I've been asked on here what the military's obligation is around following unlawful orders, & what resources are available to them. This article explains the obligation to refuse an unlawful order, with UCMJ citations, & provides a template for doing so. - ThreadSky

altcoast.altgov.info • 89 days ago

I've been asked on here what the military's obligation is around following unlawful orders, & what resources are available to them.

This article explains the obligation to refuse an unlawful order, with UCMJ citations, & provides a template for doing so.

Reposted from Patrick

open.substack.com/pub/nutballc...

Comments

shortcathy.bsky.social•89 days ago

Important to start thinking about what to do. But also, what would be the consequences to you, such as confinement to the brig, charges of mutiny, etc. very serious subject.

iwillkeepthefaith.bsky.social•88 days ago

Didn't they get rid of all the officers that would oversee whether a service person west right or wrong? If Bondi is any indication, everthing they do will be completely legit. This is scary.

altcoast.altgov.info•88 days ago

They got rid of many of the top-level JAGs (military lawyers) with the intention of replacing them, but there are still many JAGs throughout the different military branches. Although this may shape what the policy is throughout the military, given some time, it isn't just a lawless free-for-all yet.

iwillkeepthefaith.bsky.social•88 days ago

Thanks, I feel a LITTLE better🤞🤞🤞I'm ready for the streets.

noncynic.bsky.social•89 days ago

U.S. Army vet (military intelligence) here.
Don't obey illegal orders.

If you're a pilot stationed on Diego Garcia, and he orders an attack on Iran, refuse. You're under oath to defend the Constitution with your life. Defend it now, with your refusal.

bmb-77.bsky.social•89 days ago

Iran? This is about Canada.

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

Trump is now threatening to bomb Iran. So Canada, Greenland, Iran.... It applies anywhere.

bunniethecat.bsky.social•89 days ago

Looks like the military and their families need to protest heavily and not follow orders.

bmb-77.bsky.social•89 days ago

There are legitimate reasons for targeting Iran but there are illegitimate targets. A blanket statement to not target Iran is not great advice for those pilots in Diego Garcia. Don't be a war criminal, but the Iranian govt is not a peace loving entity.

noncynic.bsky.social•89 days ago

Point taken, but given POTUS's behavior to date, I have zero confidence that any attack order regarding Iran would target only military facilities or "legitimate" targets.

I have more than zero confidence that the attack would be planned to give percieved financial advantage to Trump, Musk & co.

noncynic.bsky.social•89 days ago

More fundamentally, how legal is a foreign policy based on the principle, "do what I (personally) want or I will attack you with my armed forces (which are my personal toy).

L'État, c'est moi.

If you're a pilot, should/would you obey an order to attack Canada? Greenland? Mexico? Iran?

mrsnimz.bsky.social•89 days ago

STFU

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

Unnecessary hostility is not appreciated here, there's nuance to the situation. I do understand your frustration, but telling people to STFU isn't a constructive response.

altvba.bsky.social•89 days ago

From what I read from the articles, only countries we have treaties with, which is law, would be countries it would be unlawful to attack. I don’t believe Iran falls into that category currently. (But wish it did)

jackbwuzhere.bsky.social•86 days ago

Yeah, Canada, Greenland, and Mexico would be off limits unless there's a specific agreement to allow it. Iran is fair game. With Canada, I'd expect an arbitrary move of the US Border, then order the military to "defend" the U.S. That, I'd defer to Military attorneys, cause idk.

altvba.bsky.social•86 days ago

Canada is a founding member of NATO, which is a treaty the US signed as well. So an order to attack them unprovoked would be unlawful. Fun Fact- If we still attacked, all other NATO countries would be required to turn on us per NATO article 5. Fairly confident the US would lose that drawn out battle

barrylavallee.bsky.social•89 days ago

The article statement of "...but beware, this may not apply to druggies in Mexico..." would explain why trump has accused Canada as a major source of fentanyl crossing the border from here to the US. It isn't. But it also allowed him to launch the illegal trade war, to the best of my understanding.

libdefence.bsky.social•84 days ago

Except the fentanyl crisis from Canada is not a thing

moorenvironmental.bsky.social•89 days ago

That and I believe the growing insinuation that central is a "weapon of mass destruction" is also a targeted marketing campaign by the administration designed to open up a case for invading places we formerly wouldn't

altvba.bsky.social•89 days ago

To be fair, every president has the power to levy Tarrifs, by law. So while the current trade war is one of the stupidest things ever, it is not illegal. Technically levying Tarrifs is one of the few things he has done that IS legal. But still F’ed.

barrylavallee.bsky.social•89 days ago

The USMCA free trade agreement is a legally binding contract. It replaced NAFTA which trump also violated in his first term. It includes provisions on trade in goods and services, labour, environmental standards, and intellectual property, among other areas. The US has zero respect for trade law.

standtall22.bsky.social•89 days ago

Civilians are thinking of an illegal implementation of martial law in response to mostly peaceful- if large-protests. And if just 1 general caves to an unlawful order it’s harder for each officer level below to disobey. Hoping soldiers stop to think about how they’d want their families treated.

landruc.bsky.social•88 days ago

Courage is contagious.

lindazawislak.bsky.social•89 days ago

I am so happy there are still good people in our military who have a conscience.

jackbwuzhere.bsky.social•86 days ago

The folks without a conscience usually KNOW they don't have one and defer to the people who do have one.

why2cake.bsky.social•89 days ago

Thanks

lp326.bsky.social•89 days ago

Thank you to everyone in this thread for the education and the reassurance.

sciantixo.bsky.social•79 days ago

in-state?

subhoney.bsky.social•88 days ago

Guess we will see on April 5

drpreacherlady.bsky.social•87 days ago

📌

dogsorus.bsky.social•87 days ago

Do what’s right! These civilians know little to nothing about duty, honor, respect!

michab3.bsky.social•89 days ago

I was literally talking about this with someone today-- our fear that the same lack of integrity in the cabinet will show up. And that's not to say it will, but the fear is there.

panthersfan-afr.bsky.social•82 days ago

📌

kschok.bsky.social•89 days ago

In order to actually work wouldnt it take a majority\at least a huge amount of members to NOT follow the order. So that the 1s that refuse to obey dont all get rounded up and sent to the brig? I am not, nor have I ever been, a military member so I don't fully understand how it would functionly work.

altairforce.altgov.info•89 days ago

Orders come from Commanders. In the event the Commander in Chief (president) were to issue an unlawful order to the military commanders, it is their duty to refuse to obey it. If the military commanders were to give the order to their own troops, those troops have a duty to refuse to obey. There’s

altairforce.altgov.info•89 days ago

not enough space or manpower on any given military installation to detain large numbers of people. It would cause quite a debacle for sure but it is highly unlikely that a commander would give an unlawful order, much less hundreds of them across the services.

burphel.bsky.social•89 days ago

"it is highly unlikely that a commander would give an unlawful order"

therealcarosyrup.bsky.social•89 days ago

As a veteran myself who is also married to one, it makes me sad that so many have such little faith in the very people who have taken an oath to protect your life over theirs 😞

badassforthepeople.bsky.social•89 days ago

It’s true that there are a good number of military and law enforcement who certainly do terrible things to people on purpose. But if you’re in these spaces, you already know that they’re far outnumbered by the ones who don’t vibe with cruelty and dishonor. 💖🙏🏻

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

The military has such a bad reputation (sometimes earned, often unearned) based on some bad apples within the services. Many (I would hope most!) military members do care about the legality & ethicality of their actions, & I do think there's an unfair stigma. But I understand people's fear as well.

sdr-fla.bsky.social•89 days ago

We're already seeing blatantly illegal orders followed in other parts of the government, along with significant capitulation from the legal and business communities. Why do you think human behavior would be any different in the military?

therealcarosyrup.bsky.social•89 days ago

Because the military is different. Hard to explain any better than what’s already been explained but if you want to choose to be the most pessimistic then I’d suggest figuring out how to leave the US because if the military follows an unlawful order to kill you, that’s your fate 😞

sdr-fla.bsky.social•89 days ago

I'm definitely on the pessimistic side and most people I know are cheering this on. A meaningful portion of Jan 6th rioters were former or current military. The planes illegally deporting unidentified people without due process (I'm assuming) was military (couldn't find)...?

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

Under the UCMJ, military members are empowered to refuse unlawful orders. There are legal consequences for not doing so, & individual military members can face federal charges for not refusing. The stakes are significantly higher for the personnel themselves than they have been in other situations.

westcoastvet.bsky.social•89 days ago

I truly hope the non-political appointees are making plans to stop a coup so they aren't caught flat footed like they were on Jan 6. They're not going to get orders to deploy. They're going to have to make that decision themselves.

bearyfunny.bsky.social•89 days ago

Excellent advice! And I would add that it's very good guidance for civilians, as well. Aiding and abetting a criminal act of any kind makes you an accessory to the crime. Something to think about.

tiggertre42.bsky.social•83 days ago

Thank you all for this thread.

tlpcpa.bsky.social•88 days ago

mirgray.bsky.social•89 days ago

This may not work now that president has stacked DoD judicial group with his loyal minions.

subtlefire.bsky.social•89 days ago

I think this would be prosecuted by JAG, unless they also do some chicanery to move it to civilian court. afaik they've only switched out the top JAG. they and other officers are equally obligated refuse an order to prosecute for accurately following the law

mirgray.bsky.social•89 days ago

But it would get escalated to those compromised JAG leaders.

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

Generally, the top JAGs are not the ones actively prosecuting cases. They're more policy-oriented and top-level legal support. It may be possible to escalate to that level, but for individual cases, especially if they were to occur en masse, it is likely to fall on lower level JAGs.

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

For many UCMJ violations, JAGs also aren't the ones "trying" a military member. An Article 15 (Captain's Mast in the CG) is presided over by the Commander of the unit rather than a JAG.

mirgray.bsky.social•89 days ago

"Invade a NATO partner nation" is not a local commander violation. Nor is "help deport people without due process".

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

Whether that is better or worse is debatable. If the command is compromised it would be an issue, but the SM can have a Mast rep, and can consult a JAG locally if they believe they're being wrongfully masted, prior to the event. They can also reject a mast and demand trial by Court-Martial.

bumblebike.bsky.social•89 days ago

Find a specialist UCMJ firm & get advice pre-deployment, if possible. Here are four I found that are licensed across a number of states.

https://mattbarrylaw.com/2024/11/10/unlawful-orders-in-the-military/

https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawfulness-of-orders.html

https://www.militaryandveteranslaw.com/blog/2024/02/lawful-and-unlawful-orders-can-you-tell-the-difference/

https://www.militaryjusticecenter.com/blog/2022/03/can-you-recognize-an-unlawful-order/

maestraoogway.bsky.social•87 days ago

📌

generalmonkey.bsky.social•89 days ago

How might it change the situation if the illegal order comes with a preemptive pardon for whomever follows the order? Aside from inviting temptation, is it likely to change assessments of duty?

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

While theoretically possible, I think the issue that would be opened by a preemptive pardon is that by issuing it, they're openly admitting that the order is unlawful, which would carry larger consequences (in terms of possible impeachment, etc).

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

For war crimes, specifically, prosecution that the US refuses to do could be picked up by the ICC and tried at the Hague.

blackavar-inle.bsky.social•89 days ago

But what about the Hague Invasion act?

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

I think it would quickly become a jurisdictional issue since the ICC has its own rules contradicting that. It seems like the Hague Invasion Act has so far been largely symbolic, & if the Hague were to order extradiction for a crime the US refuses to prosecute, we would see that battle play out then.

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

There would likely be significant international pressure to comply with the ICC, if they were attempting an investigation.

blackavar-inle.bsky.social•89 days ago

I hope you're right. I'm just... so beyond hoping anyone with authority will use it to hold the powerful to account. After every single fucking judge in the US has refused to actually punish them, I don't have any hope that a judge outside the US will do what's right. I don't trust them to even try.

four-torpedoes.bsky.social•83 days ago

Consequences, IF anyone is successful in achieving the conviction...right now, my faith in that is somewhat jaded. We keep thinking, hoping "This is the one that nails him and ends this!" only to be constantly disappointed.

donotcomply123.bsky.social•89 days ago

I also heard somewhere that Officers do not swear an oath to the President for specific reasons. They are the last line of defense against unlawful orders.

samjx.bsky.social•89 days ago

The US is the only nation where their forces swear an oath to a piece of paper… strange, but thank god right now.

haveyouanywool.bsky.social•89 days ago

Federal civilian employees all swear an oath to the Constitution, as there is no analog civilian function for the president as commander in chief. Federal employees who are not political appointees serve the people of the United States, not the presidents, who come and go, like tourists.

jackbwuzhere.bsky.social•86 days ago

The military basically swears the same oath. Swear to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Not the country, not the President.

We do have to follow all lawful orders of the Commander-in-Chief. Respect the office, not the person.

donotcomply123.bsky.social•86 days ago

I feel like the military will be faced with choices about rendition to torture. So far, I've seen zero dissent.

jackbwuzhere.bsky.social•86 days ago

From what I'm hearing, the administration is being very careful to NOT give unlawful orders to Active Duty Military. Do not follow unlawful orders. The End.

Rendition is a gray area. Transport Prisoner to Location is lawful. Put prisoner on the unmarked plane is lawful. 1/

jackbwuzhere.bsky.social•86 days ago

The chances of soldiers staying quiet about it is pretty slim.

That's where We the People come in. When soldiers talk, listen, and yell at reporters. They (CIA) didn't stop torturing people until we screamed loudly enough at DC to make them stop. 2/2

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

True! Officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, while enlisted members also swear to obey orders of the President, and of superior officers. At the command level, it is the responsibility of officers to refuse illegal orders and to not order their subordinates to carry them out.

dogsorus.bsky.social•87 days ago

No enlisted person is bound by an unlawful order.

altcoast.altgov.info•87 days ago

This is true - however, the original comment was referring to the specifics of the Oath of Enlistment vs. the Oath of Office, which are different. Neither officers nor enlisted personnel are bound to obey an unlawful order, and both are in fact expected to refuse such an order.

donotcomply123.bsky.social•89 days ago

"If you engage in such activities, Article 92 will apply, and you will be guilty of failure to refuse an unlawful order. If you compound the error by engaging any of these populations or their armed forces kinetically, you will also be guilty of war crimes."

cavalrysword.bsky.social•88 days ago

We should print this out and distribute to the military.

holymysteriousdog.bsky.social•89 days ago

So pleased (under unfortunate conditions) to see some activity on this topic

joeauerbach.bsky.social•82 days ago

This is one of those situations that sounds very easy and cut and dry until you're in it. So I'm really glad we have these resources.

offthepigs.bsky.social•89 days ago

How do we square this with the Marines et al building and running concentration camps in Cuba? There must have been officers assisting in the illegal trafficking of brown skinned people to these camps under paper-thin pretexts. How can that NOT be illegal? The ICC definitely would say it's illegal.

altcoast.altgov.info•89 days ago

Unfortunately, the concept of these camps has been around for a while and is a shameful part of our history. Because they're claiming that they're "criminals" and "terrorists" and the like, they lend themselves legitimacy. An illegal-at-face-value order would be a different situation, I would hope.

offthepigs.bsky.social•89 days ago

Still a crime. I guess I get you, but as a military brat, it's very disappointing that the US Marines would find that such squishy, weasel-word logic would confuse them about their duty. Without due process, they are suspects, not criminals. You'd think SOLDIERS and MARINES would understand that.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply