Seditious Chaos on the Left
Segment #673
All these Dem intel or military types that made this atrocious misleading and seditious tape understand there are procedures for refusing a specific order as outline below. Put the debate and legalities aside and make a simple assessment. As a pysychological operation could any of our enemies to include China, Russia, North Kore or Iran run a better program that having US political leaders call for blanket chaos in our military. Their vague blanket demand for disobedience is the very definition of sedition.
Sedition refers to conduct or speech that incites rebellion, resistance, or disloyalty against a lawful government or established authority. It typically involves actions (such as organizing, speaking, or writing) aimed at stirring up discontent, insurrection, or violence to undermine or overthrow the government, but it often falls short of actual treason or armed revolt. The term originates from Latin seditio, meaning "a going apart" or discord.
As a former Naval officer I find this demand for insurrection in light of the Dems pursuit of January 6th, appalling and at very least traitorous in an effort for self promotion. Turning up the heat is exactly the methodology our enemies would use to divide us and weaken us. God help us if these America haters every get in power again.
The video in question was released on November 18-19, 2025, by six Democratic members of Congress with military or intelligence backgrounds: Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), and Maggie Goodlander (D-NH). Titled something along the lines of "Don't Give Up the Ship," it directly addresses active-duty military and intelligence personnel, reminding them that they swore an oath to the Constitution, that threats to it are now "from right here at home," and repeatedly stating: "Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders... You must refuse illegal orders." The video does not cite any specific order, policy, or scenario that would qualify as illegal.Critics (primarily Republicans, Trump administration officials, and conservative commentators) have called the video vague (or worse) for the following main reasons:
No specific examples of alleged illegal orders are provided
The lawmakers never name a single order, policy, or action by the Trump administration that they claim is unlawful. This leaves service members to subjectively decide what counts as "illegal" without guidance, potentially based on political disagreement rather than clear legal violations. Sources across the spectrum note this omission explicitly.Risk of undermining the chain of command and civilian control of the military
Encouraging troops to refuse orders without defining what qualifies as illegal could lead to selective obedience or mutiny. In practice, "illegal" orders must typically be "patently" or manifestly unlawful (e.g., ordering a war crime) for immediate refusal; borderline cases go through legal review up the chain or military lawyers. Broad, unspecified calls to "refuse illegal orders" are seen as politicizing this duty and eroding discipline.Implies all or many Trump orders might be illegal without evidence
By framing domestic constitutional threats as coming "from right here at home" and pairing it with the refusal message, critics argue the video implicitly paints the elected commander-in-chief and his administration as a source of unlawful directives. This is viewed as preemptively delegitimizing the presidency and sowing distrust in lawful orders.Lower-ranking troops lack the authority or information to judge legality
Junior service members rarely have the full context or legal training to determine an order's lawfulness on the spot. High-level determinations of legality (e.g., war powers disputes, Posse Comitatus Act issues) are made by commanders, judges, or Congress — not individual soldiers. A vague blanket reminder is seen as irresponsible because it could confuse or pressure troops into insubordination over political differences.Perceived as partisan fearmongering rather than genuine legal education
The timing (early in Trump's second term) and lack of concrete examples make it appear as preemptive resistance theater rather than a neutral restatement of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) principles, which are already taught in basic training. Critics point out that "following orders" is not a defense for clearly illegal acts (post-Nuremberg precedent), but the video flips this into what looks like an open invitation to defy the administration.
These criticisms have come from Trump himself (calling it "seditious behavior" punishable by death), Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, Mike Johnson, Marsha Blackburn, and others — while defenders (the lawmakers and some legal experts) insist it's merely restating longstanding military law and doctrine that troops must disobey manifestly illegal orders. The vagueness — specifically the absence of any named illegal order or scenario — is the core reason many label the video reckless or dangerous rather than helpful.
Uniform Code of Military Justice
Punishments for Disobeying Lawful Orders Under the UCMJThe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires service members to obey lawful orders. Disobeying a lawful order is a serious offense, with punishments varying by the article violated, the nature of the order, and whether it's peacetime or wartime. Orders are presumed lawful unless they are "manifestly" or "patently" illegal (e.g., ordering a war crime like murdering civilians).Key punitive articles and maximum punishments (as directed by court-martial; actual sentences can be lesser):
UCMJ Article
Offense Description
Maximum Punishment (Peacetime)
Maximum Punishment (Wartime or Aggravated Cases)
Article 90
Willfully disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer
Dishonorable discharge (DD), forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years
Death or such other punishment as court-martial directs (rarely applied today)
Article 91
Willfully disobeying a lawful order from a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Bad-conduct discharge (BCD), forfeiture of all pay/allowances, confinement for 1 year (varies by rank of issuer)
Higher if aggravated
Article 92
Failure to obey a lawful general order/regulation, or any other lawful order; also covers dereliction of duty
- General orders/regulations: DD, total forfeitures, 2 years confinement - Other lawful orders: BCD, total forfeitures, 6 months confinement - Willful dereliction: BCD, total forfeitures, 6 months confinement - Negligent dereliction: Forfeiture of 2/3 pay for 3 months, 3 months confinement
Can be enhanced if resulting in death/grievous harm (up to 18 months for negligent)
Article 94
Mutiny or sedition (e.g., concerted refusal to obey with intent to override authority)
Death or such other punishment as court-martial directs
Death (statutory maximum, though not executed in modern era)
These are maximums under the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). Lesser forms of discipline (e.g., nonjudicial punishment under Article 15) can include reduction in rank, extra duties, or partial forfeitures without court-martial.Procedures for Refusing an Order Perceived as IllegalService members swear an oath to the Constitution first, and DoD policy (e.g., DoD Law of War Manual, §18.6) states they are bound to obey only lawful orders and have a duty to disobey manifestly unlawful ones. "Following superior orders" is not a defense to criminal acts (post-Nuremberg principle, codified in UCMJ and Rules for Courts-Martial).However, refusal carries high risk: If the order is later deemed lawful, the refuser faces prosecution for disobedience. Legality is ultimately decided by a military judge or court-martial, not the individual on the spot.Key Principles
Presumption of legality — Orders are inferred lawful; disobey at your peril unless "manifestly illegal" (no reasonable person could think it's lawful, e.g., "shoot unarmed prisoners").
No duty to obey unlawful orders — But borderline/gray-area orders (e.g., constitutional debates like Posse Comitatus violations or war powers) must generally be obeyed pending review.
Junior members lack authority — Lower-ranking troops rarely have full context or legal expertise; refusal is risky and often inappropriate.
Recommended Procedures (per DoD guidance, MCM, and military legal practice)
Seek clarification immediately — Ask the issuer politely for explanation if the order seems unclear or questionable (without delaying execution in urgent situations).
Consult up the chain of command — Report concerns to the next superior or use "open door" policy.
Request legal advice — Contact a military judge advocate (JAG), staff judge advocate (SJA), or inspector general (IG). Every unit has access to legal counsel for this purpose.
Formal channels if needed:
File an Article 138 complaint (redress of wrongs).
Contact IG or congressional representatives.
In extreme cases, seek mast (Navy/Marines) or other service-specific relief.
Refuse only if manifestly illegal — State refusal respectfully (e.g., "Sir/Ma'am, I believe this order is unlawful because [brief reason]"). Document everything.
If obeyed under protest — Carry out while formally objecting; this preserves a potential defense if prosecuted later.
Post-incident — If charged, the illegality of the order becomes a complete defense at court-martial.
In practice, the system is designed so senior leaders and lawyers filter out unlawful directives before they reach junior troops. Widespread refusal without clear illegality could itself trigger Article 94 (mutiny) charges.These rules balance discipline with the rule of law—service members are not robots, but instantaneous subjective judgment on complex legal issues is not permitted. If facing this situation, consult a military defense attorney immediately.