Key Takeaways
- Six Democratic lawmakers' video urged military personnel to refuse illegal orders.
- President Trump condemned the video as "seditious behavior," calling for arrests.
- Lt. Col. VanLandingham criticized the video as dangerously vague, causing "more harm than good."
- Service members face significant legal risks for disobeying orders, even if unlawful.
Deep Dive
- Six Democratic members of Congress, including Michigan Senator Alyssa Slotkin, released a video urging military and intelligence officers to refuse illegal orders.
- The video emphasized the oath to defend the Constitution and stated service members can refuse illegal orders.
- President Trump called the video "seditious behavior" from "traitors," advocating for arrests and trials, and stating the behavior is punishable by death.
- Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham (ret.) argued the video did "more harm than good" by being dangerously vague and legally imprecise.
- The Uniform Code of Military Justice and U.S. Manual for Courts Martial clarify that following unlawful orders is not a defense.
- Service members can be prosecuted for disobeying legal orders, as orders are legally presumed lawful unless "manifestly patently unlawful."
- The video's broad statement to "disobey illegal orders" elides the crucial distinction of which orders are clearly unlawful and carry a duty to disobey.
- Disobeying orders, even unlawful ones, carries significant personal risk for service members, as the burden of proof rests on them, potentially jeopardizing their career.
- Political rhetoric exacerbates the complexity, potentially pressuring military personnel.
- Lt. Col. VanLandingham asserted that boat strikes, particularly those targeting vessels carrying drugs, violate both international and domestic law, potentially constituting murder.
- Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos provide legal justifications that stretch interpretations of the law of war, creating a difficult situation for lower-ranking service members.
- Orders for National Guard to accompany ICE agents conducting raids were ruled unlawful by a federal judge in Los Angeles, violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
- A "chill effect" is created by leadership dismissing top military lawyers, weakening procedural safeguards for challenging potentially unlawful orders.
- Lt. Col. VanLandingham argued that legal cover for certain military orders prevents them from being "manifestly unlawful," meaning service members who disobey risk careers and families.
- She believes the military itself will not prevent the misuse of troops, likening them to political pawns in a dangerous game.
- Both the host and guest agreed the video urging troops to refuse orders was inappropriate, suggesting concerns should be raised with generals instead.
- A retired service member caller from D.C. expressed concern over perceived erosion of military norms, citing the firing of top JAG officers and restrictions on press contact.
- The host, Michael Smerconish, stated that Lt. Col. VanLandingham would agree these are legitimate concerns but believes the six Democratic lawmakers' video harmed military personnel.
- Another caller suggested that such sensitive discussions should occur in think tanks, not public videos, to avoid Republican exploitation and ensure constructive debate.