I think we're well beyond a salvage operation on this derelict and now have to consider it a hazard to navigation.
92. Any person subject to this chapter who—
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
94. (a) Any person subject to this chapter who—
(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.
So… yeah. On the other hand, thanks to "heel spurs" this particular… person… is not "subject to this chapter" — the Uniform Code of Military Justice. One wonders what this guy might have said 35 years ago. Actually, we need not wonder too much.
In describing their motives for riding roughshod over the constitutional restraints built into our form of government, Admiral Poindexter and Lieutenant Colonel North used almost the identical words: “This is a dangerous world,” they said. That, my fellow citizens, is an excuse for autocracy, not for policy.
Because no times were more dangerous than when our country was born, when revolution was our midwife. Our system of government has withstood the tests and tensions of civil conflict, depression and two world wars, times hardly less challenging than our own present.
Indeed, as our greatest military leaders, such as Washington, Marshall, and Eisenhower have recognized, our form of government is what gives us strength. It must be safeguarded, particularly when times are dangerous and the temptation of arrogate power is the greatest.
Vigilance abroad does not require us to abandon our ideals or the rule of law at home. On the contrary, without our principles and without our ideals, we have little that is special or worthy to defend.
At least those… derelicts… only had to worry about Article 92. (I can't say what I really think because at the time I was subject to Article 88, and some of the derelicts fell within its scope.)