Reversing the Nuremberg Verdict
Yesterday: 'Just following orders' is no excuse. Today: Obedience to Trump is the law.
The Nuremberg Trials established that “just following orders” could never excuse crimes against humanity. Today, Trump and his spin team invert that principle, insisting that presidential commands are automatically lawful and branding constitutional duty as treason.
The central takeaway from the post-WW2 Nuremberg Trials was that “just following orders” (the so‑called Nuremberg defense) is not a valid excuse for committing war crimes or carrying out illegal orders. The trials established that individuals have a moral and legal responsibility to reject unlawful orders, even when issued by superiors.
Leaders and soldiers alike were held personally responsible for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. This was a radical shift from the idea that only states or commanders bore responsibility. The trials reinforced that crimes such as genocide and aggressive war are violations of international law, regardless of national laws or military orders.
Nazi officials like Hermann Göring and Adolf Eichmann argued they were instruments of higher authority. The tribunal rejected this, stressing that moral choice remains even under coercion.
This precedent carried forward: during the Vietnam War, Lt. William Calley tried to use the Nuremberg defense in the My Lai Massacre trial. His lawyers argued he was following his captain’s orders, but the court found him guilty of premeditated murder.
But that wasn’t the only story from My Lai.
Hugh Thompson, Jr. was a U.S. Army helicopter pilot who, along with his crew, Glenn Andreotta and Lawrence Colburn, witnessed his fellow soldiers slaughtering Vietnamese civilians. He landed his helicopter between fleeing villagers and advancing troops, ordering his men to train their guns on fellow Americans if necessary to protect civilians. He evacuated survivors, radioed reports of atrocities, and demanded that headquarters intervene. His actions directly halted further killings.
Thomson and his crew paid a heavy price at first for their heroism. Instead of being celebrated, He was vilified. Many in the military and public branded him a traitor for testifying against fellow soldiers. He received death threats and was ostracized.
But then, in 1998 — 30 years after Mỹ Lai — he and his crew were finally awarded the Soldier’s Medal, the Army’s highest award for bravery not involving direct combat (Andreotta posthumously)
But that was then. This is now:
The clash over “illegal orders” has resurfaced in stark terms.
This week, six Democratic lawmakers (including Sens. Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly) released a video reminding military and intelligence personnel of their duty to refuse unlawful orders.
“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the congressional Democrats said in the video posted Tuesday.
“The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here, right at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders,” the group continued. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
The MAGA spin machine saw their charge as an opportunity to push the Epstein Files off the front page and deflect back to the Democrats
Every single order that is given to this United States military by this commander in chief and through this chain of command, through the Secretary of War, is lawful,” Leavitt said.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt began with the lie that the Democrats were telling troops not to obey orders from their superiors. She even went so far as to claim that any order given by President Trump is a legal order.
Trump responded by labeling them “traitors,” calling their actions “seditious behavior, punishable by death,” and even reposted social media comments urging that they be hanged.
Hallmarks of authoritarian rule
It contradicts military law: The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes clear that service members must refuse unlawful orders. Orders are not automatically legal simply because they come from the president.
It erases constitutional limits: By declaring all presidential orders lawful, Leavitt collapsed the distinction between authority and legality, a hallmark of fascist rhetoric.
It weaponizes loyalty: The Democrats reminded troops of their oath to the Constitution. Leavitt reframed that as betrayal, effectively redefining loyalty as obedience to Trump personally.
Excellent summary, Mike.And thanks for bringing Thompson back from the memory hoele. One might ask the sharp-tongued Leavitt if she thinks his award should be revoked and Cally praised. I'll pass this on. Plus I'll see you on CCDS's 4th Monday coming up.
Well technically, Hermann Goring wasn't just following illegal orders, he was very much responsible for issuing them. I've read that seeking to keep Hitler's name off the record, when the "Final Solution" was systematized, it was Goring who signed off on it.