Latest news with #MyLai
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Military leaders have the right to disobey Trump's unlawful transgender ban
Commanders across the U.S. military face a terrible choice, now that the Supreme Court has greenlighted President Trump's purge of transgender service members from the ranks. One choice is to refuse, at great personal risk, the seemingly unlawful order to involuntarily discharge highly capable, well-trained (millions of dollars' worth), well-respected and highly decorated transgender warriors serving in critical positions in their units. The other is to follow this legally dubious order, which other courts have already lambasted as unconstitutional, and violate their ethical obligations as commanders. Although two federal courts have found likely violative of equal protection the Trump administration's sweeping February policy separating transgender members within mere months, the Supreme Court has lifted the injunction against it without explanation. The legal hold was meant to prevent irrevocable harm while numerous transgender military plaintiffs challenge the ban's constitutionality in the courts — litigation that could take years. Within days of the Supreme Court's green light, the Pentagon issued a new order directing commanders to quickly involuntarily discharge transgender personnel who do not leave voluntarily. This places commanders in an awful bind, as involuntarily separating hundreds (or more) of transgender military members from the ranks doesn't occur magically. Their erasure requires military commanders to initiate discharge procedures — including, in some cases, convening boards of officers, a formal procedure meant to provide some due process for those serving. Commanders bear a burden that is both morally corrosive and deeply problematic. Military officers have a duty to lead and have been trained to do so. They are legally obligated to take care of the men and women under their command so that they, working as a team, can fulfill today's complex missions. The ordered purge directs commanders to do the opposite: instead of taking care of their people, commanders will, in essence, be burning them at the stake. As a former military lawyer and leading military law scholar, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that commanders could disobey the legally dubious orders to carry out Trump's trans ban. Under military law, they have an opportunity to disobey current orders to carry out the purge, due to the policy's unclear legality. Military members' legal obligation to follow orders — upon pain of criminal prosecution through court-martial for disobedience — only applies to lawful orders. The opposite is also true: military members have a legal duty to disobey unlawful orders. But the requirement to disobey only applies to clearly unlawful orders, such as a directive to commit a crime (like killing an unresisting prisoner or shooting women and children who pose no threat, such as during the My Lai massacre). Although 'following orders' hasn't been a valid defense for following manifestly unlawful orders since the post-World War II Nuremberg trials, the bar for what constitutes such a clearly unlawful order is a high one — and rightly so, given that obedience, at least to lawful orders, has been integral to military efficacy for centuries. Applied here, the Pentagon's orders carrying out the Trump transgender purge are not manifestly unlawful. Hence there is no legal duty to disobey them. However, they are not clearly lawful, either, thus falling into a gray zone between clearly unlawful (which must be disobeyed) and clearly lawful (which must be obeyed), both upon pain of criminal prosecution. Although military law presumes military orders' lawfulness, this presumption can be overcome. The ban's constitutionality is the subject of ongoing litigation in several federal courts. A reasonable commander could, based on this ongoing litigation, reasonably question the lawfulness of purge-related orders and disobey them due to perceived illegality — despite the Trump administration's politically appointed Pentagon civilian lawyer presumably giving the policy a legal thumb's-up. Expect that top military lawyers will presumably also opine that the policy is lawful; recall that the secretary of Defense fired the top lawyers earlier this year so that they wouldn't stand in his way. Indeed, military commanders not only reasonably could but reasonably should question the lawfulness of their orders to execute the Trump transgender purge. As the military's highest court has emphasized, 'the obedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automaton. A soldier is a reasoning agent, obliged to respond, not as a machine, but as a person.' However, challenging the lawfulness of a military order by disobeying it comes with significant risk. The commander disobeying it could face court-martial, where the legality of the order would be decided by a military judge. This is a grave risk, given that military judges are officers whose judgeship is merely one assignment in their careers. They lack structural independence from the Pentagon hierarchy — their vulnerability to inappropriate pressure is baked into the military justice system. Or, a disobeying commander could simply be removed from command and receive career-ending unfavorable evaluations for challenging the legality of his or her orders. Yet such negative effects for disobeying orders to purge the ranks of honorable, effective warriors only would come about if enough men and women in uniform choose to follow the orders to carry out such consequences. In theory, if every officer were simply to say no, the entire military could just say no to this dystopian, harmful scheme. However, given the ingrained obedience to orders that permeates military culture, and the very real risk of losing one's career or even being imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth, commanders and others in uniform are likely to choose the easier wrong than the very hard right, and involuntarily discharge transgender soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, airwomen, Coast Guard personnel, and space guardians whom they know are effectively contributing to national security and are being wrongly persecuted. The moral corrosion that will follow touches not only those carrying out these seemingly unlawful orders but all affected units. Dark days are on the near horizon for our military, and for our country. Rachel E. VanLandingham, Lt. Col., USAF (ret.), is Irwin R. Buchalter Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School and president emerita and current director of the National Institute of Military Justice. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Military leaders must disobey Trump's unlawful transgender ban
Commanders across the U.S. military face a terrible choice, now that the Supreme Court has greenlighted President Trump's purge of transgender service members from the ranks. One choice is to refuse, at great personal risk, the seemingly unlawful order to involuntarily discharge highly capable, well-trained (millions of dollars' worth), well-respected and highly decorated transgender warriors serving in critical positions in their units. The other is to follow this legally dubious order, which other courts have already lambasted as unconstitutional, and violate their ethical obligations as commanders. Although two federal courts have found likely violative of equal protection the Trump administration's sweeping February policy separating transgender members within mere months, the Supreme Court has lifted the injunction against it without explanation. The legal hold was meant to prevent irrevocable harm while numerous transgender military plaintiffs challenge the ban's constitutionality in the courts — litigation that could take years. Within days of the Supreme Court's green light, the Pentagon issued a new order directing commanders to quickly involuntarily discharge transgender personnel who do not leave voluntarily. This places commanders in an awful bind, as involuntarily separating hundreds (or more) of transgender military members from the ranks doesn't occur magically. Their erasure requires military commanders to initiate discharge procedures — including, in some cases, convening boards of officers, a formal procedure meant to provide some due process for those serving. Commanders bear a burden that is both morally corrosive and deeply problematic. Military officers have a duty to lead and have been trained to do so. They are legally obligated to take care of the men and women under their command so that they, working as a team, can fulfill today's complex missions. The ordered purge directs commanders to do the opposite: instead of taking care of their people, commanders will, in essence, be burning them at the stake. As a former military lawyer and leading military law scholar, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that commanders could disobey the legally dubious orders to carry out Trump's trans ban. Under military law, they have an opportunity to disobey current orders to carry out the purge, due to the policy's unclear legality. Military members' legal obligation to follow orders — upon pain of criminal prosecution through court-martial for disobedience — only applies to lawful orders. The opposite is also true: military members have a legal duty to disobey unlawful orders. But the requirement to disobey only applies to clearly unlawful orders, such as a directive to commit a crime (like killing an unresisting prisoner or shooting women and children who pose no threat, such as during the My Lai massacre). Although 'following orders' hasn't been a valid defense for following manifestly unlawful orders since the post-World War II Nuremberg trials, the bar for what constitutes such a clearly unlawful order is a high one — and rightly so, given that obedience, at least to lawful orders, has been integral to military efficacy for centuries. Applied here, the Pentagon's orders carrying out the Trump transgender purge are not manifestly unlawful. Hence there is no legal duty to disobey them. However, they are not clearly lawful, either, thus falling into a gray zone between clearly unlawful (which must be disobeyed) and clearly lawful (which must be obeyed), both upon pain of criminal prosecution. Although military law presumes military orders' lawfulness, this presumption can be overcome. The ban's constitutionality is the subject of ongoing litigation in several federal courts. A reasonable commander could, based on this ongoing litigation, reasonably question the lawfulness of purge-related orders and disobey them due to perceived illegality — despite the Trump administration's politically appointed Pentagon civilian lawyer presumably giving the policy a legal thumb's-up. Expect that top military lawyers will presumably also opine that the policy is lawful; recall that the secretary of Defense fired the top lawyers earlier this year so that they wouldn't stand in his way. Indeed, military commanders not only reasonably could but reasonably should question the lawfulness of their orders to execute the Trump transgender purge. As the military's highest court has emphasized, 'the obedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automaton. A soldier is a reasoning agent, obliged to respond, not as a machine, but as a person.' However, challenging the lawfulness of a military order by disobeying it comes with significant risk. The commander disobeying it could face court-martial, where the legality of the order would be decided by a military judge. This is a grave risk, given that military judges are officers whose judgeship is merely one assignment in their careers. They lack structural independence from the Pentagon hierarchy — their vulnerability to inappropriate pressure is baked into the military justice system. Or, a disobeying commander could simply be removed from command and receive career-ending unfavorable evaluations for challenging the legality of his or her orders. Yet such negative effects for disobeying orders to purge the ranks of honorable, effective warriors only would come about if enough men and women in uniform choose to follow the orders to carry out such consequences. In theory, if every officer were simply to say no, the entire military could just say no to this dystopian, harmful scheme. However, given the ingrained obedience to orders that permeates military culture, and the very real risk of losing one's career or even being imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth, commanders and others in uniform are likely to choose the easier wrong than the very hard right, and involuntarily discharge transgender soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, airwomen, Coast Guard personnel, and space guardians whom they know are effectively contributing to national security and are being wrongly persecuted. The moral corrosion that will follow touches not only those carrying out these seemingly unlawful orders but all affected units. Dark days are on the near horizon for our military, and for our country. Rachel E. VanLandingham, Lt. Col., USAF (ret.), is Irwin R. Buchalter Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School and president emerita and current director of the National Institute of Military Justice.
The Independent
06-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Myanmar's military junta must be brought to justice through international courts
Under the cover of the international rescue effort following last week's earthquake, evidence has emerged that Myanmar's dictatorship is systematically exploiting the disaster as cover to commit further atrocities against its own people. Despite declaring a 20-day humanitarian ceasefire, in the first seven days after the quake, junta forces conducted 67 well-documented airstrikes across non-junta areas, including in Sagaing, the quake's epicentre. Far from leading the aid effort, the junta has been conducting indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on quake victims. As the list of post-quake atrocities grows, so does the determination within Myanmar to seek legal redress for some of the deadliest massacres in the country's history. The Pazigyi massacre in 2023 was one of the deadliest atrocities perpetrated by Myanmar's military since independence in 1948. It is probably the deadliest. We will never know with certainty, because for 53 of its 77 post-independence years, Myanmar has languished under military rule, and the excesses of state-sponsored repression – for example some of the mass killings during the 1988 student-led uprising that I covered for the BBC – remained undocumented. As a result, the army has enjoyed virtual impunity, as the post-quake strikes have shown. But that is now changing. Myanmar's democratic, but ousted, National Unity Government (NUG), along with partner organisations, have been investigating a series of massacres since the coup on 1 February 2021. The initiative is led by the NUG's human rights minister Aung Myo Min, who is unstinting in his quest for justice. 'Pazigyi was Myanmar's most egregious ' My Lai ' moment,' he says, referring to the mass murder of South Vietnamese villagers by US soldiers in 1968. 'Sadly, there have been dozens of My Lai moments since Myanmar's military seized power and turned the guns of one of southeast Asia's most powerful armies against our people.' In the early morning on 11 April 2023, some 200 civilians at Pazigyi, a non-junta village in Myanmar's northwestern Sagaing Region, were preparing for the opening ceremony of a People's Administration, or local government office. Rural folk from surrounding villages had gathered with their families to enjoy the celebrations. At 7.30am, without warning, an air force YAK-130 fighter jet dropped two 500lb bombs on this mainly civilian gathering. More disproportionate and indiscriminate airstrikes followed. First responders and medical workers were killed and maimed as they attempted to rescue the wounded and recover bodies. Junta jets returned just before 6pm to kill any remaining survivors. The NUG has documented 157 deaths, including 30 children, among them an 11-month-old baby, 27 women and 13 people over 60 years of age. Human rights groups put the death toll as high as 180. Amid the carnage of mangled corpses and scattered body parts, and under constant fear of attack, counting the dead with precision was virtually impossible. 'Even by the standards of some of the world's most vicious dictatorships, Pazigyi stands out as an icon of mankind's inhumanity', says Myo. 'Bodies were blown to pieces, up to 300m in different directions. One woman told our investigation, 'I believe I would recognise my daughter, even if I saw any pieces of her flesh, no matter how small the piece, even a finger or toe. But I could not find any.'' In the first week of May, I will accompany the human rights minister to file evidence on behalf of the victims of the Pazigyi Massacre at the Office of the Chief Prosecutor in Istanbul. My organisation, the Myanmar Accountability Project (MAP), opened a case in Turkey in 2022, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, allowing grave international crimes committed in Myanmar to be adjudicated there, and for evidence to be submitted to the open investigation. MAP has also been working with grassroots investigators in Rakhine State, home of Myanmar's Rohingya Muslims, to document junta atrocity crimes. In Istanbul, we will also be filing evidence of a three-day junta killing spree in January last year against the Muslim village of Hpon Nyo Leik, where rebels of the anti-junta, Arakan Army, had taken up positions. According to these local investigators, '18 people were killed and dozens injured by disproportionate and indiscriminate junta artillery strikes, followed by arson attacks in which whole villages were burnt down'. These local investigators responded quickly and boldly, gathering evidence in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, which is of critical importance to the case. Our hope is that Turkey will issue arrest warrants for the perpetrators we are naming in our submission. Cases are being brought against the junta in national jurisdictions around the world, but also at the two international courts in the Hague, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which hears cases against individuals and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which adjudicates disputes between states. Under the principle of regional solutions for regional problems, MAP and the Chin Human Rights Organisation (CHRO) have initiated universal jurisdiction action against the Myanmar junta in East Timor and the Philippines, which we hope will lead to indictments. The recent arrest in the Philippines of former President Rodrigo Duterte and his transfer to the ICC is a hopeful sign that southeast Asian governments can, if the political will is there, live up to their international obligations to bring war criminals in the region to justice. There are encouraging signs too from Argentina, in a case brought by the London-based Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK (BROUK). An Argentine court in February issued arrest warrants for 25 suspects from Myanmar, including junta leader, Min Aung Hlaing, and the imprisoned state counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, for their alleged involvement in the genocide against the Rohingya in 2017. Suu Kyi's son, Kim Aris, argues the case against his mother is based on exaggerated claims about her involvement in the genocide, but sources at the court insist that the arrest warrants are based on sound legal considerations. The Argentina case is supported by the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), a Geneva-based organisation consisting of former prosecutors and investigators and Myanmar experts. The IIMM has worked diligently since its creation to collect and analyse a vast body of evidence. More importantly, it stands ready and willing to support the kinds of cases that MAP and others are bringing, under its mandate from the UN Human Rights Council. This is key. The IIMM's input would be a huge asset to domestic accountability efforts and significantly increases the prospects for prosecutions. Meanwhile, the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, has requested an arrest warrant against Min Aung Hlaing, which we urge the court to issue soon. However, at the other court in the Hague, the ICJ, the case brought by the Gambia against Myanmar for violating the Genocide Convention has been mired in procedural delays. The proliferation of universal jurisdiction cases is slowly having a transformative impact, at the personal, societal and national levels. This will intensify as post-quake atrocities continue. Victims are telling their truths, validating their narratives, becoming advocates for themselves and their communities. Moreover, grassroots victims' groups are creating institutions that promote the rule of law, a key element of 'bottom up, federal democracy'. According to the human rights minister, accountability is indispensable if Myanmar is ever to be peaceful, stable and prosperous. 'The widespread and systematic use of disproportionate and indiscriminate air strikes after the quake are clear violations of international humanitarian law. Unless perpetrators of gross human rights abuses are held to account, Myanmar will be condemned to further cycles of massacres, impunity, injustice and military misrule. Through global, national and grassroots justice efforts, the cycle will be broken. That is why accountability is so deeply important to my country, right now.'
Boston Globe
29-03-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Today in History: March 29, ‘Terra-cotta Army' discovered in China
Advertisement In 1951, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted in New York of conspiracy to commit espionage for the Soviet Union. (They were executed in June 1953.) In 1961, the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified, allowing residents of Washington, D.C., to vote in presidential elections. In 1971, Army Lieutenant William L. Calley Jr. was convicted of murdering 22 Vietnamese civilians in the 1968 My Lai massacre. (Initially sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor, Calley's sentence would ultimately be commuted by President Richard Nixon to three years of house arrest.) In 1971, a jury in Los Angeles recommended the death penalty for Charles Manson and three female followers for the 1969 Tate-La Bianca murders. (The sentences were commuted when the California state Supreme Court struck down the death penalty in 1972.) In 1973, the last United States combat troops left South Vietnam, ending America's direct military involvement in the Vietnam War. In 1974, a group of Chinese farmers digging a well struck fragments of terra-cotta buried underground. Archaeologists would ultimately discover terra-cotta sculptures of more than 8,000 soldiers and other figures. The 'Terra-cotta Army' would become one of the most significant archaeological discoveries of the 20th century. In 1984, under the cover of early morning darkness, the Baltimore Colts football team left its home city of three decades, sending the team's equipment to Indianapolis in moving trucks without informing Baltimore city or Maryland state officials. Advertisement In 2004, President George W. Bush welcomed seven former Soviet-bloc nations (Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia) into NATO during a White House ceremony.
Chicago Tribune
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Today in History: Tonya Harding pleads guilty
Today is Sunday, March 16, the 75th day of 2025. There are 290 days left in the year. Today in history: On March 16, 1994, figure skater Tonya Harding pleaded guilty in Portland, Oregon, to conspiracy to hinder prosecution for covering up an attack on rival Nancy Kerrigan, avoiding jail but drawing a $100,000 fine and three years of probation. Also on this date: In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson signed a measure authorizing the establishment of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. In 1935, Adolf Hitler broke the military terms set by the Treaty of Versailles by ordering the rearming of Germany and resuming military conscription. In 1968, during the Vietnam War, U.S. Army soldiers hunting for Viet Cong fighters and sympathizers killed as many as 500 unarmed villagers in two hamlets of Son My village, in what became known as the My Lai massacre. In 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. In 1972, in a nationally broadcast address, President Richard Nixon called for a moratorium on court-ordered school busing to achieve racial desegregation. In 1984, William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, was kidnapped by Hezbollah militants; he would be tortured by his captors and killed in 1985. In 1985, Associated Press correspondent Terry Anderson was kidnapped in Beirut by Hezbollah militants; he would spend nearly seven years in captivity before being freed in December 1991. In 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to take the seat of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who had died the previous month. Republicans who controlled the Senate would stick to their pledge to leave the seat empty until after the presidential election; they confirmed Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch in April 2017. In 2020, global stocks plunged amid coronavirus concerns, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 2,997 points (12.9%), the largest point drop and second-largest single-day percentage decline in history. Today's Birthdays: Business executive Sanford Weill is 92. Actor Erik Estrada is 76. Football Hall of Famer Joe DeLamielleure is 74. Actor Isabelle Huppert is 72. Rock musician Nancy Wilson (Heart) is 71. Golf Hall of Famer Hollis Stacy is 71. Football Hall of Famer Ozzie Newsome is 69. Rapper-actor Flavor Flav is 66. Folk musician Patty Griffin is 61. Actor Lauren Graham is 58. Actor Judah Friedlander is 56. Actor Alan Tudyk is 54. Actor Alexandra Daddario is 39. R&B singer Jhené Aiko is 37. Rock musician Wolfgang Van Halen is 34. NBA center Joel Embiid is 31. MLB first baseman Vladimir Guerrero Jr. is 26.
