I do. I use this analogy… If you hold a safety meeting at a job site in the morning, reminding people of ladder safety, to check their equipment, to wear hardhats and other protective gear… You’re not accusing those people of being unsafe. You’re not saying that they have defective gear. You’re not declaring it a dangerous work site that people shouldn’t work at. You’re reminding people of what they should already know, giving them a refresher about safety, because it absolutely can happen that a person can be hurt, and equipment might be faulty.
If you confronted someone and asked them to identify the broken equipment, and asked them which workers have been violating safety protocols, a negative answer does not invalidate anything they’ve warned about and does not expose false accusations.
The only real implication in that safety briefing is that this is work that is potentially dangerous, and people should be careful. Just as these people in Congress work for a Commander-in-Chief who will potentially give illegal orders, and that they should be careful.
It’s not a game any more than a person is playing a game if refusing they refuse to answer “yes” or “no” to the question about whether or not they’ve stopped beating their wife. It’s not a valid question to begin with.
A safety meeting is held daily. It’s standard practice. A video reminder to troops that they do not have to follow unlawful orders is extraordinary. You don’t put that out unless you want to plant a seed in people’s minds that this is something to worry about.
Do you really believe that the officials in that video don’t think some of Trump’s orders were already unlawful?
Yes. I honestly do. I believe that they put it out because there was a high likelihood of illegal orders to come, based on escalating actions being taken by the Trump administration and an escalation of the rhetoric coming from the POTUS.
They may also fear some kind of illegal military action being ordered follow or during the elections in 2026 or 2028. Trump tried to get some right-wing nutjobs to attack Congress after the 2020 election, maybe next time he’ll ask the professionals to do it “for the good of the nation” or some such nonsense.
But no, I do not think that there needs to be an implication of those orders already being made, nor do I definitively believe the people in the video absolutely think that unlawful orders have already come.
And in fact, in thinking about it, it wouldn’t make any sense if they did think that unlawful orders have already been made. They are reminding the military to not obey unlawful orders. Your average servicemember isn’t a lawyer. They aren’t going to immediately remember that what they are being asked to do is a violation of some obscure statute instituted decades ago and rarely enforced or mentioned. They are clearly referring to something that is blatantly and obviously unlawful, so much so that the average person in uniform will be able to tell right away that it’s not an order they should follow, and in fact they are required to not follow it by their oaths. You can’t expect more than that. And if such a thing has already happened, there would be no beating around the bush about it, no need for experts to weigh in and debate about it.
So essentially, not only do I really believe they don’t think it has already reached that point, but it’s absurd to think otherwise.
What’s tricky here is that while legal/illegal is yes/no, there are degrees of illegal immorality. Similarly, while, theoretically, all military members should reject illegal orders, actually, the higher your rank the more responsibility you have to do so.
Some of Trump’s orders have been illegal. But shooting American demonstrators would be more wrong than what has already occurred. So would preventing a dutifully elected President from taking office AKA a coup. I see the video as an attempt to stop violations inevitable in any Trump presidency from getting worse and worse.
Judge Karin Immergut ruled that Trump’s deployment of troops to Portland was illegal. Thirteen Senate Dems sent a letter on Monday expressing concern that the strikes on Venezuelan boats are illegal.
Why do you think it’s absurd that Dems think some of his orders have been illegal, when a judge as already said they were, and the Dems wrote a letter saying they thought they were?
Okay, let me emphasize an important distinction I was trying to make in my previous post. There is a difference between something that is illegal when analyzed by legal experts, and something that anyone would know is illegal.
There have been military orders that have been determined to be illegal by a judge, and actions that Trump has taken that Democrats have openly declared to be illegal. But I don’t believe those are the kinds of things that any member of the armed forces would be asked to do and immediately know without question are illegal. Because that is the only way someone would refuse to follow orders, or should refuse to follow orders.
Something like, we are being asked to block entry to polling areas in blue areas on election day, or asked to send a drone strike against a sitting Democratic governor, or blow up the headquarters of a left-wing political organization.
No, I do not believe that anyone in that video is under the belief that armed forces personnel have already received orders so obviously unlawful that they should already be refusing to obey them. But clearly, they worry that it is plausible that it might reach that point, enough that a warning is necessary.
This is what I honestly do not understand. Troops are already trained to follow the US Constitution. I feel like “reminding” them of that is unnecessary and perhaps a bit insulting? A bit like Hegseth lecturing military leaders on combat strategy?
But I know nothing about the military. I just hate being patronized.
Because of the first amendment, and non-military judges having lifetime tenure, I think this is less worrisome than what Kelly faces as a Navy retiree.
They are also potentially trained not to. If they are given orders and training that are in violation of the US Constitution, and realize there is a conflict, a reminder isn’t a bad thing. Especially when Hegseth has taken great pains to purge leadership of people who aren’t swearing oaths of loyalty. Now, more than ever, it’s likely that an order is going to come down that is clearly not something they should do, and I guarantee you that if and when it comes, it will be accompanied by a lot of pressure and threats to do it or else.
I will go back to my analogy. I am trained to follow safety protocols at work, I am trained to identify safety hazards, report them, and refuse to do something unsafe. And yet, I am also on occasion asked to do something unsafe. (In my case it’s not deliberate, just something I’m asked to do that a person hasn’t thought through all the way.)
A reminder now and then isn’t a bad thing. And if I was in a situation where there have been repeated safety violations, a one-time message, even an unprecedented or unusual one would be especially warranted. It doesn’t imply that I’m stupid or unsafe, and I wouldn’t feel insulted for it.
Actually, I’ve been in that situation. Many years ago I worked for a company that was falling into a bad track record of safety violations. I was brought into a special meeting where they really hammered home how important it was to be careful. I didn’t feel insulted, I wasn’t angry because I knew I wasn’t part of the problem, I recognized that there was definitely a problem and this message was important. There were statistics to back that up as well.
I agree with what Atamasama has been writing about this. But many people of good-will will disagree with the video’s approach, as you do.
That is precisely why MAGA jumped on this as a vector where they can chip away at our right to criticize Trump and Hegseth. They picked a criticism of Trump that a lot of people would disagree with. But if military law is interpreted to forbid this video, almost any video criticizing the commander in chief will result in punishment and thus effectively be outlawed, so long as there was one military retiree involved.
This thread documents a threat to a big chunk of free speech, not just the one video the administration decided to pick on first.
For the record, I think it’s a gross violation of free speech to go after them for making it. I just don’t fully understand why they did make it. But Slotkin is sly and strategic. It’s possible she expected this would be challenged and they wanted to create a perfect test case to settle the matter before shit got crazy. (I know, I know, the idea of Democrats strategizing is a little out there, but if anyone would, she would!)
If the Pentagon were just verbally criticizing Kelly, saying “Well of course the military shouldn’t follow illegal orders, everyone knows that, it’s insulting to tell them things they already know”, then I’d disagree with them, but it’d be no big deal.
But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, they’re saying “How dare you suggest that we shouldn’t be criminals! We’re going to use the full weight of the US government for suggesting something so seditious as that we should follow the law!”. That’s different.