Here we go again

I wonder every time Trump, the adjudicated rapist and convicted felon who somehow is this country's president, ever really considers what he is saying when he flies into one of his child-like temper tantrums.

Usually, these tantrums are reactions to somebody or something who/that defies or disagrees with his own vision of how to run the country. An authoritarian, in other words. A fascist.

The latest episode (unless something happened last night that I don't know about) occurred after six Democrat Congressmen released a video on Tuesday reminding military and intelligence officers that they have a duty to refuse illegal orders.

Trump, not understanding the Constitution, which he clearly has never read, almost instantly flew into one of his patented rages, declaring that the six Congressmen (Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly and Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan and Jason Crow) "should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL." (The caps are Trump's because he thinks he's shouting and we can hear him better).

The nonsense continued hours later with Trump, showing his illiteracy, claiming "It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.

And then, perhaps most grievously, he posted "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"

Here was Trump calling for the execution of his political foes, who just happen to be duly elected members of the United States Congress. 

And he couldn't be more wrong.

First off, the Congressmen were reminding service members of their duty to not follow illegal orders. Make sure the word "illegal" sticks in your mind because Republican response have conveniently ignored that word to make it sound like the Congressmen are urging servicemen to ignore orders, which clearly they are not.

Secondly, what the Congressmen are doing is basically reading the Constitution. They are explaining the Uniform Code of Military Justice, primarily Article 90 and Article 92. Both articles establish that military personnel obey lawful orders. According to Article 92, an order is unlawful if it violates the Constitution. An exception to Article 90 says a service member is not required to obey an order that violates the law. In fact, they are obligated not to follow an illegal order.

That would have been nice at My Lai. Or Abu Ghraib. Look them up.

Thirdly, what the Congressmen did was not sedition. And sedition is not a capital offense. The only capital offense stated in the Constitution is for being convicted as a traitor, not for reading what is written in the Constitution.

When is a military order illegal? Courts have held that an order's unlawfulness must be clear and obvious. Examples include:

• Orders to target civilians (My Lai).

• Orders to falsify documents.

• Orders to commit crimes such as theft or assault.

• Torturing or abusing detainees  (Abu Ghraib).

• Engaging in unauthorized domestic law enforcement actions, such as using military force to suppress lawful protest of First Amendment Rights or the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement.

In other words, pretty much common sense. But if a service member has doubt if an order is illegal or not, he still has the judge advocate general (JAG) to consult.

JAG officers (lawyers) are embedded with most troops. 

Even at this moment, there is discussion as to whether Trump's drone attacks on alleged drug boats – which so far have resulted in 82 deaths – are legal. The senior JAG officer at U.S. Southern Command, is concerned the deaths are extrajudicial killings. But guess what? Officials at the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, as well as other senior government officials, have overruled JAG. Then what's the point of even having a JAG? This administration has already devastated the inspectors general corps, a critical guard rail for a democracy.

So now the question arises: just who is in violation of the law? We've seen the National Guard and Marines sent to major cities to quell presumed violence. We've seen speed boats blown out of international waters without the benefit of due process. We've seen people – citizens – rounded up and deported for no other reason than having brown skin.

Trump, by definition, is the country's Commander-in-Chief. He might want to consider the legality of the tantrums he's suggesting.

Like calling for the execution of your political opponents.