Duffy: Those who execute military orders carry all the risk

"What matters most here is not who appeared righteous or reckless in the moment, but what happens when legality is left unresolved. In this case, junior service members are being placed in the position of exercising legal and moral judgment without meaningful authority, clarity or institutional backing. Those who make decisions remain insulated from consequence; those who execute them carry the risk."

"The episode began with a short video released late last year by Kelly and several other members of Congress all veterans of the U.S. military or intelligence community reminding service members of their duty to refuse unlawful orders, a principle firmly embedded in U.S. military law. The video was a response to recent U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific that raised serious unresolved legal questions under both domestic and international law questions that warranted a clear, public accounting from the Department of Defense. That accounting never came. Instead, Hegseth labeled the video seditious and moved to censure Kelly, a retired Navy captain, triggering a review that could strip him of his rank and pension."

"Under U.S. military law, the duty to refuse unlawful orders is not designed to stand alone. It presumes a functioning system behind it one in which legality is clarified through command and legal channels before an individual service member is forced into a moment of personal defiance. Refusal is meant to be a last safeguard, not the primary mechanism by which legality is enforced."

Unresolved legal questions about recent U.S. boat strikes created a confrontation between Sen. Mark Kelly and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Kelly and other veterans released a video reminding service members of the duty to refuse unlawful orders, grounded in U.S. military law. The Department of Defense did not provide a clear public accounting of the strikes. Hegseth labeled the video seditious and moved to censure Kelly, prompting a review that could strip his rank and pension. The duty to refuse presumes functioning command and legal channels and is intended as a last safeguard, not the primary mechanism of enforcing legality, thereby exposing lower-ranking service members to legal and moral risk.

Read at www.mercurynews.com