Military Veterans Challenge Trump’s Orders Amid Legal Concerns

Members of Congress, including U.S. Representative Jason Crow (D-CO), have publicly declared that military personnel must refuse to follow orders deemed illegal. This statement comes in response to controversial directives from former President Donald Trump. Crow, a decorated combat veteran, emphasized in a recent video that “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” This assertion was echoed by five other veteran lawmakers, all of whom have served in the armed forces or intelligence services.

Trump reacted strongly to their comments, labeling the group as “traitors” in a social media post where he suggested severe repercussions. He later attempted to clarify his statement, contending he did not advocate for violence. Despite this, Crow and his colleagues reported receiving death threats following Trump’s remarks.

Legal experts are weighing in on the implications of such orders. Joseph Jordan, a former U.S. Army officer and attorney specializing in defending military personnel, pointed to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This code asserts that service members must obey lawful orders, but it also specifies that they can refuse orders that are “patently illegal.” Jordan highlighted that orders compelling the commission of a crime fall under this category. Yet, disobeying an order carries the risk of court-martial, where a military judge ultimately determines the legality of the command.

In a detailed examination published in the New York Times, attorney David French, who also served in Iraq, clarified the boundaries of lawful military engagement. He noted that while some actions, like shooting a prisoner, are unequivocally illegal, others, such as bombing a suspected insurgent hideout, fall into a legally ambiguous area. French raised concerns about the legality of Trump’s orders regarding potential military actions against vessels in the Caribbean suspected of drug trafficking.

Historical Context of Defying Orders

The historical precedent for military personnel resisting unlawful orders can be traced back to the Sand Creek Massacre of November 29, 1864. On that day, Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer refused to allow their troops to participate in the slaughter of approximately 200 Cheyenne and Arapahoe tribespeople, primarily women and children. At that time, tensions were high in the Great Plains, where the U.S. had recently expanded its territory.

Despite the Cheyenne’s display of the American flag in their camp, Colonel John Chivington, a Civil War hero, led a surprise attack on the encampment, resulting in a brutal massacre. Chivington’s actions were motivated by personal ambition rather than a commitment to peace, as he had previously participated in peace negotiations.

In the aftermath, Soule and Cramer expressed their horror in letters to their commanding officer, Major Edward Wynkoop. The Army held hearings months later, but Soule did not live to see full accountability; he was assassinated in Denver shortly thereafter. Both men have since been recognized for their moral courage, while political figures like Colorado’s territorial governor, John Evans, have faced scrutiny for their roles in creating an environment conducive to such violence.

Legacy of the Sand Creek Massacre

The legacy of the Sand Creek Massacre continues to resonate today, influencing discussions about military ethics and the responsibilities of service members. Reports from Northwestern University and the University of Denver have examined Evans’s role in the events leading up to the massacre. Both institutions found that he played a significant part in fostering a climate that made the tragedy likely.

Today, the grave of Captain Soule, marked by a simple white tombstone, stands in stark contrast to the imposing memorial of Evans, who remained silent when leadership was needed. On Memorial Day, visitors left flowers and tributes at Soule’s resting place, while Evans’s grave remained unadorned, highlighting the differing perceptions of their legacies.

As the discourse around military orders and ethical responsibilities continues, the historical examples of Soule and Cramer serve as poignant reminders of the importance of moral integrity in the face of unjust directives. The current situation involving Trump’s orders places military personnel in a challenging position, echoing the historical dilemmas faced by those like Soule and Cramer over a century ago.