Military commands must always be lawful. The post‑WWII Nuremberg trials proved “just following orders” is never defense for crimes against humanity.
Rules of Engagement
As a senior enlisted intelligence specialist in the U.S. Navy, we were required to familiarize ourselves with doctrines that many outside our field might find boring, overwhelming, or burdensome. But military operations are inherently complex in the planning phase—because execution must be simplified and direct. That means when a service member downrange executes an action, it should have already been vetted by leadership.
If the order was a crime, who is responsible? Think about it.
What if the process that produced the order was flawed—or violated legal statutes? And by legal statutes, I don’t mean “the commander’s direction” — I mean all laws: national, international, constitutional.
Did you know military operations have a JAG officer on speed dial? Why? Because even when orders are executed at a moment’s notice, the battlespace is seldom black and white. Add that to your train of thought.
There’s always a chain of command. Some orders are implied — but they cannot be misconstrued. A senior person can delegate the task, but not the responsibility. And the person executing the order is not immune from guilt. Every action is supposed to be governed by clear rules of engagement that define what is and isn’t lawful.
Even if a senior grills a junior for noncompliance, there’s a massive difference between insubordination and refusing complicity in a crime. Easier said than done.
Service members must remember: leadership is fluid. Over a career, we serve under many leaders — some great, some awful. And some will become leaders themselves. That distinction isn’t always clear. Human factors muddy the waters. But when all is said and done, the consequences remain, regardless of how those at the top rationalize an unlawful directive.
If a junior service member pulls the trigger and commits a crime — even if directed — who has literal blood on their hands? And who might wash theirs, blaming the junior for not understanding the rules of engagement?
Has that happened in history? Yes.
AUTHORITARIANISM AND PROPAGANDA The Puppet Master Tools
Revised Edition! Available on Paperback and Hardcover
The Current Battlefield
The United States, under the current administration, is signaling a desire to escalate conflict with Venezuela. It’s widely reported: deployment of the largest aircraft carrier in our arsenal, numerous warships, joint exercises with troops, and strikes against unidentified small boats — without due process — have been normalized.
Some military leaders assigned to the region have resigned in protest or spoken out, calling these actions crimes against humanity.
So what’s the truth?
Before answering, a good analyst assesses the battlespace — not just the area of conflict, but the surrounding factors: geopolitics, sociocultural rhetoric, strategic value, greed (yes, that’s part of it), and many other variables. Brute force is seldom the answer.
I don’t have firsthand access to current military chatter — I’ve retired. But I know what “correct” is supposed to look like. And I suspect legislators with intelligence backgrounds are aware of gaps in planning, tactics, and how directives are disseminated through command and control to the deckplates — especially in Navy assets.
[Editor’s note: The referenced video has since been removed. Its absence underscores the urgency of this message. Here is the transcript highlights]
- Elissa Slotkin (MI, former CIA officer):
“The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.” - Mark Kelly (AZ, former Navy Captain):
“You swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution — not to any one person.” - Jason Crow (CO, former Army Ranger):
“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.” - Chrissy Houlahan (PA, former Air Force officer):
“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” - Chris Deluzio (PA, Navy veteran):
“Don’t give up the ship. Stand firm in your duty to the Constitution.” - Maggie Goodlander (NH, national security lawyer):
“Service members must obey lawful orders. But unlawful orders — including harming civilians — must be refused.”
This clip was picked up by countless mainstream and independent outlets. Then Trump posted on Truth Social:
“Any military officer who refuses my orders will be dealt with. We don’t need traitors in uniform.”
He doubled down. So did his acolytes.
Trump and many of his acolytes – including his base went on to advocate for the “execution” or “hanging” of those who disagree with him. This exceedingly incendiary rhetoric.
In November 2025, President Trump used his Truth Social account to accuse six Democratic lawmakers of “seditious behavior, punishable by DEATH” after they released the aforementioned video urging service members to refuse unlawful orders. He reposted and amplified supporter messages explicitly calling for the execution and hanging of those lawmakers. Several Republican senators publicly chastised him for these remarks, while Democratic leaders warned that such rhetoric could incite political violence
Why am I writing about it, since everyone seems to be talking about this? Because every outlet I’ve seen misses the most important point: When unlawful orders are followed, the person who gave the order often walks free. The one who executed it gets punished.
WOKE & PROUD The Charlatans' Inconvenience
Available worldwide on eBook and Paperback
Orders – Explained Barney Style
Military members swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies — foreign and domestic. That includes insider threats. Until I retired, we had mandatory training every six months to identify them. And yes, sometimes those threats wore senior credentials.
An order must be direct, brief, and lawful. A senior can order troops to stay late for a mission-essential task. But they cannot order someone to wash their car, groom their dog, or babysit their kids. Why? Because those actions aren’t lawful or mission-aligned.
Now it gets muddy. In the battlespace, roles are both assigned and implied. But it’s still the responsibility of those in watch stations to sound the alarm if the person in charge is making a miscalculation — even if they’re junior.
Let me give you an example.
During a routine navigation watch during flight quarters, the Officer of the Deck tells the conning officer to set a course and speed. But that course endangers aircraft recovery. When launching or recovering aircraft, we must ensure course, speed, pitch, roll, and wind are within safe envelopes — or the aircraft could plunge into the ship.
Should the conning officer and watch team speak out? Yes!
That’s why you have a watch team — to ensure everything makes sense. If the Officer of the Deck ignores recommendations and an aircraft crashes, who gets blamed? A lot of people. Starting with the Commanding Officer, who certified that officer for that critical watch station.
You can delegate the task—not the responsibility.
The Officer of the Deck will be sacked. So will the navigation team. Maybe also the combat team. Because they’re supposed to track what’s happening on the bridge. That’s for routine ops.
Now scale up.
When it comes to strikes — when lives are at stake — the risks are higher. Pushing a missile button might seem glorious. But that ordinance has a target. What if the target wasn’t lawful?
Let’s scale down again.
Three people. A senior orders a junior to shoot someone. The junior complies. The person dies. Who pulled the trigger? What if it was a wrongful death? What if the senior lies and denies the order? Dead people don’t talk. The junior could be confined for a crime they were ordered to commit — and left hung out to dry.
On a larger scale, the service member is behind a console, far from the target. There are logs. Recordings. Investigations. Every step is tracked. If no one speaks truth to power, unlawful orders slip through. The senior might be held accountable. But the junior still pulled the trigger. That action stays.
The Nuremberg Trials
I end this article as I began it.
I could give you hundreds — thousands — of examples of unlawful orders. Each one is different. But they all have a motive.
The Nazi regime symbolic rise occurred in Nuremberg. When they lost the war, the Allies held trials there. Decades of terror — from the 1920s to 1945 — ended in that courtroom.
Those of lesser rank tried to defend themselves: “I was just following orders.”
Many received capital punishment for crimes against humanity. Because they chose to pull the trigger. They enacted the massacres that scarred humanity.
Lesser-known proceedings have followed other conflicts. It might surprise you, but the military’s role is to prevent war — not start it. That’s called deterrence.
For comparison: police are called “law enforcement,” not “entrapment.”
As senior leaders resign in protest, new personnel fill their roles. But they may not understand this distinction.
If “yes men and women” follow orders without due process, who wins? The adversary. Adversarial regimes win by default — using our service members to bloody their hands in support of foreign goals.
Most service members — junior and senior — will never sit in the rooms where doctrine is built. They’ll see only the order. Not its origin. That’s why I explained this without military jargon.
Before Nuremberg, insanity was normalized — sanctioned and rewarded as righteous.
Today, unless you’re a psychopath, you know those on trial were on the wrong side of history.
We forge the pages of history every day. What will it say about you? That will be your legacy. HLC
About the Author: J. Marcelo "BeeZee" Baqueroalvarez
🔗 Connect & Learn More: Visit Marcelo's comprehensive landing page for his extended bio, social links, consulting form, and more.
J. Marcelo "BeeZee" Baqueroalvarez is the Founder of Half Life Crisis™, a unique father-daughter collaboration dedicated to the relentless pursuit of intellectual honesty, critical thinking, geopolitical strategy, and meaningful art. Marcelo is the recognized author of the essential reads, Authoritarianism & Propaganda and Woke & Proud, driving challenging conversations worldwide. When not publishing, Marcelo utilizes his strategic insight in technology and business as the founder of BeeZee Vision, LLC™, which includes BZVweb™ Automated Web Services and Info in Context™ strategic consulting.
Continue the Conversation
We encourage intellectual debate! To maintain a clean, focused reading experience, comments have been disabled on this article. Share your insights, counterarguments, or continue the discussion on your preferred social platform: