Trump‘s comments on Democrats spark sedition Concerns, Echoing Khashoggi Alarm; Free Speech Experts Weigh In
WASHINGTON – Former President Donald trump’s recent rhetoric targeting Democratic members of Congress, including calls referencing execution, has ignited a firestorm of criticism adn raised concerns about escalating political violence. The controversy comes as free speech experts draw parallels to the atmosphere surrounding the 2018 murder of Washington post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, warning of the dangers of dehumanizing political opponents.
Trump, on Friday, defended comments widely interpreted as advocating violence against Democrats, stating he was not “threatening death,” according to NBC News.The initial remarks stemmed from accusations leveled against Democratic lawmakers regarding their questioning of military officials and interpretations of military law.
Democratic senator Chris Murphy condemned Trump’s statements on X (formerly Twitter), writing, “The President of the United States just called for Democratic members of Congress to be executed. If you’re a person of influence in this country and you haven’t picked a side, maybe now would be the time to pick a fucking side.”
Congressional republicans have offered a mixed response. House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump, asserting he was reacting to “wildly inappropriate” behavior from Democrats, as reported by Politico. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky expressed more direct criticism, stating, “I don’t think it’s an excellent idea to talk about jailing your political opponents or hanging them or whatever else.” Paul cautioned that such rhetoric could incite unstable individuals to take violent action, adding, ”it’s the death penalty. Maybe I’ll just take matters into my own hands, which is not something we should be encouraging,” according to ABC News.
Advocacy group Steady State, comprised of former U.S. national security professionals,released a statement criticizing Trump’s accusations of “treason” and “insurrection” against the lawmakers,characterizing their statements as a “clear and calm reflection on the limits of presidential authority and the ‘obligations of all who swear an oath to the Constitution.'”
Steady State further highlighted established U.S. military doctrine, rooted in the Nuremberg trials following World War II, which mandates troops to refuse unlawful orders. The group warned that Trump’s rhetoric “misinforms the public, endangers the professional ethics of the armed forces, signals that lawful restraint is now treated as partisan, and creates incentives for abuse of the chain of command.” Thay emphasized the importance of an apolitical and professional military governed by law, warning that undermining these norms could cause “real and lasting damage.” Military Times reported on the historical context of refusing unlawful orders, tracing it back to the post-WWII legal precedents. The Army Lawyer also details training on the defense of superior orders.
the White House has not yet issued a comment on the matter.
