The Grand Illusion
Senator Mark Kelly, a former astronaut and a retired Navy captain, joined with five other Representatives and Senators, all Democrats, who had served the nation either in the military or the intelligence community in releasing a statement that said military officers had the right to refuse to carry out “illegal orders.”
Trump immediately denounced the six and called their actions “seditious” and supported the idea of hanging all six. Subsequent to that, Secretary of Defense/War Hegseth began action to “court martial” Senator Kelly.
First, none of the six suggested disobeying an existing law. They only expressed an opinion that the Constitution laid out rights and duties and that military officers should not obey orders by the President that were illegal under the Constitution.
Trump and Hegseth are taking the position that any order by the President is, by definition, legal, despite the words of the Constitution that suggest that a President is not omnipotent. In the case of Richard Nixon, the Congress clearly rejected Nixon’s contention that any action by the President was, de facto, legal.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. In addition, the Constitution clearly states that the opinions of Senators and Representatives in pursuit of their duties are protected speech.
Trump had a temper-tantrum over being told that it was possible that not everything he “orders” may not be legal, and that if he issued illegal orders, senior officers had the right to refuse such orders. Hegseth then followed up with a statement that all members of the military should presume that ALL orders are legal and should be followed and that those who did not agree would be investigated under military law.
When a President declares that opinions and advice contrary to his beliefs and wishes are seditious and treasonous and should result in capital punishment, particularly when those opposing his views are citing the Constitution, he’s not behaving as the President of the United States but as third-world dictator. And, of course, loyal lackey Hegseth immediately followed orders to prosecute Senator Kelly for exercising his rights as a citizen and a Senator.
That should tell Americans something, but will it?
I suspect that Trump’s psychological and physical decline will not be obvious to most – until all of a sudden it is. I would love to see a multi-year montage of video showing such when the inevitable happens. I think that would be enlightening to the public.
I’m not a big fan of placing age limits on public officials, but maybe that should be revisited at some point. I would definitely love to see some type of threshold civics certification for someone to be eligible for office. It is a requirement for naturalization as I recall, with a 60% pass threshold, but only asked 10 of 100 possible. Why can’t we demand competency and professionalism from our representatives. Can you imagine Trump being able to answer correctly most of those 100 questions???
Perhaps Mark Kelly should ask for an open Court Marshall hearing to call their bluff. I’m not sure that’s even remotely possible. Jack Smith has done just that when subpoenaed by Congress to testify (in a closed hearing) about his investigations into Trump. A lot of this is intimidation by this administration and we’ve seen that most who fight back (if they have means) can prevail as well as make the administration look foolish (even more so that is).
It’s only one year in this go round and I’m exhausted from it all. I sense that feeling is widespread.
From:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2025/11/24/pentagon-says-its-investigating-senator-for-illegal-orders-video/
… Troops, especially uniformed commanders, do have specific obligations to reject orders that are unlawful, if they make that determination. While commanders have military lawyers on their staffs to consult with in making such a determination, rank-and-file troops who are tasked with carrying out those orders are rarely in a similar position and often have to rely on their superiors. Broad legal precedence also holds that just following orders — colloquially known as the “Nuremberg defense,” as it was used unsuccessfully by senior Nazi officials to justify their actions under Adolf Hitler — doesn’t absolve troops. Yet, there has been little reaction online from troops to the lawmakers’ video. A former service member who helps run an online military forum and spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation said the lawmakers’ message is unlikely even to reach troops because the video was posted only on X and was far too long to be reposted on platforms like TikTok where troops actually consume information. …
All Military personnel are human by definition; they will hear of this video and will view it out of curiosity. What the result of viewing the video will be, will depend on the individual, and their psychological baggage but more specifically what they were made to believe in their service to date.
I never got near boot camp. What, if any, actual “lessons” do the potential veterans get regarding “military orders”? The trainers/teachers will certainly instill in them the necessity of following orders in combat if they wish to continue living and if they wish their comrades to stay alive. Outside of combat and especially: apparent unethical orders such as firing upon or attacking a defenseless boat/airplane/person?
Thanks Tom,
There is, of course, another salient example. That of Lt. William Calley in the Mai Lai massacre in Viet Nam. He invoked the ‘just following orders’ of his superior after his initial defense was shot down (as I re-read some of the details in the wiki entry on him). I am old enough to recall the sensation this event caused at the time. I’m not sure if any of his subordinates were also convicted of the murders on innocent civilians that he ordered.
That long time ago seems a purer time in retrospect with regard to the ability to shock the public. It seems nothing does anymore. And we don’t yet know much at all about the Venezuela boat attacks.
What?!
Trump doesn’t know about the Nuremberg trials?! Doesn’t know about My Lai? No!!
(Real administrations don’t require so much sarcasm in response to their acts. But this one is as lame as it gets.)
I would point out that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to which all members of the U.S. armed services are subject not only states that members may refuse to follow and illegal order, but in fact have a duty to do so. I find the fact that the 6 congresspeople who made the video were only stating what was in the UCMJ is somehow not only illegal but ‘treasonous’ gives a frightening insight into the mind of the spoiled baby sitting in the Oval Office. Apparently, simply stating facts that make Trump uncomfortable is now a capital crime.
And I was actually asked that specific question during my interview applying to attend Coast Guard Officer Candidate School only a few years after the My Lai incident. The lieutenant interviewing me asked what I would do if I were given an order I thought was illegal. I answered that I would disobey it. And then I would accept the consequences of my decision, an answer that seemed to satisfy him.
Something I’m curious about it is whether or not there has ever actually been a case of soldiers refusing to follow what the believe is an illegal order and not being punished for it.
I’m not a US resident or citizen so I’m not familiar with it’s military history except for bits and pieces I’ve picked up over the years. It was never part of my education and I’ve never thought to study it of my own volition.
KTL brought up the William Calley and the My Lai massacre. That would seem to me to be an example of someone following an illegal order and being punished for it rather than refusing and getting away with it.
The problem with the Calley case is that Calley was the one who gave the illegal order, not his superiors, although Calley claimed he was following orders, but his superior was acquitted of all charges as were the soldiers under Calley’s command.