OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
If the atrocious legal advice is, "disobey your commanding officers," then yeah that sounds seditious and it is illegal to advise.
Add up the following:
-
While service members have the right to refuse illegal orders, all orders are presumed lawful, and the burden falls on the service member to prove an order is manifestly unlawful.
-
The video implies without evidence that unlawful orders have already happened.
-
The video therefore implies that current orders which have the presumption of being lawful should be disobeyed.
-
UCMJ 94 says: " (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny; (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;"
So I guess the lingering question is if a coordinated video advising that currently presumed lawful orders should be treated as if they were unlawful counts as a disturbance. But if so, yes, sedition is the word used in the military code.
The video heavily implies that illegal orders have already happened. "This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against citizens... Right now, the threats to our constitution are not just coming from abroad, but from right here at home."
It heavily implies that soldiers should refuse their current orders. However, those orders are presumed legal until proved otherwise by the judicial system. They at the very least are guilty of providing atrocious legal advice.
- Prev
- Next

I played Dispatch. It's fun. It's pretty. It's not really a game but a story with aspects that make it more immersive than a normal TV show. I will be happy to buy whatever else AdHoc Studio comes up with.
More options
Context Copy link