One of things that people told themselves, including me, is that one barrier between anocracy, a mixed political system, and full out autocracy would be that American troops would not follow illegal orders. They are trained not to do so--that the lesson of Nuremberg and WWII is that one is not obligated to follow an illegal order. Makes it hard but not impossible to deploy the US armed forces coercively against the American people.
Well, we can kiss that bit of wishful thinking goodbye (to a degree, I hope, see below). Why? Well, in the past 24 hours or so, we have two bits of evidence that the line has been breached.
- The US armed forces attacked and destroyed a civilian vessel in international waters. I am not a lawyer, but from all accounts, this is an illegal use of force. The ship or boat was not a threat to American shipping, so self-defense was not in play. No attempt to stop the ship. No state of hostilities. Thanks to Jason Lyall for enumerating how much this was probably not legal.
- A US court ruled that the use of Marines and National Guard in California was illegal. It seemed pretty clear at the time there was no emergency (the Insurrection Act was not invoked), and that Marines and National Guard should not be part of immigration sweeps.
Of course, one of the first things the Trump Administration did was fire the senior Judge Advocate Generals, so no one would throw a flag. So, this kind of stuff would be easier to do.
And that gets to the heart of things--who is to say an order is illegal. Ultimately, it is up to every single member of the armed forces, but they take their signals from their officers, and those officers take their signals from JAGs and from senior officers. As far as we can tell, the senior officers did not tell them that these were illegal orders. Obedience is expected and given, and, again, that is quite normal in wartime and in regular operations. But deploying troops against civilians should raise the hackles of those being asked to act in dubious ways.
There may be a limit--Trump still does not know (nor do we) what the troops would do if asked to fire upon civilians. That might be a bridge too far. I think if such an extreme order, or invading Canada for that matter, would come down, it would be divisive and lead to one of two outcomes: senior leaders push back as they fear the cohesion of the military would be at great risk with the possibility of soldiers firing upon soldiers OR the military actually does break apart as some follow illegal orders and shoot at unarmed civilians and others stand by or try to stop it.
This all seems extreme, almost fantastical, but Trump is calling out southern National Guard units to operate in cities governed by Democrats (mostly Black Democrats). The moment of greatest uncertainty--who shoots and who does not--may nearly be upon us. And we just don't know what happens. Maybe that uncertainty deters the Trump administration, but that would require some thought, a lack of arrogance, some self-awareness, and some caution. Are these attributes that are common in Trump's administration?
Seriously, how to respond? With overwhelming displays of public opposition. Protests can induce a military into not following illegal orders. I need to read more of that literature, but that really is our best hope. Because we can't expect restraint from the Trump Administration, we can't expect the better angels to have an influence, because there are none among those in power. Hegseth? Please. The senior officers who have survived the purges? Not looking good. The media? They don't seem to appreciate the seriousness of this moment. The Democratic politicians? Well, the Governor of Illinois, Pritzker, seems to have the right idea. But he needs the public beside him.
Is this wishful thinking?
Sorry for the less than cheery thoughts on the first day of classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment