|
Concerns over unlawful orders are not hypothetical. There has been heightened alarm over the Trump administration’s expanding use of military forces in domestic law enforcement roles and its increasing reliance on executive directives that test constitutional limits. The Orders Project, a nonpartisan initiative that connects service members with outside legal counsel, reports an increase in inquiries from military personnel who fear they may be asked to carry out illegal orders or pressured to participate in missions that conflict with their training in the laws of war.
Indeed, the issue has become so pronounced that six members of Congress, including Mark Kelly—all with military or national security backgrounds—recorded a public message reminding service members of their legal obligations. As they stated, “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders…you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
For reiterating what every recruit is taught in basic training, those lawmakers have faced public denunciations and calls for investigation. Yet similar guidance—that service members have a duty to disobey unlawful orders—was publicly voiced in 2016 by then–Fox News host Pete Hegseth, underscoring that this principle has long been recognized across political lines. Retaliating against a veteran for reiterating this core constitutional obligation threatens to chill lawful speech, distort the meaning of military discipline, and undermine the very oath the armed forces are sworn to uphold.
The Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit civil liberties organization dedicated to making the government play by the rules of the Constitution. To this end, the Institute defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a broad range of issues affecting their freedoms.
This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org.
Source: https://tinyurl.com/4m37ru9u
|
