Unlawful orders
I went through Army basic training in April 1972 at Fort Dix in New Jersey, which was after My Lai, when American soldiers, following orders, murdered unarmed, helpless women and children and the elderly. Those orders were not lawful, and “just following orders,” as the defendants at Nuremberg said to justify their behavior, was not a valid excuse.
As soldiers, we were taught that we had a duty to question — and even resist — unlawful and unconstitutional orders. At a time when our service members are following orders to kill unknown people in boats with no due process, and at the same time the military is being used in our cities to intimidate and punish political enemies, there are, and need to be, limits.
John W. Haigis, Darby
. . .
The Nazi war criminals, after World War II, invalidated the so-called Nuremberg defense of “just following orders.” Courts held that following illegal orders is a crime.
My basic training as an Army officer clearly delineated a spectrum of legal and illegal orders. It was emphasized, in unambiguous terms, that not only is it permissible to disobey illegal orders, it is an unequivocal duty to do so. Officers are particularly obligated to protect their subordinates from illegal orders.
Orders to commit murder, torture, theft, rape, overthrow the U.S. government, oppress U.S. citizens, violate the Constitution, or conspire with enemies of our nation are illegal and prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Today, civilian and military leaders ignorant or disdainful of the U.S. military’s constitutional duty are ascendant. American military personnel deserve to be reminded that members of the U.S. armed forces are obligated to conduct themselves in legal ways at all times. Violations of this standard put them at risk for prosecution and punishment.
Finally, there is no duty of loyalty to any commander, military or civilian. Legal orders must be followed, of course, but U.S. military personnel swear loyalty to the Constitution only. Leaders who confuse or coerce subordinates on this issue violate their oath.
Mike Shivers, Altoona
Missed opportunity
We’ve grown accustomed to the president’s hubris and insulting rhetoric. This was evident again last week when he showed clear disdain toward a female journalist with the dismissive “Quiet, piggy!” comment. While such behavior has, regrettably, come to be expected from him, the lack of response from the surrounding journalists is far more troubling.
Not one of them defended their colleague or, more forcefully, repeated the question that provoked his outburst. Instead, they simply “moved on” to their own priorities, seemingly focused on maintaining access rather than demonstrating solidarity.
When journalists turn a blind eye to this kind of misogynistic bullying, they are, in effect, capitulating to the bully. Their silence creates a dangerous precedent: It signals that such conduct is tolerable and carries no immediate professional consequence. This inaction undermines the core mission of the press — to hold power accountable — and normalizes personalized attacks over policy engagement.
The press corps has a collective duty. Moving forward, fellow journalists must step up to defend “one of their own.” Only a unified, vocal response can reaffirm the dignity of their profession and uphold the standards the public deserves.
David Rendell, Haddon Heights
Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.
