Riot [coordination] in select safe-zone cities [D] control mayor(s) [allow] staged event allow former-active MIL brass assertion of 'Unconstitutional' 'Threat to Constitution' _Mutiny
MSM public optics 'staging' underway.
ALERT readiness: severe-critical
THE ATLANTIC: James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution
In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.
JUNE 3, 2020
James Mattis, the esteemed Marine general who resigned as secretary of defense in December 2018 to protest Donald Trumpâ€™s Syria policy, has, ever since, kept studiously silent about Trumpâ€™s performance as president. But he has now broken his silence, writing an extraordinary broadside in which he denounces the president for dividing the nation, and accuses him of ordering the U.S. military to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens.
MILITARY TIMES: Senior military leaders being called to testify to Congress about George Floyd protest response
Leo Shane III , Joe Gould , and Aaron Mehta
Angry lawmakers will summon top Pentagon leaders to Capitol Hill next week to explain what role military personnel will play in responding to growing demonstrations of racial unrest in major U.S. cities and whether President Donald Trump have overstepped his authority as commander-in-chief.
â€œ(The president) is talking about going to war with the citizens of the United States of America, and that is troubling,â€ said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday.
â€œI am very concerned about what potential role the US military could play in amplifying this misguided rhetoric â€¦ Talking about the United States of America as a battlespace is wrong."
WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Pentagon distances itself from Trump on crowd control and laments 'murder' of George Floyd
by Abraham Mahshie | June 03, 2020 11:03 AM
Esper also distanced himself from Trump by saying he did not support using federal troops to quell protesters. â€œI do not support invoking the Insurrection Act,â€ he said. â€œThe option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire situations. We are not in one of those situations now.â€
Esper admitted that he regretted describing the use of National Guard troops for â€œdominating the battlespaceâ€ in a leaked call Monday with the president and governors.
â€œIn retrospect, I would use different wording,â€ he said, describing the military lexicon. â€œItâ€™s not a phrase focused on people, and certainly not our fellow Americans.â€
WASHINGTON POST: Revolt of the generals
By Jennifer Rubin Opinion writer
June 4, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. UTC
We do not yet know precisely why Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper publicly broke with President Trump on Wednesday, renouncing the use of the Insurrection Act as a means to deploy the military against civilian demonstrators. We can surmise, however, that Pentagon brass was finally fed up and prevailed upon Esper to speak out.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, who had accompanied Trump on his march across Lafayette Square, put out a memo on June 2, which read like a not-very-subtle rebuke of Trumpâ€™s attempt to use the military to suppress protesters [...] James N. Miller, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, announced his resignation from the Science Defense Board in the pages of The Post and upbraided Esper [...] Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, and Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria, superintendent of the Air Force Academy, also spoke up this week in support of the protests for racial justice, with Silveria directly repudiating use of violence against fellow Americans. In addition, Air Force Gen. Joseph L. Lengyel, who heads the National Guard Bureau, put out a statement Wednesday entitled â€œWe Must Do Better,â€ denouncing the racism that has resulted in the deaths of so many unarmed African Americans, urging Americans to listen and learn and reminding us, â€œEveryone who wears the uniform of our country takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and everything for which it stands.â€ He declared that if they are to uphold their oath as service personnel and â€œdecent human beingsâ€ they must uphold the oath. [...] Former defense secretary Jim Mattis blasted Trump for dividing America and accused him of unconstitutional action.]
How else can you flush out the sleeper (traitors) in the military?
The ones who have been waiting to turn on POTUS?
If this is correct, it's a sign that the DS is all out of options.
Because this is an option of last resort.
Art. 94. (Â§ 894.) 2004 Mutiny or Sedition.
(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) whoâ€”
(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;
(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.
U.S. military law requires obedience only to lawful orders. Disobedience to unlawful orders (see Superior orders) is the obligation of every member of the U.S. military, a principle established by the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials following World War II and reaffirmed in the aftermath of the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. However, a U.S. soldier who disobeys an order after deeming it unlawful will almost certainly be court-martialed to determine whether the disobedience was proper. In addition, simple refusal to obey is not mutiny, which requires collaboration or conspiracy to disobedience.