Ted Lieu Encourages California National Guardsmen to Mutiny Rather Than Serve in Los Angeles

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

California Democrat Ted Lieu used a press briefing by House Democrat leaders to encourage members of the California Army National Guard, which now protects federal property, and employees in Los Angeles to engage in mutiny.

Advertisement

"The legal authority that Trump is using is 10 USC section 12046. I encourage all of you to read it. I specifically say the only way you can do this is through the orders of the governors of the states. Governor Newsom clearly has not given this order. National Guard troops are following unlawful orders. I ask every National Guard person who is under this order to read the order, to see if it came from Governor Newsom, and read the law, and then decide for themselves if they are following unlawful orders."

Before going into the details of Lieu's extraordinarily irresponsible statement, let's review what he's talking about. The law President Trump used to federalize some members of the California National Guard to protect federal property and federal agents carrying out their duties in Los Angeles is 10 U.S. Code § 12406, which states, "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States." Various legal experts point out that this provision was never intended to apply to situations where the governor's refusal to protect federal property and agents caused the problem. 


RELATED:

Gavin Newsom Prepares to Sue Trump to Keep the LA Riots Going – RedState

Advertisement

New: Judge Responds to Newsom's Emergency Motion to Stop Trump From Deploying Troops in Los Angeles – RedState


The fact that California Governor Gavin Newsom did not try to countermand the order and the mobilization was directed by California's state Adjutant General all indicate that the letter and intent of the law were met, as the government points out in its response to Newsom's lawsuit. The law doesn't allow Newsom to refuse to cooperate.

More to the point, the reason National Guard troops are being called to federal service is because Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and much of California's Democrat power structure are actively attempting to thwart the enforcement of federal immigration law and directly encouraging the rioters. Allowing the people responsible for the unrest to prevent a response to that unrest would be a nonsensical reading of the statute.

Soldiers following Lieu's counsel have a huge barrier to cross. First and foremost, all orders are presumed lawful, and the burden of proof is on the individual to show the order is not lawful. The Manual for Courts-Martial makes that exceedingly clear.

(a) Lawfulness of the order. 

  • (i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.   
  • (ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge. 
Advertisement

A great example of paying the price for a personal interpretation of military orders is the court-martial of Specialist Michael New for refusing to wear a blue UN beret with his uniform when deployed on a UN-sponsored mission. New determined that this order was illegal. His opinion got him a bad conduct discharge.

In short, Lieu is asking soldiers to apply their personal interpretation to a federal statute that is currently under litigation and take the side of their governor over that of their commander-in-chief.

The stakes here a pretty high. If two or more soldiers take Lieu's advice, they become part of a mutiny (Article 94 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice).

(b) Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties. Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties requires collective insubordination and necessarily includes some combination of two or more persons in resisting lawful military authority. This concert of insubordination need not be preconceived, nor is it necessary that the insubordination be active or violent. It may consist simply of a persistent and concerted refusal or omission to obey orders, or to do duty, with an insubordinate intent, that is, with an intent to usurp or override lawful military authority. The intent may be declared in words or inferred from acts, omissions, or surrounding circumstances.

Even discussing the issue brings a degree of legal jeopardy (Article 82, Solicitation).

(2) Form of solicitation. Solicitation may be by means other than word of mouth or writing. Any act or conduct which reasonably may be construed as a serious request or advice to commit any offense under the UCMJ may constitute solicitation. It is not necessary that the accused act alone in the solicitation or in the advising; the accused may act through other persons in committing this offense.

Advertisement

Even though Lieu could technically be recalled to active duty and court-martialed as he is a retired USAF colonel, the reality is that he faces no personal jeopardy while following the Maoist playbook of trying to provoke an overreaction by the administration and creating a "martyr" for the cause in the form of some mdwit barracks lawyer who wasn't as smart as he thought.

This behavior is specifically why federalizing some National Guardsmen was necessary. When political leaders try to prevent the enforcement of the law, as Lieu is doing, then the rules change.

We are in a death struggle with the forces of progressivism and the Deep State that acts as its guardian. As the Trump administration struggles to uproot the people and policies that have put our liberty and nation at risk, it is resisted at every turn. You can do your part by staying informed of the issues. Join RedState VIP and help continue our coverage to keep you abreast of the fight. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.

Recommended

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos