By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to the AP News, the FBI has contacted Democratic lawmakers featured in a social media video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders,” signaling potential inquiry into the matter. This follows the Pentagon’s review of Sen. Mark Kelly for potential military law violations and President Trump’s accusations of sedition against the lawmakers. The lawmakers involved in the video, all of whom have military or intelligence backgrounds, have received requests from the FBI for interviews, though the exact basis of the inquiry remains unclear. The video encouraged troops to reject illegal orders, a message which has ignited the current federal investigation.
Read the original article here
FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders. It seems like a pretty straightforward situation, doesn’t it? Democratic lawmakers, many of whom are veterans, reminded US troops of their constitutional obligations and the right, even the *duty*, to refuse unlawful orders. And now, the FBI wants to interview them. It’s almost too absurd to be real.
The core of the issue is the principle of military obedience. The US military, unlike many others, swears allegiance not to a leader, but to the Constitution. The plaque at West Point explicitly states this, emphasizing that in a conflict between orders and the law, the law must prevail. The implication is crystal clear: troops are not automatons, blindly following commands, but guardians of the Constitution. Therefore, to remind them of this is not only permissible but arguably essential.
Now, imagine the scenario: A Democratic lawmaker, likely a veteran, says something along the lines of, “You are obligated to uphold the Constitution. You have the right to refuse unlawful orders.” That’s it. Simple, direct, based on the oath they all took, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And the FBI wants to know more? What is there to ask? “Did you, in fact, remind troops of their legal obligations?” The FBI seems to imply that encouraging adherence to the law is somehow suspicious.
It’s difficult not to see this as a blatant attempt at intimidation, a heavy-handed tactic to silence dissent. Considering the current political climate, it’s not a stretch to imagine this as a warning shot across the bow, a signal that anyone who dares to question the actions of the current administration will be targeted. The whole situation has shades of a dystopian novel, where simply stating the law can lead to an investigation.
The proposed interactions with the FBI are almost comical. Picture a hypothetical interview: “So, you told service members they could refuse illegal orders?” “Yes, because that’s what their oath, the Constitution, and the UCMJ say.” “Where did you get that information?” “From the basic tenets of American law and military procedure.” One can almost see the FBI agent’s expression growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of anything even remotely illegal happening.
The underlying question is, why is it such an issue to remind anyone of their duty to uphold the law? Why would the FBI even want to investigate something that, on its face, seems completely reasonable? The only real reason is that someone, somewhere, is concerned about the prospect of illegal orders being issued, and they don’t want any resistance. Reminding the troops of their rights under the law will be seen as a challenge. It’s not a suggestion, it’s a threat.
The public reaction is largely dismissive and even furious. Why not investigate the people who might be planning to issue those illegal orders in the first place? Isn’t that the more pressing concern? Instead, we’re focusing on those who are merely reiterating the Constitution and the law of the land. It’s hard to overlook the irony of the situation: those who champion “law and order” are seemingly threatened by adherence to the law.
The call for public interviews is a strategic one. Transparency is the best disinfectant. If the FBI is going to pursue this, it should be done in the full light of day. This would force them to justify their actions, to explain why they find it problematic to remind people of their rights. If they are intending to intimidate those who are standing up for their rights, then publicizing the process might limit the desired outcome.
The FBI’s actions are, at their worst, a cynical misuse of power. It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars and resources. It’s a sad state of affairs when simply quoting the law becomes a subject of investigation. One has to wonder what these agencies are even doing if they are not upholding the law. Their actions may be creating an environment of fear and intimidation. The very people who are charged with defending the Constitution should be the last ones to try and undermine it.
Ultimately, the issue comes down to a fundamental choice: Are we a nation of laws, or are we not? Are we going to allow the erosion of our constitutional principles, or are we going to stand up and defend them? The actions of the FBI in this situation are a test of that commitment.