, one is damned if one does, and damned if one does not.

I completely understand; it would be a decision which could prove to be costly.

While the President has gone off the rails over this video, there is nothing wrong with what the six elected officials did.  First, all six exercised their 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech.  Secondly, what was said by the six elected officials is correct.  So, unless I am mistaken, there has been no crime committed…unless one subscribes to the President’s angry posts on social media.

I have taken the liberty to research the speech of the President given on January 6th, 2021 while standing before a crowd on the Ellipse.  NPR has a transcript of the entire speech given by President Trump minutes before an angry crowd put the Capitol to siege.  I have included the site address for the entire speech; it is long and unjointed, but it will demonstrate the President has committed Seditious Acts and language…and in my opinion, even though he is exercising his 1st Amendment rights, his words sparked the attack on the Capitol.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

During this speech, the President indicated he wanted Vice President Pence to violate his oath of office and the Constitution and not perform his duty of certifying the Electoral College Vote.  Pence said he would not do that.

During his speech, the President indicated there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.  In fact, his inner circle of lawyers filed over 60 lawsuits in various jurisdictions regarding voter fraud.  Nearly all of those lawsuits were thrown out of court for a lack of evidence.

In an attempt to reclaim the Presidency, led by one of Trump’s lawyers, John Eastman, a plan was hatched to have Trump supporters sign an affidavit claiming to be the rightful Presidential Electors (and supporters of Trump) of certain states, and present that to Congress as the correct Electoral vote.  As we know, this attempt failed, led to Eastman’s disbarment in California, and litigation in Georgia and Arizona.

Finally, in Trump’s own words, during the speech on the Ellipse, he said, and I quote, 

“And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So, we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”

In my view, asking the Vice President to violate his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution is similar to giving an unlawful order.  "Similar" is the operative word.  Filing over 60 lawsuits regarding voter fraud and having almost all thrown out for lack of evidence, isn’t illegal, but certainly brings forth the question regarding integrity and character.  

The so-called Presidential Electors conspired (felony) to steal (felony) the 2020 election for President Trump, and in a weird so of manner, he would be guilty of receiving stolen goods (felony).  

​And, just for the sake of mentioning the President’s remarks again…what does “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore” illicit from the crowd on the Ellipse?  Violence at the Capitol…we all saw film of it; we all heard testimony of it.

Traitors?  Seditious behavior and speech?  Punishment by Death?  No, over 1500 Presidential Pardons by President Trump.

And, as for those six elected officials speaking about unlawful orders…other than what the President and administration has offered nothing more than “I said so”, what empirical evidence has the President and administration given to support the claim of “narco-terrorist” boats that need to be destroyed on the high seas?  Nothing!  Unlawful orders to commit murder?  We are not at war with the narco-terrorists because Congress hasn’t declared war, nor has the President asked for a declaration of war.
 
I stand with the six elected officials.  Their video did not say disobey an order; instead, the video said to military personnel, you are charged with the duty to disobey an unlawful order.  And the unlawful orders that may be issued?  

I have my opinion; I hope you have one as well.