{"id":17351,"date":"2025-11-21T08:33:44","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T16:33:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/?p=17351"},"modified":"2025-11-29T09:50:15","modified_gmt":"2025-11-29T17:50:15","slug":"issue-of-the-week-human-rights-war-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worldcampaign.net\/?p=17351","title":{"rendered":"Issue of the Week: Human Rights, War"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Nuremberg trial records made available online after painstaking 25-year project<\/em>, The Guardian, 20 Nov. 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yesterday, six US military and national security veterans of the US–Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, and Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow and Chrissy Houlahan–who had played important roles in US defense and are now members of Congress, released a video to members of the US Military reminding they “must refuse illegal orders.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The response from the president, who did not serve in Vietnam and did not apply for conscientious objection, but did not serve in the military when the draft was still in place because of a deferment for bone spurs, two years after he had been “declared available for service and passed a physical exam” (Business Insider), was that the members of congress, who had served honorably in the military or intelligence services and are currently serving in key roles in these areas in congress, had in effect committed treason and should be executed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The response from the White House and supporters of this line always refered to “orders” and never referred to “illegal orders,” which is the law and what was actually said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many momentous things have occurred today (along with many before in this administration and in the world while it has been in office), but we will confine this post to the above issue, and one other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The White House released a peace plan for Ukraine today that amounted to virtual surrender. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It appeared to have been written by the Russians as it included every demand made by Putin and went even beyond what had been publicly accepted by Russia before, although always keeping in mind that public theatrics and political reality are different things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Russian aggression and war crimes against Ukraine, starting in 2014, with full invasion starting in 2022, unparalleled since World War Two, resulted at first in wide support for Ukraine from the US, European nations, and other democracies, in supplying military and other support. This support however was insufficient at critical times when Ukraine stunned the world in stopping the far larger Russian forces and had the momentum to defeat Russia if properly armed. Since the Trump administration came into office in the US in January 2025, support for Ukraine has at best been weak and the Russians and Putin have often been treated as if the US has literally switched sides, abandoned democratic Ukraine in favor of dictatorship in Russia, without regard for the consequences for democracy in Europe and the rest of the world, and the historical precursor for far larger and destructive war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an impossible to make up convergence of historic events–yesterday was also the day that after a quarter of a century in the making, the full documents related to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi leadership following World War Two were made public digitally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prosecution was for Crimes against Peace (plotting and waging aggressive war) “the supreme international crime” as “it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole,” War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity and other related crimes. The Holocaust significantly contributed to the trials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over 70 million people died in World War Two and hideous suffering was caused to many more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Top Nazi leaders were convicted and sentenced to death and others to prison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Nuremberg Trials marked the effective beginning of international criminal law in the modern world. Wars of aggression and crimes against humanity were crimes that should be punished consistent with the severity of the crime. Although there have been many other instances of such crimes, and the nations prosecuting at Nuremberg have also committed these or related crimes in varying degrees, the world has expected these principals to be upheld since and they often have been (although too often have not–a subject requiring another lengthy post) by the International Criminal Court and other entities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although aggression and crimes against humanity must be met with timely self-defense and other necessary actions as the main deterrent, the precedents established at Nuremberg have had an enormous impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main defense given by Nazi defendants at Nuremberg was that they were following orders. This was rejected and used to establish the legal principal that no soldier, military or political figure could follow an illegal order and would be held legally responsible for ever doing so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following articles are by Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.), commander of U.S. Army Europe from 2011 to 2012, commander, 1st Armored Division in Germany and Multinational Division-North during the surge in Iraq from 2007 to 2009; Ivan Pereira, ABC News; Thomas Friedman, New York Times; and Anne Applebaum, The Atlantic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following these is an article in The Guardian, London, yesterday, about the historic release of all documents on the Nuremberg Trials, and a link to these documents. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are also critical links to other articles and documents in all the above:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Americans Should Understand About the Military Disobeying Illegal Orders<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

And why it matters there are two military oaths.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>MARK HERTLING<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

NOV 20, 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bulwark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHEN SIX MEMBERS OF CONGRESS released a short video on Tuesday emphatically reminding military personnel1<\/a> that they must not obey illegal orders, the message ricocheted through the political world and the media like a rifle shot. Reactions split along predictable lines. Some saw the video as a necessary civic reminder in a volatile moment. Others attacked it as inappropriate political rhetoric directed at the armed forces. Still others lied about what was said, or mocked the message as condescending. As the controversy escalated, the lawmakers who appeared in the video began receiving death threats, while the president himself suggested\u2014astonishingly\u2014that their message constituted \u201csedition<\/a>\u201d and that they should be imprisoned<\/a> or executed<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/a>
Cadets raise their right hand as they take their oath during the graduation ceremony at the U.S. Military Academy on May 26, 2007 at Michie Stadium in West Point, New York. (Photo by Stephen Chernin\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I want to address a fundamental point revealed by the video and the debate surrounding it: Most Americans do not understand what is in the oaths sworn by our service members. Confusion about that, combined with an understandable desire to keep the military a nonpartisan institution, fuels both the alarm that motivated the video\u2019s creation and the backlash against the video. A clearer understanding on this subject will help reveal the aspects of our constitutional structure that protect the nation from unlawful uses of the military.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s the truth, learned on the first day of service by every enlisted soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian, and coast guardsman, and learned but sometimes not recognized by the young officers who first take the oath: There is not one military oath. There are two. And the differences between them explain exactly who is responsible for refusing illegal orders, why the system was designed that way, and what it means for this moment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One reason the debate keeps going sideways is that the public keeps talking about \u201cthe military\u201d as if it were a single, undifferentiated mass of people with identical obligations. It isn\u2019t. The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two different oaths\u2014one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers. That structure is not bureaucratic trivia; it is grounded on the bedrock American civil\u2013military relations. Ignoring it leads to the misleading assumption that everyone in uniform bears equal responsibility when confronted with an unlawful command.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They don\u2019t. And that distinction matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enlisted members swear<\/a> to support and defend the Constitution, and to \u201cobey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.\u201d And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member\u2019s obligation is to obey \u201clawful\u201d orders<\/a>, and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which brings us to the officer oath<\/a>\u2014shorter in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to \u201csupport and defend\u201d the Constitution; to \u201cbear true faith and allegiance\u201d to it; and to \u201cwell and faithfully discharge the duties\u201d of their office. They also affirm that they \u201ctake this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.\u201d What they do not<\/em> swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to obey the president and the officers above them.Join<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders intended. They are expected\u2014by law, by professional ethic, and by centuries of tradition\u2014to exercise independent judgment when presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational. It is their job.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the members of Congress in their video urge what seems to be the entire military not to follow illegal orders, they may unintentionally blur the very lines that keep the system functioning. Enlisted personnel obey lawful orders; officers ensure the orders that reach them are lawful. The real constitutional failsafe is not a general broadcast to every rank. It is the officer corps, obligated by oath to the Constitution alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This matters in a moment when Americans are hearing loud claims about using the military to solve political disputes, intervene in elections, or take actions beyond statutory authority. People are right to worry. But they should also understand the guardrails already in place. The military has been here before\u2014they have already, at times in our history, faced unlawful pressure, political manipulation, or attempts to turn the armed forces into a tool of personal power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also worth remembering: No one in the American military swears allegiance to any individual. The oaths are not pledges of loyalty to a party, a personality, or a political movement. Loyalty is pledged to the Constitution\u2014and officers further take that obligation \u201cwithout mental reservation,\u201d knowing full well it may someday require them to stand with courage between unlawful authority and the people they serve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So while pundits and politicians continue fighting over the optics of the lawmakers\u2019 video, the core reality remains: The safeguards are already built into the structure. The oaths already distribute responsibility. The law already forbids what some fear. And the officer corps already knows that they bear the constitutional duty to ensure that unlawful orders never reach the young men and women who follow them, and who, in effect, they also serve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not a moment for panic. It is a moment for clarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Americans understood the difference between the two oaths\u2014one grounded in obedience, the other grounded in constitutional discernment\u2014they would see that the republic\u2019s defenses against unlawful orders are not theoretical. They exist. They function. They don\u2019t depend on the whims of political actors on either side of the aisle, but on the integrity of those who swear to uphold them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The video is directed not only at military service members but also at members of the intelligence community\u2014but in this article, I\u2019m focusing exclusively on the former.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.) (@MarkHertling) was commander of U.S. Army Europe from 2011 to 2012. He also commanded 1st Armored Division in Germany and Multinational Division-North during the surge in Iraq from 2007 to 2009.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

. . .<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the military oath of enlistment says about legal and illegal orders<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Military members can be prosecuted for following orders that are unlawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Ivan Pereira<\/a>, ABC News<\/p>\n\n\n\n

November 20, 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A war of words between President Donald Trump and Democratic military and national security veterans on Capitol Hill has opened up a discussion about legal and illegal orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the law governing the military clearly prohibits those in the service from following orders that are unlawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"PHOTO:
Army Lt. Gen. Gregory K. Anderson, commanding general of the XVIII Airborne Corps, conducts the oath of enlistment for 64 future U.S. Soldiers during the 85th National Airborne Day celebration at the Airborne and Special Operations Museum, Fayetteville, N.C., Aug. 16, 2025.Spc. Richard Morgan\/22nd Mobile Public Affairs Detac<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The issue came up after Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who served in the Central Intelligence Agency, in which she and five other Democratic members of Congress urged military members to not follow “illegal orders,” telling them “Don’t give up the ship.”<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump calls Dems\u2019 video to service members ‘seditious behavior, punishable by death\u2019<\/a><\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

“The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders,” they say in the video. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump and his administration condemned their message, contending the Democrats were encouraging members of the military to disobey their oath of enlistment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” Trump wrote on his social media platform Thursday morning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters later in her weekly media briefing, “The president expects his Cabinet officials in the administration to follow the law and to demand accountability and hold people accountable for their dangerous rhetoric.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal law, however, does not permit members of the military to break the law, even if they were commanded by a superior officer, from the commander-in-chief down the chain of command.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The oath of enlistment, sworn by everyone who joins the military, states they “will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UCMJ<\/a> contains several provisions<\/a> and articles that stipulate that service men and women are liable for a wide variety of rules and regulations, regardless of whether they were ordered by a superior officer. That includes burglary, murder, assault, rape and property destruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UCMJ’s Article 134 is a broad provision that prohibits “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital,” and is punishable in military court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Navy Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Jordan Lamber recite the oath of enlistment during a reenlistment ceremony in Dragsvik, Finland, Nov. 10, 2025.U.S. Marine Corps <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Article 90, which covers the rules over “Willfully Disobeying Superior Commissioned Officer,” explicitly prohibits orders that “without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs.”<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

They are also bound to follow international agreements to which the U.S. is a signatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The International Committee of the Red Cross, which protects victims under the rules of the Geneva Convention, also states<\/a> that armed service members are liable for criminal responsibility “if the subordinate knew that the act ordered was unlawful or should have known because of the manifestly unlawful nature of the act ordered.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlawful orders have come up many times in U.S. military courts over the decades, with prosecutors pushing back against the “Nuremberg defense,” a reference to the Nuremberg trials after World War II, in which several Nazis unsuccessfully defended their actions by claiming they they were following orders from their superiors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1969 during the Vietnam War, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals ruled against a soldier who was convicted of killing a Vietnamese man and claimed that he was following orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court ruled that there was no justification to follow orders if “the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

. . .<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

OPINION<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s Neville Chamberlain Prize<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Credit…Haiyun Jiang\/The New York Times<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Listen to this article \u00b7 7:10 min Learn more<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Thomas L. Friedman<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opinion Columnist, The New York Times<\/p>\n\n\n\n