Hank Honig posted this on Facebook a few days ago. It refers to and reprints a great explanation regarding how the U. S. Military defines and follows legal command orders as opposed to those which are not. As he says, it's offered as a "Public Service" in light of today's news concerning the United States Defense Dept. destroying boats and killing those aboard that MAY be involved in illegal drugs purportedly headed to the U.S. It's an important read.
Thanks to JoJo Liszbet for the best explanation of why illegal orders must not be obeyed
Good Morning! Just a PSA to those who have never been in the service and a “reminder” to those who have or are currently serving.
What an Illegal Order Actually Is —
People are yelling “treason!” at Senator Mark Kelly for reminding troops of something every recruit learns on DAY ONE:
-----------------------
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), U.S. service members must obey lawful orders — and must refuse unlawful ones.That isn’t “treason.”
That isn’t “defiance.”
That isn’t “undermining the chain of command.”
That is literally the LAW.
It’s the cornerstone of military professionalism.
And since so many folks are pretending they suddenly don’t understand what an “illegal order” is, let’s do the work they refuse to do and walk people through it.
1. What the UCMJ actually says about unlawful orders
Under Articles 90, 91, and 92 of the UCMJ, troops must follow lawful orders.
But the military’s own doctrine is even clearer:
Troops must refuse “manifestly unlawful orders.” If they follow an illegal order, THEY can be prosecuted. “Just following orders” is not a defense. That principle comes straight from post-WWII law and is baked into every modern military on Earth.The idea is simple:
The U.S. military follows the Constitution and the law — not the whims of a politician.
So what’s an illegal order?
Let’s be specific.
2. What makes an order illegal? (The real definition)
An order is illegal when it requires a service member to:
• Use lethal force where lethal force is not legally justified
• Harm civilians or noncombatants
• Break domestic criminal law
• Violate the Law of Armed Conflict
• Treat noncombatants as enemy combatants
• Use military power as law enforcement without legal authorization
• Engage in disproportionate or unnecessary force
• Commit acts prohibited by treaty or U.S. statute
These standards don’t disappear because a president gets angry, or because social media influencers yell about “toughness.”
The law doesn’t care about vibes.
3. When is it LEGAL to fire on vessels?
This is where it becomes obvious why people are suddenly uncomfortable.
Under U.S. and international maritime law, you can only use lethal force against a vessel if:
A. The vessel poses an imminent threatExamples:
• It is firing on U.S. forces
• It is attempting to ram
• It is demonstrating clear hostile intent
B. The vessel is a lawful military target in an armed conflictThis only applies if:
• The U.S. is in a declared or authorized war
• The vessel is an enemy warship or armed combatant
We are NOT in an armed conflict with Venezuela.
C. The vessel refuses lawful commands and poses a threat that cannot be handled by non-lethal meansEven in law-enforcement situations (like drug interdiction), the rules are strict:
• You must hail the vessel
• You must attempt non-lethal compliance measures
• You must try to board
• You must escalate force only when absolutely necessary
• Lethal force is LAST resort and only if there is a threat to life
Drug smuggling suspicion does not make someone a combat target.
Ever.
4. What is NOT legal?
Here’s what is not allowed:
Shooting a boat because it “might” have drugs Destroying a vessel because it fled Using lethal force as a shortcut to interdiction Treating smugglers as enemy combatants Blowing up civilian vessels in international waters Acting like the high seas are a free-fire zone Using military force without congressional authorizationNone of that becomes legal just because the administration spins it after the fact.
5. Now let’s talk about the Venezuelan boats.
The government is now publicly admitting that U.S. forces have shot Venezuelan vessels out of the water, with the justification that they were “drug boats.”
Even if they were, that doesn’t magically transform those boats into:
• Combatants
• Military targets
• Enemy vessels
• Armed threats
Drug smuggling is a CRIME.
It is not an act of war.
There is no legal theory under which drug suspicion authorizes sinking a vessel.
Which means:
If troops were ordered to destroy those boats without an imminent threat, that is a manifestly illegal order.Exactly the kind of thing the UCMJ requires troops to refuse.
And this is why the people screaming “treason!” at Mark Kelly don’t want to talk about details. Because once you understand what an illegal order actually is, you realize this isn’t abstract at all.
Some of these orders may already be crossing the line.
6. Why the political outrage is backwards
Telling troops:
“You must refuse illegal orders”
is not treason.
Ordering troops:
“Shoot that boat even though we’re not in a war, it’s not a threat, and the law doesn’t allow it”
—that’s the thing the UCMJ is designed to prevent.
It’s not complicated:
• Lawful orders must be obeyed
• Unlawful orders must be refused
• Political fantasies do not override law
• Congress controls war, not the president
• The U.S. military is loyal to the Constitution, not individuals
If ExSeth’s Department of Defense is leaning into a “shoot first” posture that doesn’t follow maritime law, then they’re the ones issuing potentially illegal orders, not the people warning troops to follow the law.
7. Final point
You don’t fix the military by telling troops to obey illegal orders.
You fix the military by making sure the people giving orders understand the law — or are replaced if they don’t.
This isn’t treason.
This is civics.
And the people yelling the loudest are the ones most afraid you’ll learn it.
