NYT Discovers 'Unlawful Orders' Exist, After 7 Months of Bombing
While the NYT breathlessly dissects Pam Bondi's 2017 statements on military personnel refusing unlawful orders, they somehow omit the current, glaring context. This isn't theoretical in 2024. For months, servicemembers have reportedly voiced concerns (notably, Maj. Harrison Mann of the DIA resigning over Gaza policy) and faced retaliation. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to greenlight weaponry, like
the $17 billion weapons package to Israel in March 2024, despite mounting evidence of use in targeting civilians. Is the illegality of an order only relevant when it's politically convenient to discuss? One might wonder if this sudden journalistic excavation of legal theory is an attempt to preemptively sanitize future accountability, or perhaps just a finely tuned selective outrage machine at
work. The 'unlawful orders' question seems to only become palatable once a public figure—who fits a preferred narrative—can be attached to it, rather than applied to the actual acts of aggression being enabled by US policy, which are documented daily. How many more children must be buried before 'unlawful' moves from a hypothetical talking point to a serious indictment?