The Democrats' "Illegal Orders" Video Isn't About the Law. It's About Undermining the Military's Trust in Trump and the Chain of Command
"But we were just trying to educate the troops."
These six Democrats claim that their now-infamous video is nothing but an innocent effort to remind the troops that they don’t have to obey illegal orders. Who could object to that?
Their story is rotten nonsense. It is an effort to create plausible deniability as a misleading subterfuge. Their slick video production is not an innocent civics lesson for ignorant troops who somehow need additional instruction in military law. It is, in fact, an effort to undermine the President, to encourage disobedience of his orders, to sow chaos in the ranks, and to promote continued lawfare and turmoil in the military, all of which is intended to hamstring this President because they disagree with his policies.
The false justification
The Democrats claim an innocent – even praiseworthy – motive. They just want to educate or remind the troops of their duty to refuse unlawful orders. Rep. Houlahan, for example, claims that the video was akin to a public service announcement by “reminding our military of their constitutional obligations and reassuring them that, if they are ever given an unlawful order, they do not have to carry it out.” Just carrying out their civic duty as public servants, you see.
Despite their claim that the troops need additional instruction from them on the topic, it is a fundamental tenet of U.S. military law that unlawful orders must not be obeyed. The “I was just following orders” defense has been soundly rejected – with fatal results for some who invoked it – from at least the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals. Everybody knows about it. Additional instruction by senators and representatives was not needed. That excuse is a sham, a lie.
A familiar strategy of deception: Plausible deniability to foster political manipulation.
In their video message, of course, the Gang of 6 only mentions illegal orders. So, in response to the wave of criticism, they now argue that ‘We never told anyone that they could disobey legal orders.’ That is literally true but nevertheless is a carefully planned effort to mislead. But their defenders seize upon it to attack anyone who dares to criticize them.
Their rhetorical tactic mirrors the strategy used in the now-infamous 2020 letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials, which warned that the Hunter Biden laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of Russian disinformation.” The political world and virtually the entire press knew what they were really saying and took the intended action to suppress any mention of the story and sway the election. After the election, when the deception could be sustained no longer, the signers defended themselves by arguing that they never claimed the laptop actually was Russian disinformation — only that it resembled it.
So, the 51 supposedly responsible signers achieved their desired result with a lie by deception. But through careful wording they tried to maintain plausible deniability that they had claimed that the laptop was dezinformatsiya.
The Gang of 6 employ the same sleight of hand in their video: “We’re just talking about illegal orders.”
But the unmistakable subtext is:
“Trump’s orders likely are illegal — keep that in mind before you obey.”
The real political motivation
Their language is clear, and it is forceful. They tell our troops, “Refuse.” “Refuse.” “Refuse.”
Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal order. You MUST refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
The Gang’s real agenda that the video is intended to support can also be summed up in three words. Politics. Politics. Politics. They oppose Trump’s use of the armed forces, and they want to enlist members of the military as allies in their opposition.
It is undeniable that the Democrats have mounted political opposition to almost every use of the military that President Trump has made. They objected to his use of troops to secure the border. They object to the use of troops in states where rioters are threatening and even destroying federal property. Every one of the Gang of 6 opposed the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Rep. Crow, for example, claimed that the strike was illegal: “The President exceeded his authority when he conducted military strikes on Iran without congressional approval.” Based upon his own words in the video, he would have instructed the pilots to refuse orders to bomb the sites.
Now their hot-button issues are the military strikes on drug-trafficking boats or possible military action against Venezuela. Their intent plainly is to induce members of the military to refuse to participate in operations that they oppose.
No less a Democrat ally than Chuck Todd has stated that the video is “all about Venezuela.” Chuck, let it be known, talks to Democrats.
The Senators in the video, both Kelly and Slotkin, voted in favor of a proposed Senate Resolution that, had it passed, would have ordered the President to “terminate” the use of the armed forces “for hostilities” against foreign terrorists or drug traffickers. Their complaint was that Congress had not approved the strikes. In her comments in support of the Resolution, Senator Slotkin has specifically used the strikes against the cartel drug boats in the Caribbean as examples of what they wanted to prevent.
Democrats’ opposition to the Trump Administration’s use of U.S. Armed Forces to conduct strikes against drug traffickers in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific is both widespread and well known. For example, Representatives Crow, Deluzio, and Goodlander cosponsored a Resolution in the House to block the Administration from such use of the military.
That is just one example of Democratic opposition to the Administration’s use of the military. At the risk of stating the obvious, timely obedience to orders is essential to any military operation. The Gang of 6’s unprecedented use of their video to discourage such compliance is a dangerous development. They may have thought that the exposure would enhance their political profiles, but it most definitely does not serve the national interest.
I probably should add that a secondary objective of the Gang’s invitation to disobey orders likely was to provoke Trump into making some inflammatory response on Truth Social about the video. And, of course, they succeeded. But that political success came at the price of attacking good order and discipline in the military.
They ignored honorable alternatives
If the Gang of 6 were honestly concerned about the troops’ welfare and thought that they needed a reminder about the laws of armed conflict and unlawful or lawful orders, these professed public servants had a viable and proper alternative. They could have approached the Judge Advocate Generals for each military service, and requested, in a non-partisan way, that they take appropriate steps to ensure that the subject of was being adequately addressed in both initial and ongoing training for all service members. They could have had a candid conversation that avoided creating the turmoil that has been caused – likely intentionally – by their video that has now been seen by millions of viewers.
But they forsook any chance of such a candid and potentially productive exchange with their glory-seeking video that comes perilously close to the line of attempting to instigate a mutiny.
A final note
The next installment addressing the Gang of 6 video will show how following the Gang’s legal advice would put servicemembers at risk. Stay tuned.
These political hacks are using their veteran status to push a fallacious insinuation about the legitimacy of Trump's orders without providing any examples. They're engaging in sedition, pure and simple...ie: actions or speech that incite rebellion or discontent against a governing authority.
Today, California gubernatorial candidate and Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell claimed that members of the military are telling him they can be a “check” on President Donald Trump.
It will be the death of this Country if ever the Military comes to believe it's empowered to "check" their elected civilian superiors. We don't need a modern version of the Newburgh Conspiracy. Democrats are playing with fire.
Those who are on the retired list ought to be recalled to active duty and sent to a Court Martial.
Enough!
In 1950, Pres. Truman was staying with his family in the Blair House while the White House was being renovated. Two Puerto Rican nationalists attacked the house, killing a Capital policeman before they were captured. Truman was unharmed.
The Blair House is one block away from the Metro stop where an Afghan refugee attacked two National Guardsmen on Wednesday, killing one, before he was captured.
How likely is it that an Afghan refugee obtained a weapon and drove 3,000 miles across the US, only to randomly attack a couple of National Guardsmen on the street in Washington. Isn’t it more likely this was another assassination attempt on the president, thwarted by the National Guardsmen, doing exactly what they were ordered there to do?