The Curiously Selective Outrage over 'Illegal Orders'
A recent report highlights a grand jury's refusal to indict Democratic House Representatives Elissa Slotkin and Ruben Gallego for a 2020 video urging military members to refuse 'illegal orders' from then-President Trump. Curiously, this alleged incitement did not merit the same zealous pursuit that similar calls often receive. One might wonder why. First Instance: The Soldier's Conscience and the
State's Convenience The concept of refusing 'illegal orders' is rooted in international and US military law, notably crystallized in the Nuremberg Principles of 1950, which explicitly state that 'the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.'
This principle was enshrined in US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92, making it a duty to disobey unlawful commands. However, the application of this principle has historically been… selective. The original intent was to prevent atrocities, not to serve as a partisan cudgel. Repetitions: The Shifting Sands of 'Insubordination' Accusations 1960s-70s Vietnam Era: Conscientious
objectors and soldiers refusing orders for the Vietnam War faced intense legal and public pressure, often severe sentences. For instance, Army Lt. William Calley was convicted in 1971 for his role in the My Lai Massacre, a clear case of illegal orders being followed, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians. Yet, the broader movement of soldiers refusing to deploy or