He basically addressed the military and told them not to follow orders, as a Captain. He was wearing his uniform- it takes big balls to do that. He should at least stand trial - it’s seditious.
As a retiree, I’ve given this same guidance to Marines: follow lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones. That’s not political it’s basic UCMJ and LOAC training.
What Kelly said is not different in substance. He did not tell troops to disobey orders, and he was not in uniform that claim is false.
Targeting a retired service member for political speech sets a dangerous precedent. Plenty of us retirees are outspoken online. If this is acceptable, anyone could be next.
You can dislike the video as much as I do, but calling it sedition requires ignoring both the facts and the law.
You’re assuming intent that isn’t supported by either the words used or the legal standard.
Saying “follow lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones” is not sedition… it is literally what every service member is taught from day one under UCMJ, LOAC, and ROE. That guidance exists precisely because unlawful orders can occur, regardless of who the POTUS is, and recognizing that fact is not an accusation, it’s doctrine.
Sedition requires an overt act or conspiracy to undermine lawful authority, not an inference, a “subtext,” or disagreement with political leadership. Courts don’t prosecute vibes or hypotheticals.
Labeling retirees as “enemy combatants” for political speech is far more dangerous than the video itself. That logic abandons due process, ignores settled military law, and is exactly how precedent gets abused.
You’re free to dislike the message like I do, but calling this sedition requires ignoring both the facts and the law and that should concern anyone who actually values the Constitution we all swore to uphold.
He basically addressed the military and told them not to follow orders, as a Captain. He was wearing his uniform- it takes big balls to do that. He should at least stand trial - it’s seditious.
https://ucmj.us/894-article-94-mutiny-or-sedition/
As a retiree, I’ve given this same guidance to Marines: follow lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones. That’s not political it’s basic UCMJ and LOAC training.
What Kelly said is not different in substance. He did not tell troops to disobey orders, and he was not in uniform that claim is false.
Targeting a retired service member for political speech sets a dangerous precedent. Plenty of us retirees are outspoken online. If this is acceptable, anyone could be next.
You can dislike the video as much as I do, but calling it sedition requires ignoring both the facts and the law.
You’re right IF you take his statements at face value.
However, what I saw was ill intent. A seditious subtext implying that POTUS is issuing (or will issue) illegal orders.
This seditious intent was meant to place doubt in the minds of our military at a critical time in an actual time of war.
From my POV (also a vet) this man (and the other 5) are enemy combatants, and should face trial for seditious conspiracy.
You’re assuming intent that isn’t supported by either the words used or the legal standard.
Saying “follow lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones” is not sedition… it is literally what every service member is taught from day one under UCMJ, LOAC, and ROE. That guidance exists precisely because unlawful orders can occur, regardless of who the POTUS is, and recognizing that fact is not an accusation, it’s doctrine.
Sedition requires an overt act or conspiracy to undermine lawful authority, not an inference, a “subtext,” or disagreement with political leadership. Courts don’t prosecute vibes or hypotheticals.
Labeling retirees as “enemy combatants” for political speech is far more dangerous than the video itself. That logic abandons due process, ignores settled military law, and is exactly how precedent gets abused.
You’re free to dislike the message like I do, but calling this sedition requires ignoring both the facts and the law and that should concern anyone who actually values the Constitution we all swore to uphold.
There was an overt act.
A video with the unrest of sowing division by DOMESTIC ENEMIES who happen to be former military.
I’m done with this conversation, you keep saying the same thing, and so do I. We disagree.