I’ve read a few threads that vaguely explain the concept of “illegal orders” and that those orders should not be obeyed.
I’ve read a few threads that imply the blowing up of boats without some justification (declaration of war, etc) is illegal.
I recognize that the political powers-that-be will never be held accountable. Are the members of the military who have followed and obeyed what I think are illegal orders subject to punishment under the UCMJ?
As a very old phart who served a long, long time ago I’m disappointed that to the best of my knowledge no one ever said No.
Generally, if the military is targeting a drug smuggler in open waters, then that’s a peacetime/law enforcement (non war) situation. If there is no imminent threat of harm, then that would be murder.
If there is an armed conflict, the smuggler would need to be a proper military objective. You’d need the details here to determine whether there is an armed conflict. In theory it could be.
If this is a peacetime/law enforcement activity, then the UCMJ applies. Jurisdiction follows the member of the military over the entire world. The crime would be a form of murder.
During an armed conflict, murder is still illegal under the UCMJ. The exception of course is its lawful to kill an enemy combatant. You’d need to do an analysis of whether there is an armed conflict and was the killed person a lawful combatant. The above posts touch on that.
Following orders is not a defense. The orders do need to be manifestly illegal. Meaning it must be reasonably obvious they are illegal. It’s not My Lai level of obvious, but it’s not that far removed.
Thats about it. Finally, as a bigger point, Murder is murder, you can’t jurisdiction your way out of murder. It’s just politics whether you’d be charged with a crime or not.
The problem in trying to impose this on the members of the military who actually effected the attacks is that they were informed by their superiors (i.e. the Secretary of Defense and via him, the Office of the President even if not a direct order from the president himself) that these boats represented a imminent threat. Could the officers who were in the immediate kill chain make an independent determination that these boats were not, in fact, an imminent threat? Factually, yes; these were boats in mid-ocean, far away from the territorial waters of the United States and clearly not able to reach the US. However, over the last quarter of a century we’ve developed a precedent for attacking people and facilities which the the national intelligence apparatus has ‘declared’ to be a threat requiring expedient and extrajudicial action (in several instances against American citizens) which have been approved at the presidential level (by administrations of presidents of both parties, it should be noted). So, refusal to fulfill those orders would likely itself be viewed as insubordination and punished by forced removal or retirement and potentially even court-martial (although I doubt Hegseth et al would want to initiate at any legal proceedings where they would have to present actual evidence of their specious claims).
That Admiral Alvin Holsey, in command of the United States Southern Command, stepped down from that command suddenly after the initial strikes and is taking an early retirement by the end of the year, is perhaps instructive of what senior military leadership thinks about these actions. But Trump and Hegseth are busy purging as much of the senior command as they can get away with, either by direct firing, removing people from commands to be replaced by wholly unqualified officers, or just humiliating and insulting them into taking early retirement.
Not to undermine your sense of outrage about this inhumane act, but this is also the country that engaged in a totally illegal massive bombing campaign against Laos and Cambodia (which spurred the Khmer Rouge takeover and the ‘Killing Fields’ mass murder of an estimated 1.3 million people); illegally annexed the sovereign nation of Hawaii; supported dictatorships in Chile, Brazil, Indonesia, Haiti, the Philippines, et cetera; engaged in an illegal arms trade for hostages deal with the designated terrorist nation of Iran in order to funnel money to the Contras in Nicaragua in direct violation of the Bolland Amendments; has repeatedly invaded Caribbean nations (Haiti, Grenada) in order to depose democratically elected regimes, and completely fabricated intelligence about an active nuclear weapons program to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq; displacing millions of people and creating a power vacuum that allowed fundamentalist Jihadist movements to destabilize the entire region. So…blowing up a few boats is kind of a bush-league action by comparison.
When I was younger the book “Profiles in Courage” came out. I was impressed with the profiles of men and women who made tough, unpopular decisions and stuck with them. I’m an idealist and always hope that somewhere, somehow, one of these will emerge from the chaos and straighten out our dysfunctional government. For a minute or two I thought Liz Cheney might possibly straighten out the Republicans - that went down the tubes rather quickly. Can’t say I’ve seen any real leadership in the Democratic party. Why does everyone in power have to be as old as Methuselah?
I’m just as disappointed - if not more-so - in our military leadership. Some of them may qualify for future Nuremberg type trials. “Just following orders” is not and should not be a defense.
It’s not as simple as has been stated so far. Drug smugglers transporting drugs from SA countries to the US have been deemed to be “unlawful combatants” and terrorists, by the current administration. And can be killed under international law even if they pose no immediate threat. See the Obama administration’s killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Now if the country of Venezuela, or other countries these people killed were citizens of, wish to make a claim to the World Court in the Hague, I’m sure it could possibly be litigated there.
As such, I highly doubt any US service men will be subject to court marshal for following these orders.
I believe it is clear & present danger, but point taken. My question is assuming Trump is right and these are drug boats, then stopping them, arresting the crew and seizing the boat may be permissible, how is blowing them up and killing them not a violation of international law?
It’s all a matter of legal definitions. Where it gets fuzzy is “whose legal definitions?”
If the order is lawful under legit US law, then it’s lawful and the servicemembers are not at risk of UCMJ action.
If the order is only legal under wildly tortured executive orders that defy the spirit and letter of larger law, then it’s probably not reliably legal. UCMJ action may follow, once all the illegal executive orders are rescinded and normal respect for US written law returns to the US. If that ever happens.
If the order is legal under current interpretations of US law but is illegal under well-settled international law, then the servicemembers might potentially be indicted by the World Court (properly the International Court of Justice) in the Hague. But since the USA refuses to acknowledge the authority of that organization, they won’t cooperate in rendering indicted persons to their custody. It might make subsequent international travel as a civilian awkward, but that’s about it. Realistically the World Court cares about heads of state and senior military officials, not aircraft commanders or ship crewmen. Ship Captains maaaybe.
I heard on a news discussion that some junior naval officers have asked for a legal ruling on whether such orders are legal. What is the liability of a lawyer who provides a legal opinion that has no basis in law, in order to justify demanding a junior officer carry out such an action?
(IIRC nothing happened to the lawyer - Wu? - who issued the opinion that torture in Guantanamo and elsewhere was legal, and technically not torture…)
So, let’s say some USAF or Navy pilot decides to refuse to blow up a boat. How likely is he to be court-martialed and lose his rank or get a dishonorable discharge? Just asking, as an ignorant civilian. Is it >90% likelihood?
I suppose the outcome has a lot to do with the current actual political climate inside the military. Which is not something I (or anyone really) fully understands. If the whole chain of command has gone MAGA, that boy is screwed. If they’re mostly closing their eyes and hoping the bad dream ends soon, there’s a lot of ways for the bureaucracy to bury the problem.
And it majorly depends on whether that refusal happens quietly under the covers or loudly all over social media. Which connects directly to how much the criminal in chief with his famously short attention span acts like he cares about the event.
You mean Yu? There were some half-hearted student protests, but he was never going to be and was not fired for that, which tells you something about the academic side; he was never referred to the bar for disciplinary action (despite being blamed in a DOJ report for professional misconduct); the lawsuits against him were dismissed by the appeals court, and he got his Trump appointment as a loyal Republican. Business as usual in America.
He’s guaranteed to be court-martialed. The court martial is where the authorities will decide whether his action (or inaction) was justified. It’s not itself a punishment, and it’s possible for a court-martial to find someone 100% innocent.
You’d probably have four layers of authority by the time it gets to the sailor who shoots the rocket. Lawyers, Intelligence, Target officers, Commanders authorizing the strike…then the guy that shoots the rocket.
There’s going to be lots of legal opinions before this ever started. I’m sure some lawyers did not think it was legal, but were overridden by a consensus. If you have a cite, that would help. Usually, in the moment, a sailor pushing the button, assuming a positive ID/no family sailboats nearby, etc., would just ask to confirm Rules of Engagement up to date - if they asked anything at all. It’s all pretty vetted by then - the ROE are already pre-vetted by lawyers. With a positive target ID, unless it’s just over the top manifestly illegal, they need to follow the order.
) is shot dead in an American city