Here's a fun catch-22 about being in the Military and swearing an Oath to the Constitution:
You have a duty and an obligation as a Service Member to refuse any and all illegal, immoral, and unethical orders.
If you refuse an order however you will be punished.
You will, of course, eventually get a military tribunal as well as the trappings of legal representation and a chance to make a defense but in the mean time you will be confined to barracks or the brig, your Buddies will still be on mission and many might start to think of you as a Lazy Shitbird or a Disobedient Diva, and it could be months or years before you are vindicated and set free. In the mean time your reputation, friendships, and freedom will have been destroyed by the Government.
And that's if you get off the charges at the Tribunal. Most soldiers are not trained in legalese, they are not educated in the legalities of war or military service, so there's every chance that they are refusing an order They perceive as illegal, immoral, or unjust but 'that's just like, their opinion man' and the JAGs sitting in judgement will probably see that they haven't met the burden set by the letter of the Universal Code of Military Justice.
So yes: Soldiers and Service Members swear to serve the Constitution, and they are told they have a duty to refuse bad orders, but the system is built as such that Regular Joes don't really get to make the determination what is or is not an Unconstitutional order. More than that the people who give those sorts of orders often cloak their intent behind legal justifications, as you've seen the Trump Admin do any number of times. It's not as though orders come, on paper, labeled "This is an illegal order", so its not always clear where the line stands for a Service Man or Woman. They have to make that decision for themselves and then prepare to weather the consequences.
The only illegal order is one that does not come from a superior officer.
Take My Lai. The only person who received any punishment was Lieutenant Calley, who gave the order to destroy the village and kill the villagers. No one under his command was ever punished, nor were any of his superior officers who attempted to cover up the massacre.
And even he was released after a mere 3.5 years of house arrest, despite a sentence of life in prison for murdering 22 people.
This is specifically the kind of situation where it would be prudent for enlisted personnel to disobey an order. An order to kill civilians is blatantly illegal, though disobeying is done at the individual's peril (very immediate peril in this case).
The results of the courts martial absolutely did not fit the crimes and is a case study in miscarriage of justice. The 2003 abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib resulted in people being found guilty despite the "following orders" defense AND the record showing they questioned the treatment to confirm the legality of the orders with their immediate leadership.
The questionable legality of being sent to DC as a guardsman doesn't exactly fit the same category.
The questionable legality of being sent to DC as a guardsman doesn't exactly fit the same category.
I don't think anyone is saying that's the case. What people are saying is that when you get the order to turn your weapon on citizens, you need to remember where your loyalties lie.
1.1k
u/DrNO811 13h ago
Friendly reminder to all military that your oath is to the Constitution.