Mark Kelly—former Navy combat pilot, astronaut, sitting United States Senator—stated a simple legal fact on video: members of the US military can refuse illegal orders.
Justice Robert Jackson in his opening statement at the Nurenberg trials:
“We will not accept the ‘I was only following orders’ excuse. We do not accept the self-serving doctrine that authority absolves the subordinate of personal guilt. The fact that a man acts under the orders of a superior does not free him from responsibility to law.”
and,
“If we were to admit the defense that men may excuse themselves for crimes by pointing to a superior, then we would be saying that authority may be exalted above the law, and that would be a complete defense to tyranny.”
Thank you! For the moment, my support can only be ether is, but as soon as my finances allow, it will become monetary. You matter so much; your voice is so important
May I ask, the first half of your post is so clear and the alarms so loud in my head, is it necessary in second half to escalate to haranguing the reader?
Yes. Absolutely. Unfortunately, the alarms are not so loud in everyone's head, and I hope that people are passing this around to those who are still "on the fence" (though how anyone of sound mind and body can be "on the fence" at this point baffles me).
Now we have to get mainstream TV news to stop reporting it like this:
"The Pentagon says it might recall Democratic Senator Mark Kelly to active duty so he can face court martial for participating in a video that the Pentagon says undermines military discipline."
The modern media’s cult of balance is almost as bad as state tv. It wipes away truth just as well and leaves viewers confused and cynical. “One side says X, the other side says Y, we report and you decide!”
When it should be reported as "Donald Trump's toady Pete Hegseth says that he might recall Senator Kelly to active duty so that he can be unjustly court-martialed for plainly stating a fact of law that has been well-understood and agreed upon since WWII."
And we should call out Watters specifically, naming him as a fascist, echoing Nazi propaganda straight from the book, asking whether America thinks Fox News is right to entertain Nazism, and whether they can be candid about it or are just cowards hiding behind big donors.
"You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it.' ... You had an option, sir — to say 'no' — and you chose to say 'yes' ... That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough."
"I had no option."
"That is an avowal of failure! ... You had an option, sir. You could have done better."
(Excerpted from the English-language leaders' debate, exchange between John Turner and Brian Mulroney, 1984 general election, Canada, July 25, 1984)
What we’re really saying is that the bad faith Repugnicanism building over the past half-century has fledged into full-blown fascism (or authoritarianism – is this picking nits?), meaning more specifically for unaware Americans, that Repugnicans are no longer some version of conservative democrat (small “d”), nor republican (small “r”) in the slightest. The rest of us may be democratic republicans of various stripes, but they have abandoned it, opting instead to force their views upon the majority, to abuse and punish any deviation, and with blatant cruelty. These are emotionally disturbed people, if not mentally unstable, increasingly criminal under democratic law, not simply political opponents. This is why they have become anathema, and why Americans are turning away, saying “That’s not what we thought we were voting for”.
There are those who default to the idea that there is some kind of “normal” humanity that adopts authoritarian views. I keep saying that this is a false reading of human nature, one that is statistically stable at a minority level, thanks only to insistently imposed discipline of children that prevents them from achieving truly normal human emotional self-mastery. That is, they are proto-human, if you read the evolutionary record. This phenomenon reflects a weakness in humankind’s evolution for culture, but one we can fix with intelligence and compassion.
This means that solutions cannot solely be political, but understood as cultural adaptations to our psychological limitations, specifically addressing the child-rearing parameters for successful democracy. Solutions must also account for how corporations and general economics have taken advantage of these psychological weaknesses, how they express authoritarian tendencies. We cannot assume that the current form of corporations, and the laws they have essentially written for themselves, can be allowed to stand.
It means that we need to take a harder look at people calling themselves Republicans, exploring whether this is stubborn nostalgia, semantic mischief, or a genuinely cautious outlook on drastic changes needed to survive our increasingly problematic future. There’s plenty of room for debate on a number of subjects, but we need not shy away; we simply need a lot more clarity and a heaping helping of compassion.
Justice Robert Jackson in his opening statement at the Nurenberg trials:
“We will not accept the ‘I was only following orders’ excuse. We do not accept the self-serving doctrine that authority absolves the subordinate of personal guilt. The fact that a man acts under the orders of a superior does not free him from responsibility to law.”
and,
“If we were to admit the defense that men may excuse themselves for crimes by pointing to a superior, then we would be saying that authority may be exalted above the law, and that would be a complete defense to tyranny.”
Thank you! For the moment, my support can only be ether is, but as soon as my finances allow, it will become monetary. You matter so much; your voice is so important
May I ask, the first half of your post is so clear and the alarms so loud in my head, is it necessary in second half to escalate to haranguing the reader?
Yes. Absolutely. Unfortunately, the alarms are not so loud in everyone's head, and I hope that people are passing this around to those who are still "on the fence" (though how anyone of sound mind and body can be "on the fence" at this point baffles me).
Now we have to get mainstream TV news to stop reporting it like this:
"The Pentagon says it might recall Democratic Senator Mark Kelly to active duty so he can face court martial for participating in a video that the Pentagon says undermines military discipline."
Then
"We'll be right back with the weather."
The modern media’s cult of balance is almost as bad as state tv. It wipes away truth just as well and leaves viewers confused and cynical. “One side says X, the other side says Y, we report and you decide!”
When it should be reported as "Donald Trump's toady Pete Hegseth says that he might recall Senator Kelly to active duty so that he can be unjustly court-martialed for plainly stating a fact of law that has been well-understood and agreed upon since WWII."
Mike! Is it an “official act” of the Presidency to investigate your political opponent?
I think not!
Grounds for criminal misconduct!
“Lock em up!”
And we should call out Watters specifically, naming him as a fascist, echoing Nazi propaganda straight from the book, asking whether America thinks Fox News is right to entertain Nazism, and whether they can be candid about it or are just cowards hiding behind big donors.
Again, Nuremberg-style trials for all of them. And yes, we need to include the fascist-supporting members of the "free press" as well.
"I had no option."
"You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it.' ... You had an option, sir — to say 'no' — and you chose to say 'yes' ... That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough."
"I had no option."
"That is an avowal of failure! ... You had an option, sir. You could have done better."
(Excerpted from the English-language leaders' debate, exchange between John Turner and Brian Mulroney, 1984 general election, Canada, July 25, 1984)
What we’re really saying is that the bad faith Repugnicanism building over the past half-century has fledged into full-blown fascism (or authoritarianism – is this picking nits?), meaning more specifically for unaware Americans, that Repugnicans are no longer some version of conservative democrat (small “d”), nor republican (small “r”) in the slightest. The rest of us may be democratic republicans of various stripes, but they have abandoned it, opting instead to force their views upon the majority, to abuse and punish any deviation, and with blatant cruelty. These are emotionally disturbed people, if not mentally unstable, increasingly criminal under democratic law, not simply political opponents. This is why they have become anathema, and why Americans are turning away, saying “That’s not what we thought we were voting for”.
There are those who default to the idea that there is some kind of “normal” humanity that adopts authoritarian views. I keep saying that this is a false reading of human nature, one that is statistically stable at a minority level, thanks only to insistently imposed discipline of children that prevents them from achieving truly normal human emotional self-mastery. That is, they are proto-human, if you read the evolutionary record. This phenomenon reflects a weakness in humankind’s evolution for culture, but one we can fix with intelligence and compassion.
This means that solutions cannot solely be political, but understood as cultural adaptations to our psychological limitations, specifically addressing the child-rearing parameters for successful democracy. Solutions must also account for how corporations and general economics have taken advantage of these psychological weaknesses, how they express authoritarian tendencies. We cannot assume that the current form of corporations, and the laws they have essentially written for themselves, can be allowed to stand.
It means that we need to take a harder look at people calling themselves Republicans, exploring whether this is stubborn nostalgia, semantic mischief, or a genuinely cautious outlook on drastic changes needed to survive our increasingly problematic future. There’s plenty of room for debate on a number of subjects, but we need not shy away; we simply need a lot more clarity and a heaping helping of compassion.