By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a video from Democratic lawmakers urging soldiers to refuse “unlawful” orders, Donald Trump ignited controversy by accusing them of “sedition” and calling for their arrest, sparking outrage among military legal professionals. These experts criticize Trump’s broad and inappropriate use of legal terms while simultaneously expressing concern over the safety of lawmakers. Although many agree that some orders, such as the US’s actions against alleged drug trafficking boats, may be illegal, military attorneys warn of the immense burden placed on service members who refuse orders and stress the need for clarification and guidance. Furthermore, the politicization of the military is highlighted as a dangerous trend, putting junior service members in a precarious position and potentially leading to a breakdown in the core principle that every order is presumed lawful.
Read the original article here
‘Horribly wrong’: US veterans condemn Trump’s politicization of military. It’s hard to ignore the sentiment bubbling up, the clear disapproval from those who’ve dedicated their lives to serving this country. Many veterans are speaking out, and the core of their concern is the perceived politicization of the military, a concept that strikes at the very heart of their oath and the integrity of the armed forces. They’re witnessing something they believe is deeply damaging, something that undermines the values they fought to protect.
One of the most immediate issues is the perception of Trump giving comfort to perceived enemies, a move that veterans view as a betrayal of their service and sacrifice. The act of pardoning individuals involved in the January 6th events, regardless of their motives, is seen as particularly egregious. These veterans believe that such actions send a dangerous message, implying that loyalty to a political figure trumps allegiance to the Constitution and the country. This isn’t just about disagreement; it’s about what they see as a fundamental distortion of the principles they swore to uphold.
The deployment of the military within US cities, and the targeting of what they view as unauthorized activities, are also points of contention. These actions, particularly when viewed through the lens of a former leader, seem to cross the line, blurring the boundaries between domestic law enforcement and military operations. Veterans are trained to defend against external threats, not to be involved in internal disputes, and this shift is seen as a violation of the military’s traditional role and responsibilities.
The frustration is palpable, with many expressing deep disappointment in fellow veterans who supported the former President. The tone is one of both anger and bewilderment, questioning how someone who many see as a threat to the nation could garner such support. The call for reflection is clear: veterans are urging each other to reconsider their choices and to stand up against what they perceive as a dangerous ideology.
The very definition of “insurrection” is being discussed, with the events of January 6th being assessed against this standard. The veterans’ perspective is that the actions taken on that day, and the motivations behind them, met the textbook definition of insurrection. This is not just a matter of semantics; it is a judgment that carries significant weight, as it implies a deliberate attempt to overthrow the government.
The debate includes a Constitutional perspective, particularly around the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, and questions about the former President’s eligibility to hold office again. The idea is that an insurrectionist should be disqualified from running for the highest office, and the former President’s actions put this question at the forefront. The veterans are expressing concern about potential loopholes and the need for stricter enforcement of the Constitution.
The discussion also turns to the potential of the 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of a president deemed unable to discharge his duties. However, the veterans acknowledge the practical difficulties of invoking this amendment, and the preference instead for the impeachment process. They underscore the importance of checks and balances in a democracy.
Ultimately, the veterans’ condemnation reflects a profound sense of betrayal and a deep concern for the future of the nation. They are speaking out because they believe the principles they fought for are under attack. Their message is a call to action, an urging to the public and to their fellow veterans to recognize the dangers of political manipulation and to defend the integrity of the military and the Constitution. Their stance is a powerful reminder of the sacrifices they’ve made and the values they hold dear.