UCMJ

[catnhatnh]

894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(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 disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

If I were one of a "group of senior military officers" planning to "mobilize public opinion against Obama's decision" I might have to rethink. While retired officers are perfectly within their rights to do so, active duty officers are not. And conspiring with active duty officers and using classified briefings to this end is probably also not so wise...

Take a close look at para. 2 and ponder if active duty officers mobilizing to force a change in stance by their Commander in Chief might be a "disturbance".

Oh yeah...take a look at para.3 sub B for the punishment.

We're a nation of laws, right???

Edited to add link to OP;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4963236

[Winterblues]

1. We must move forward.... Don't look back into those law books.

It doesn't matter how many laws have been broken or who broke them, (unless of course it was a Democrat), that is in the past and it is essential we move forward.... There are so many laws left to break and so little time..

[NeedleCast]

2. Meh, that clause of the UCMJ hasn't been used much in a long time

I had the unfortunate experience of Bush becomeing president while I was in the Army. Many of us, mostly younger soldiers, hated him and spoke out against him all the time.

None of us were ever accused of mutiny or sedition.

[atreides1]

4. Speaking Out

It's not the same thing! Did you or any of your friends discuss going public with your feelings? Did you try to usurp the civilian government in any way?

Well my friend that's what Petraeus and his co-conspirators are planning to do. They don't like the idea that the current administration plans to honor the treaty with Iraq which calls for the redeployment of COMBAT troops. It would seem that the current commander in Iraq along with Petraeus wants to reclassify all COMBAT troops as SUPPORT elements.

By doing this they get around the treaty, and the troops remain in Iraq. All the while the war in Afghanistan will continue to bog down mainly it seems because Petraeus doesn't want to win, he wants a perpetual war situation where he remains in his position.

So what you and your friends did isn't the same thing, and if you were an officer then you would've been charged under Article 88 of the UCMJ.

[MineralMan]

3. Current General staff officers who do this

are generally summarily relieved of duty and forced to retire. President Obama may do that to any officer at any time. Only the foolish would attempt such a thing.

There may even be some recourse for retired officers. Perhaps they could be recalled to duty and shipped off to Greenland or something.

[DKRC]

6. Bust them down in rank

THEN force resignation/retirement.

OTOH ~ I talked to a friend over lunch, who's a former MP, & she's talking Leavenworth at the very least for these bastards!

[ipfilter]

5. The higher you rank the less the UCMJ applies.

I just checked and noticed the oath for officers is different than the oath of enlistment. The officers oath says nothing about obeying the orders of the President of the United States.

Enlisted:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).\


Officer:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)