Introduction — The New Fear Around an Old Truth

“You should not obey illegal orders.”

It’s a sentence so basic, so uncontroversial, so deeply woven into both military law and moral conscience that it should never spark debate. Every service member learns it. Every commander understands it. Every democratic society relies on it.

And yet — today — reciting this principle is being branded as “sedition,” even “treason.”

In the tense political climate surrounding controversial military operations — specifically presidential commands to strike boats in the Caribbean suspected of drug activity — some military personnel have questioned the legality of the orders. A group of lawmakers publicly reminded troops of their duty: you must refuse unlawful orders.

What came next was astonishing:

• The administration labeled this reminder as “traitorous.”
• Officials publicly suggested the speech could be punishable by death.
• The core teaching of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) itself was suddenly recast as rebellion.

This blog takes a deep, well-researched look at how we reached this dangerous moment — and why defending the right to refuse illegal orders is essential for democracy, humanity, and the rule of law.

What the Military Law Actually Says

Before diving into the politics, we need to establish a simple truth:

The law requires obedience to lawful orders — and requires refusal of unlawful ones.

The UCMJ and the Duty to Refuse

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, especially Articles 90–92, is absolutely clear:

• A service member must obey lawful orders.
• No one is required to obey unlawful orders.
• Orders that contradict the Constitution, U.S. law, or international law are void.

Military legal experts have reiterated this for decades — the principle is foundational, not optional.
See discussions on LA Progressive, FreePress.org, and the Manual for Courts-Martial for thorough breakdowns of this duty.

International Law: No Hiding Behind “Just Following Orders”

The global standard, set after WWII and reaffirmed in modern law, is even stricter:

• Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), “following orders” is not a defense for war crimes when the order is manifestly illegal.
• Humanitarian law frameworks explicitly require combatants to refuse orders involving:
  • Torture
  • Execution of civilians
  • Disproportionate attacks
  • Crimes against humanity

This principle was born from history. The world saw what happens when armies follow illegal orders — and vowed never again.

Why Illegal Orders Are Hard in Practice

Legal clarity doesn’t eliminate moral fog. Combat situations are chaotic. Intelligence can be wrong. Rules of engagement can shift.

But one thing remains constant:
When an order clearly violates the law or basic human rights, the soldier must refuse — even if it risks punishment.

This is why the system provides protections like Judge Advocate General (JAG) counsel and internal reporting mechanisms. The duty isn’t easy — but it’s essential.

How a Legal Reminder Became “Treason”

The Political Spark

When lawmakers released a public video reminding troops:
“Obey the law. If an order is illegal, you must refuse it.”

— the response from the administration was explosive.

According to reporting from outlets such as The Washington Post, Time, and Associated Press:

• The president labeled the video “seditious behavior.”
• Officials implied the speakers were “traitors.”
• Some even suggested the conduct could warrant capital punishment.

In effect:
Repeating military law became an act of treason.

Why This Shift Is So Dangerous

Recasting lawful advice as sedition amounts to something historically associated with authoritarian behavior:

• Intimidation of dissent
• Centralization of military loyalty toward a leader instead of the law
• Criminalization of reminders about legal limits on power

This is exactly why liberal democracies insist — forcefully — that the military’s loyalty is to the Constitution, not any single leader.

A Disturbing Reversal

Until very recently, it would have been unimaginable to say that telling a soldier to obey lawful orders was “treason.”

This reversal happened not because military law changed —
but because political power sought to redefine what loyalty looks like.

Instead of loyalty to law → loyalty to the executive
Instead of obeying lawful orders → obey all orders
Instead of refusing war crimes → silence or punishment

This is the slope every democracy must refuse to slide down.

The Real Human Cost: What Service Members Face

When those in command issue potentially illegal orders — for example, to bomb civilian boats suspected of drug activity in the Caribbean — soldiers face an unbearable dilemma:

Obey the order and risk committing a war crime.

Refuse the order and risk court-martial or being labeled a traitor.

This is emotional, psychological, and moral torment.

This Is What Real People in Uniform Are Living Through

Service members have quietly expressed confusion and alarm, seeking legal clarification through:

• JAG channels
• Command liaisons
• Internal reporting procedures

Some privately fear being implicated in war crimes. Others fear punishment for refusing.

When speaking about legality becomes dangerous, everyone in uniform is at risk.

What History Teaches Us About Blind Obedience

Let’s look at what happens when militaries obey without question.

✔ The Nuremberg Trials

Nazi officials claimed they were “just following orders.”
The tribunal rejected that defense — permanently.

✔ The My Lai Massacre (Vietnam)

U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of civilians.
Only one soldier refused — and he was the hero, not the obedient ones.

✔ Abu Ghraib (Iraq)

Systemic abuse happened because lower-ranking personnel felt compelled to obey unethical orders and cultural pressure.

History’s judgment is clear:
Blind obedience leads to atrocity. Moral courage prevents it.

Table: Lawful Obedience vs. Blind Obedience

Category	Lawful Obedience	Blind Obedience
Definition	Following orders consistent with law	Following all orders regardless of legality
Loyalty Target	Constitution & legal system	A person / regime
Outcome	Protection of civilians, ethics, law	Atrocities, war crimes
Personal Risk	Protected by the law	Criminal liability
Historical Judgment	Honored	Condemned
Military Culture	Professionalism	Authoritarianism

Why Saying “You Should Not Obey Illegal Orders” Is NOT Treason

1. Legally Protected Speech

Military law requires troops to refuse illegal orders.
Saying so publicly is not urging insubordination — it’s restating the law.

2. Essential to Military Integrity

The military is not a private army of any president.
Its legitimacy depends on adherence to legal norms.

3. Critical for Democracy

A military that obeys all orders automatically — whether legal or illegal — is the foundation of authoritarian rule.

4. Morally Right

Human lives depend on moral courage — especially in wartime.
A soldier refusing to fire on civilians is not a rebel. They’re a guardian of humanity.

The Slippery Road to Authoritarianism

When speech becomes “treason,” democracy becomes fragile.

Here’s how the erosion usually happens:

Step 1: Redefine disobedience as disloyalty

Step 2: Redefine lawful dissent as sedition

Step 3: Encourage personal loyalty to a leader

Step 4: Criminalize constitutional duty

Step 5: Expand executive power without oversight

We are currently hovering between steps 2 and 3.

What Service Members Should Do Right Now

Here are responsible, safe steps:

✔ 1. Know your oath

Your oath is to the Constitution, not to the executive.

✔ 2. Request clarification

If an order seems unlawful, ask your commanding officer or legal counsel.

✔ 3. Document everything

Times, witnesses, exact words — this protects you.

✔ 4. Seek legal channels immediately

JAG officers exist for this exact purpose.

✔ 5. Understand your rights under international law

If you obey a manifestly illegal order, you can be held criminally responsible — even decades later.

What Civilians Must Do

This is not just a military issue — it’s a democratic one.

✔ Demand oversight

Congress must clarify the legality of any foreign military actions.

✔ Defend lawful speech

Calling lawful advice “treason” is authoritarian behavior.

✔ Support transparency

Military activity must be subject to public scrutiny.

✔ Vote for leaders who respect the rule of law

Not leaders who weaponize patriotism to silence dissent.

A Personal Reflection: The Soldier in the Middle

When I think about the phrase “You should not obey illegal orders,” I don’t picture lawmakers or cable news hosts.

I picture a young 19-year-old sailor in the Caribbean.
I picture a drone operator staring at a screen with blurry, uncertain intelligence.
I picture a commander trying to balance loyalty, legality, morality, and pressure.

And I imagine the fear in their minds:

“What if I follow this order and it turns out to be illegal?”
“What if I refuse and get court-martialed — or worse?”
“Who will protect me?”

That burden is too heavy for any one person.
That is why the law exists.
That is why reminders are not “treason.”
They are compassion.
They are a lifeline.
They are protection against forcing young service members into morally impossible actions.

Conclusion

“You should not obey illegal orders.”

This principle is not controversial. Not radical. Not rebellious.

It is the backbone of military professionalism, human dignity, and democratic governance.

When its recitation becomes treated as treason, it is not the speaker who is dangerous —
it is the political system attempting to silence them.

In this moment of rising tension and dangerous rhetoric, we must hold firm to the truth:

• The military obeys the law, not individuals
• The Constitution is the ultimate commander
• Speaking about legality is not treason — it is patriotism
• Refusing illegal orders is not rebellion — it is duty

A democratic nation cannot survive without the courage of those willing to speak the truth.

Call-to-Action

If you believe in democracy, lawful governance, and moral military service:

✅ Share this post

✅ Comment with your thoughts

✅ Support organizations that defend military whistleblowers

✅ Read more of our analyses on military ethics, constitutional duty, and executive accountability

Your voice matters.
Silence does not protect democracy — speaking up does.

References (hyperlinked)

• Washington Post — “Does the military have to follow unlawful orders?”
• Time Magazine — Legal experts on unlawful orders and military duty
• Associated Press — Reaction to lawmakers’ video
• LA Progressive — Duty to disobey unlawful orders
• FreePress — International law and unlawful orders
• NLG Military Law Task Force — FAQ on refusing illegal orders
• Manual for Courts-Martial (U.S. Government)