"We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal."
Would this mean that they wouldn't be able to detain John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban?
If the rebellion were a worker's revolution (i.e., Communist) would they also hold by their Orders they will not obey?
The problem is that by refusing to follow some orders, they are disobeying the Constitution where it says "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" (Article I, Section 8).
Also, we have to remember that Article VI says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, how can they refuse to follow a law or action that was made through proper Constitutional procedure? Do they only obey laws that they agree with?
Wouldn't that mean they are guilty of treason (Article III, Section iii), which is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Are they selective in how they interpret the Orders they will Not Obey so that they will protect one group's "rights" over anothers (e.g., John Walker Lindh v. Timothy McVeigh)?
As I like to point out, some people who say they are defending the constitution need to bone up on what it is they are defending!