THE DANGEROUS TRUTH ABOUT ILLEGAL ORDERS
We often hear the comforting phrase:
“The military will not obey an illegal order.”
It sounds reassuring, but it leaves out the most crucial fact:
No system determines in real-time whether an order is
legal or illegal.
That gap is the danger.
1. What the Rule Really Means
The U.S. military teaches that service members must obey lawful
orders and refrain from disobeying any unlawful orders.
This principle comes from:
- the
Nuremberg trials,
- the My
Lai massacre case,
- and
the military’s own codes and training.
So yes, the rule is absolute.
But the process behind it is almost nonexistent.
2. Courts Won’t Review Orders Before They’re Carried Out
If a president issues a questionable order, the military
cannot ask a judge:
“Is this legal?”
Civilian courts do not provide advance answers.
Military courts only review orders after someone has obeyed or refused.
That means:
- If a
soldier obeys an illegal order, they can be punished later.
- If
they refuse an order, they can also be punished, unless the court
agrees with them afterward.
There is no safe way to test the order up front.
Someone has to take the risk.
3. The Constitutional Blind Spot
This creates a vulnerability in our system:
A president who wants to misuse power can give orders in the
“gray zone,” knowing:
- courts
cannot review them ahead of time,
- Congress
cannot act fast enough,
- and
military officers may hesitate to be the one who refuses.
The unlawful-order rule exists,
but it depends entirely on the courage of individuals, not on a working
legal process.
That is too fragile a foundation for a modern democracy.
4. What We Need
To protect the Republic, we should establish:
- A
rapid, independent review process to judge questionable orders,
- Legal
safeguards for officers who refuse unlawful commands,
- Clearer
standards defining what constitutes an illegal order, especially in
domestic situations.
Right now, none of this exists.
5. The Bottom Line
The military is trained to disobey illegal orders,
but no one determines legality in the moment.
Until this gap is addressed, the safety of the Constitution
relies on personal bravery rather than the law.
That is a risk we can no longer afford to ignore.
William James Spriggs
No comments:
Post a Comment