“You can refuse illegal orders … you MUST refuse illegal orders.”

That’s the message from a recent video featuring six Democratic members of Congress, all former members of the US armed forces and/or intelligence services, and directed at current members of those organizations.

Seems non-controversial, but someone else would like a word. Er, several words:

“Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? … SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

As you’ve probably guessed, that someone else is US president Donald Trump.

And he’s not just talking. He’s had US secretary of defense Pete Hegseth threaten to recall one of the politicians in question, US Senator Mark Kelly, to active duty in the   Navy for a potential court-martial. He’s having the Federal Bureau of Investigation request “interviews” with with all six politicians.

Yes, really.

But, like I said, the whole thing seems uncontroversial. This is, to use a turn of phrase Trump seems to like, a “witch hunt.”

It’s been 40 years since I spent the summer in San Diego becoming a US Marine. I’m sure things have changed since then, but I doubt they’ve changed so much that anyone graduates any armed forces boot camp without receiving instruction in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

A summary, from memory, on the section  (Article 92) concerning orders:

You must obey lawful orders.

You must not obey unlawful orders.

As I recall it, the case my platoon’s instructor used as an example was Lt. William Calley’s conduct in Vietnam during an event later known as the “My Lai Massacre.”

Here’s what the US Court of Military Appeals had to say about Calley’s defense that he was “just following orders”:

“An order requiring the performance of a military duty may be inferred to be legal. An act performed manifestly beyond the scope of authority, or pursuant to an order that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal, or in a wanton manner in the discharge of a lawful duty, is not excusable.”

Calley served three years (of a life sentence) for the murders at My Lai.

Why? Because you must refuse illegal orders.

If it’s “treason” or “sedition” to state that fact, then every instructor in every basic training class on military law is a traitor who’s been teaching treason and preaching sedition to every recruit since 1950, when the UCMJ was adopted … and probably long before that.

Would these particular politicians  have made this particular video if it was a Democrat  issuing illegal orders from the White House?

Probably not, but they’re right anyway.

Note to military and intelligence personnel:

You must refuse illegal orders.

If this be treason, make the most of it.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

When asked, before Japans’s parliament, about the circumstances under which the country’s “Self-Defense Forces” could legally take military action, prime minister Sanae Takaichi cited a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan as a “survival-threatening situation” potentially warranting such action.

Beijing’s response to the remark, while a bit more over the top than usual (the Chinese consul-general in Osaka seemingly threatened to cut off Takaichi’s head), hasn’t really varied in form or substance from the People’s Republic’s position of decades.

On November 21, Chinese UN Ambassador Fu Cong wrote to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, citing Takaichi’s words as “a grave violation of international law” and preemptively excusing any such hypothetical attack on Taiwan as “self-defence under the UN Charter” pursuant to defending its “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity.”

At stake in this matter, as in similar past occurrences, is a rotten principle called “strategic ambiguity,” under which the Chinese regime makes false claims and other regimes carefully avoid mentioning that those claims are false.

Here’s the fact which Beijing disputes and other regimes avoid mentioning:

Taiwan is not now, and never has been, part of the People’s Republic of China.

The island hasn’t been ruled from Beijing since 1895, when the Qing dynasty ceded it to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, 54 years before the People’s Republic came into existence.

To put that in historical context, Taiwan has been independent of mainland China since before Cuba became independent of Spain, and since before the US annexed Hawaii. It’s been independent of the mainland through, among other events, two world wars and a multi-decade “Cold War.” And even before any of that, it was only partially and occasionally ruled from Beijing.

Beijing enjoys no “sovereignty” over Taiwan, nor would invading Taiwan constitute “self-defense.”

But whenever any politician on the world stage publicly mentions, or even alludes to, that fact,  Chinese politicians rattle their sabers militarily while threatening, “diplomatically,” to throw themselves on the floor and hold their breath until they turn blue.

To placate Beijing, western regimes have generally adopted policies of “strategic ambiguity.” They conduct friendly relations with Taiwan while not “recognizing” its status as independent, and provide Taiwan with military assistance of various kinds while very carefully NOT openly saying they’d help it defend itself against invasion.

“Strategic ambiguity” is the worst of two worlds when it comes to foreign policy.

As a non-interventionist, I’d prefer to see the United States (and other regimes) mind their own business and avoid trying to “manage” the China-Taiwan relationship in any way.

Pro-Taiwan interventionists want the United States (and other regimes) to take the bull by the horns and tell the People’s Republic “it’s not yours, you can’t have it, and if you try to take it you’ll get smacked down hard.”

Catering to Beijing’s threats and tantrums with “strategic ambiguity” satisfies neither crowd. It makes eventual war more likely while giving “strategically ambiguous” politicians cover to pretend they’re surprised when it arrives.

Hopefully Takaichi will stand her ground. Facts, not dodges, reduce the risk of war.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

At an Oval Office event on November 18, US president Donald Trump let loose on an ABC News reporter, Mary Bruce, for daring to question Saudi terror kingpin Mohammed bin Salman about the 2018 murder — by Saudi agents, likely on MBS’s direct order — of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

Such questioning, Trump said, was “insubordinate,” musing that Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr “should look at” taking away ABC’s broadcast license.

What does it mean to be “insubordinate?”

Put simply, insubordination entails a person who’s lower on some ladder of authority defying the orders of someone who’s higher on that ladder.

Trump clearly believes in the existence of such a ladder, upon which he enjoys higher ranking than, and authority over, mere mortals. Especially journalists. And most especially female journalists.

He doesn’t bother trying to hide that belief. Earlier in the week, while fielding questions about his long, close, personal relationship with late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, a flustered Trump tried to shush Bloomberg’s White House correspondent, Catherine Lucey: “Quiet. Quiet, piggy.”

In reality, Trump’s only subordinates (with respect to his position as president of the United States) are employees of the federal government’s executive branch. Literally everyone else in the country is either his equal or his superior.

The president is subordinate to Congress.  Congress makes the laws, and can override his vetoes if he doesn’t like the laws they make. He has to ask the Senate for permission to appoint high-level executive branch officials or to enter into treaties. He only gets to spend money Congress appropriates, and only on the purposes it appropriates that money for.

The president is also subordinate to the courts, especially the US Supreme Court. In any legal controversy involving the executive branch, he has to defend his policies before those courts, or go to them, hat in hand, requesting that they enforce those policies. They decide; he obeys.

That’s what the US Constitution says, and what it means, even if we see far more breach than observance in practice.

With respect to the press, he’s neither superior nor subordinate. They don’t work for him, he doesn’t work for them, and the First Amendment forbids Congress (and therefore its subordinate, the president) to make/enforce laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

As for the public, presidents supposedly work for us, and constantly claim to.

The title “chief executive” doesn’t mean “chief of everything.” It means “chief” of executing the orders his superiors give him, and of the people he further delegates that execution to.

Trump’s not Mary Bruce’s boss. He’s not Catherine Lucey’s boss. He’s neither your boss nor mine. He’s a mere functionary who should learn his place — his SUBORDINATE place.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY