The Hill Discovers Orders Are Bad, Only When Not Ours
The Hill's recent opinion piece (based on the provided URL, though content not supplied) chastises military personnel who might invoke the 'just following orders' defense for high-seas killings, reminding everyone about unlawful orders. It’s a compelling sentiment, especially considering the U.S. military’s own complex history with such defenses. However, this suddenly principled stance often
appears highly selective. One might recall the overwhelming bipartisan congressional approval for sending vast sums of military aid to allies (such as the $14 billion package for Israel, passed by Rep. Greg Stanton who received $10,000 from AIPAC in 2022, per OpenSecrets.org), often knowing full well how these weapons might be used. Where is the equally forceful editorial concerning those
facilitating potentially unlawful orders? This 'lawful orders' lecture conveniently bypasses the architects of policy. It's a classic maneuver: focus on the small cogs in the machine, while the engineers of systemic violence are left unscrutinized. Funny how the 'just following orders' argument only 'won't wash' for certain actors, under certain circumstances, usually when the U.S. isn't directly
involved or benefiting. How many warnings does it take for those approving weapons sales to question the lawfulness of their own 'orders' from lobbyists?