The themes should be familiar to any regular reader here, that the president has ordered the military to engage in conduct in violation of law and the Constitution and that it is incumbent on the military to refuse to obey illegal orders. For his part, Trump has determined that the law is whatever he says it is and it is the duty of every loyal member of his administration to accept the law and facts as he declares them to be.
Members of Congress, all of whom are either military or intelligence service veterans, crafted a video asserting this, reminding the military that its sworn duty is to the Constitution, not Trump.
Trump did not take well to this video.
Mr. Trump’s series of posts about the video on Thursday accused Ms. Slotkin and her fellow Democrats of traitorous conduct. One of his posts carried his signature sign-off which usually indicates he was the actual author of the post as opposed to an aide. It read: “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.”
On the one hand, the video said nothing that was not an entirely accurate statement of law. On the other, it was a challenge to Trump’s use of the military to do his bidding. So Trump wasn’t satisfied with merely writing “LOCK THEM UP???”
“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Mr. Trump wrote in one post. He shared a different post, written by another person, that said: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”
Was he calling for the execution of members of Congress? Yes and no. It could be read as Trump asserting that the punishment for “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR” was “DEATH!” Then again, it could be read as orders to his lacky at DoJ to act upon his command, or even worse, to his MAGA faithful to carry out his wishes by taking action against these “TRAITORS!!!” Regardless of which you believe it to be, others will view it differently and will take their own meaning from Trump’s words.
Mr. Trump’s posts about imprisonment and death by hanging were difficult to square with his recent calls to lower the temperature of political rhetoric in this country. After the conservative activist and Trump ally Charlie Kirk was murdered in September, Mr. Trump asked in an Oval Office address for “all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died — the values of free speech, citizenship, the rule of law and the patriotic devotion and love of God.”
Mr. Trump said then that it was “long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree.”
It is beyond dispute that Trump is escalating the likelihood of violence, even as he tries to pretend it’s the Democrats, “radical left lunatics” and “communists” who are at fault. Between the politicization of the military, firing of officers who aren’t loyal to Trump, firing of JAG officers and fundamentally changing the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to rubber stamp any action taken by Trump as lawful, we have reached the point where the willingness of the military to either obey illegal orders or refuse them is critical.
Trump called an ABC News reporter’s question in the Oval Office to Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salmon “insubordinate.” As reporters neither work for nor answer to the president, she could not, by definition, be insubordinate. But it reveals Trump’s grasp of his place in the nation, where everyone is somehow duty-bound to conduct themselves according to his wishes and whims. That certainly includes the military.
The video by Elisa Slotkin, et al., all of whom have done something Trump has never done by putting their lives at risk for the nation, was timely, necessary and overwhelmingly accurate. Trump’s reaction is a perfect demonstration of why this is so.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He has also called for more tartar sauce. We will see. I fear the plan for the Arch d’Trump across from the Jefferson Memorial to celebrate 250 may be in serious jeopardy. He can’t afford to execute members of Congress for sedition, he needs their votes for his triumphal arch. I’d settle for more tartar sauce. If he can get that accomplished in the next three years, then I say build him his arch and put him on Mount Rushmore.
What is an unlawful order that requires disobedience? The video left that awfully vague.
Isnt it great that we live in a time where it is possible and likely that the president of the United States will issue unlawful orders? Trump, the wannabe god king is calling for hanging congressmen, and for extra judicial blowing up of boats without due process. Who knows what he is going to do next? Isn’t this fun what trump is doing to our country?
The military, each individual service man or woman, has an obligation to not follow unlawful orders, so as to not repeat what happened in world war 2.
What I want to know is when someone in the military decides that an order is unlawful and inadvertently sabotages up a mission by defying the order, and the order turns out to have been lawful, will the makers of this video send the soldier some money for the soldier’s commissary at Leavenworth?
If you are going to tell soldiers not to obey unlawful orders, you might want to give the soldiers some advice about what an unlawful order might be. Otherwise, it might be left up to someone’s “feels” and “vibes”.
[Ed. Note: There is a process.]
Meh. He’s not the only one, just the latest in a long line of god kings.
See P.J. O’Rourke’s *Parliament of Whores* for further discussion.
Yes, this is a serious issue that those of us who practice military law are dealing with. It is a complex issue. There are groups and others who, unfortunately, are putting out bad or inaccurate advice. This is NOT a comment on what the senators said. As a co-founder of The Orders Project some years ago, this was our news release on Wednesday past.
“Recent public statements have blended politics with a much simpler legal truth: servicemembers must follow lawful orders and need not follow unlawful ones if the orders call for the commission of a crime. Senator Graham’s reminder to follow lawful orders is correct, but some recent warnings about unlawful orders are overstated. The real issue is determining lawfulness.
An order is lawful only if it comes from proper authority, serves a military purpose, and does not violate the Constitution, federal law, or international legal obligations. Personal disagreement or discomfort does not make an order unlawful.
The Orders Project was created by the National Institute of Military Justice to assist military personnel in understanding their options when faced with orders they believe may not be legal. Led by attorneys with extensive experience in military justice, we connect servicemembers with experienced legal counsel who can help them make informed decisions about their duties under the law. Personnel who need assistance are welcome to contact us for a confidential consultation at https://www.ordersproject.com/ [Ed. Note: I am leaving the link in, but I am unfamiliar with this project and take no position with regard to it.]
I should add that military law has long rejected the Nuremberg defense, and that those military personnel who do issue unlawful orders are themselves liable under the UCMJ, even if the order is not followed.