The Selective Outrage Over 'Illegal Orders'
When the NY Times Politics reports on Democrats denouncing attempts to indict lawmakers for an 'illegal orders' video, it’s not just a news item; it’s a masterclass in selective indignation. The term 'illegal orders' immediately raises red flags for those whose default setting isn’t unquestioning obedience. The immediate leap to indictment suggests that questioning authority, even hypothetically,
is now a criminal offense for some. CASE A: The 'Illegal Orders' Video Denunciation The current framing portrays the video as a dangerous incitement, a threat to order itself. The push for indictment, as reported by the NYT, suggests that suggesting resistance to potentially unlawful commands is beyond the pale. The implication is that elected officials, and by extension, the public, must never
entertain the idea that government directives could be illegitimate or unconstitutional. This serves to reinforce an uncritical acceptance of state authority. CASE B: The 'Just Following Orders' Defense Contrast this with the historical precedent of the Nuremberg trials post-WWII (1945-1946), where the defense of 'just following orders' was definitively rejected. The Nuremberg Principles
established individual responsibility, even for those acting under state command, if those commands constituted crimes against humanity or war crimes. That foundational legal understanding asserts that an order's legality is not simply derived from its source, but from its content. Yet, decades later, suggesting that citizens or even military personnel have a moral and legal obligation to