LA Times calls for Military Coup against a President Trump. Free speech or Treasonous speech?

You would have a lot more credibility if you posted a link. Because frankly, I find it hard to believe, and reading the comments, I think I'm right.

"He's Not President Yet, Just a Populist Candidate Spouting Xenophobic Garbage." - PO1 William "Chip" Nagel

His dog whistle must be calling the support of the Xenophobe Marcus Luttrell am I right?

Free speech -- from the same people that whine every time someone points out Obama's fraud and treason!

I don't think it meets the Constitutional definition of Treason (would be closer to Sedition):

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.

However that does not make it acceptable either.

The issue however is that the Constitution does not have a "mechanism" for Military Coups, but it does have a "mechanism" for Impeachment. That's the PROPER way to remove officials we don't like/want/need/etc.

Using "force of arms" AS AN ORGANIZATION goes against our Oath to Defend and Support the Constitution. The President is the Commander in Chief. Period. However, there are mechanisms to avoid conflicts between him and the Constitution itself.

As for the People, they have every Right to Protest verbally and call for the removal of ANY Public Official. We're Citizens, not Subjects. Virtue of being elected only offers someone the Protections of the Constitution's Framework just like everyone else.

He's Not President Yet, Just a Populist Candidate Spouting Xenophobic Garbage.

They should be hung for treason!

First, this isn't a call for a military coup: "Americans viewing the recent failed coup attempt in Turkey as some exotic foreign news story — the latest, violent yet hardly unusual political development to occur in a region constantly beset by turmoil — should pause to consider that the prospect of similar instability would not be unfathomable in this country if Donald Trump were to win the presidency."

The article then goes on to argue that one might be necessary if and when Trump began issuing illegal orders and attempted to force the military to carry out those illegal orders.

So the second point is that this is speculative, no one really knows what Trump woudl do as President... however if any President began issuing what were clearly illegal orders and trying to force the military to carry those orders out, it's not inconceivable that those in the military might remove the President from power.

I'm also reminded of this article: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/15/gop-propaganda-succeeds-43-republicans-support-military-coup-america.html