Category: Commentary

I won’t spend as much time analyzing the shooting death of Alex Pretti as I did previously with Renee Good. One colleague criticized my approach as “frame-by-frame” as if more detail and thoughtful analysis was unnecessary. It’s a sad commentary on where we are when otherwise rational people take such a position. Instead, I recommend you read/view this New York Times analysis which does a fair job of analyzing the scene. But I will add some thoughts in general.

1. Continuing the theme that our national derangement has left folks unable to think clearly, gun-restriction enthusiasts are now championing the dead man’s right-to-bear-arms in a confrontation with law enforcement. And Second Amendment absolutists are questioning it. Foolish (key word) consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. These role reversals denote no minds at all.
2. I see nothing in the Times’ analysis which suggests a deadly threat. Pretti could barely be described as impeding, as he backs away from one agent and only briefly touches him when that agent pushes a woman over a snowbank. This is a normal reaction for anybody in such a situation. He does then resist, as it takes six agents to take him to the ground, and even then he remains on his knees, not prone (which would be the position law enforcement would be placing him in for detention). But resistance is not a threat. The discovery of his weapon amidst the scrum is handled by one agent removing it, yet another then opens fire. While the Times makes much of the number of shots subsequently fired, I will point out again that once an officer makes the decision to use deadly force, that officer (and others) are authorized to continue firing until the target is completely neutralized (ie, dead or incapacitated). If you want to make the case for warning shots or shooting people in the legs or whatever, you’re in the realm of TV, not the real world. Those are the rules established (repeatedly) by the Supreme Court. The issue here is the lack of a reasonable cause for deadly force in the first place, because there probably is none. I only say “probably” because we don’t have all the video and audio.
3. Mr. Pretti’s right to carry a weapon is undeniable. His duty to be responsible when doing so can be questioned. The fact he went to the trouble of getting a concealed carry permit suggests he was a serious, law-abiding person. We don’t know whether he had his permit and identification on him, as required by Minnesota state law, but even if he didn’t, it’s a misdemeanor punishable by a minor fine and can be remediated simply by showing one has a valid permit. As a serious, law-abiding citizen, he no doubt knew that Minnesota is a duty-to-acknowledge state with respect to carrying weapons. Some states require those carrying weapons to announce so to law enforcement (called duty-to-disclose). Minnesota only requires one to acknowledge carrying a weapon “if asked” by law enforcement. However, nearly all gun-rights organizations have training (real and online) telling in detail exactly how to disclose your carry status when dealing with law enforcement, explaining it is always best to do so, because the sudden discovery of a concealed weapon can become deadly. Needless to say, engaging in a scrum is not a responsible way to conduct your right to concealed carry.
4. The immediate overreaction by those vilifying the agents involved is expected, if unfortunate. Even if the crticis are ultimately justified, they were wrong to jump to conclusions. I am more offended by the similar over-reaction by ICE and DHS officials. Immediately declaring the victims were “domestic terrorists” is beyond the pale, especially given the lack of a formal investigation in the Good shooting, and the lack of a completed one in the Pretti shooting. Standing up for your agents can be accomplished with tact and not at the expense of the reputation of American citizens. President Trump should fire DHS Secretary Noem, as she lacks all public credibility at this point. Border Patrol Commander Bovino merits the same treatment.
5. Both shootings merit full, independent investigations. Of the orders given, the actions taken, and the motives involved. On all sides. ICE needs to assess its use-of-force criteria, especially when dealing with citizens rather than illegal/undocumented persons. Telling people that ICE agents have no authority to arrest US citizens is not only wrong, it’s deadly. Suggesting impeding them is some type of game should likewise be treated as a criminal activity.
6. The propaganda from both sides has to stop, as it fuels the tension. If states or cities don’t want to cooperate with ICE, that is their prerogative. So don’t ask your criminals about their immigration status, or don’t notify ICE when such people are released. Fine. But providing local police to create a perimeter where ICE is conducting an ERO is NOT cooperating with ICE: it’s doing your job, protecting your citizens. Watch the Good video. Watch the Pretti video. What’s the one thing you don’t see in those videos? Local police doing what they did under the Obama and Biden and even the first Trump administration: creating a buffer between people and ICE agents doing their federal job. Your Governor or Mayor does NOT get to determine whether (or even how) the federal government enforces immigration law. You don’t have to cooperate, you do have to render assistance, because that’s in the best interest of your citizens. Just Do it!
7. The Trump administration blundered badly when it veered from nationwide immigration enforcement and started a targeted operation in Minnesota because of the extensive federal funding fraud there. You don’t fight fraud with ICE or Border Patrol. While ethnic Somalis were involved in the fraud, there isn’t a nexus to the same persons being here illegally. The full weight of the DOJ (FBI) and Treasury (IRS) needs to be brought to bear on the situation. Mixing in DHS/ICE and Border Patrol only confused the situation.
8. Let’s stop arguing about the “worst of the worst,” shall we? First off, there are over one-million people in the country who have received final deportation orders. This means they have attended all the hearings, applied for every type of relief, and been denied. They have exhausted all due-process. And when they were called to report for deportation, they simply didn’t show. Some have been here for decades. They are not guilty of any other crime, but they have no legal recourse to stay in the country. If you’re arguing they get to stay, you’re saying the law does not matter. Second, while the administration argues the vast majority of those it is deporting are criminals, they play fast and loose with the statistics. They include people who have been convicted along with people who have only been charged, not convicted of a crime. Oh, and they even include people who have had previous convictions or charges dropped or erased from their records through remediation, including sealed records. Some people recoil at this. I only point out that all these things (convictions, charges, and even remediated cases) ARE specifically permitted to be used in determining whether to deport someone. Once again, the rights of a citizen are not the same as those of someone trying to become a citizen or resident. Finally, the illegal alien detained by ICE at the scene where Mr. Pretti was killed was a man previously charged by state and local officials for domestic assault and disorderly conduct. Yes, state and local police. You and I may argue whether those charges are enough to deport someone, but you can’t make up the idea the detentions are random. Last year, there was a major increase in non-criminal removals as a result of “collateral arrests,” where ICE agents executing a warrant for one individual also arrest everyone else present at the scene who lacks legal status. That is not random, either.

If you want to go all-in on abolishing ICE or promoting MAGA, you probably don’t like my analysis, and frankly, yours is a tired take. If you want to argue a point or an opinion, have at it. There are other ways to parse the data, or make the case for or against immigration enforcement /reform. I’m interested in solutions, especially those that fix an immigration mess decades in the making and recently resulting in American citizens dying at the hands of federal agents.

For a moment, set aside the moral arguments that it’s wrong for a big, powerful country to simply take territory from a weaker one. Several Catholic Cardinals in the United States have adequately delineated that argument. Set aside, too, the political arguments that it is short-sighted to antagonize one’s friends simply to acquire something which is essentially already under one’s control. Many European leaders have pointed this out. What about the strategic argument that the continent-sized island called Greenland, an autonomous constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark, is essential to the future and even present security of the United States of America?

Let me be clear: there is no rationale for the strategic argument, either. None. Zilch. Nada. Get out your brooms and let’s take a whack at that strategic straw-man.

First, Greenland sits atop the world, astride the sea lanes which are gradually becoming free of ice as the globe warms. This new sea route, the famed “Northwest Passage” which European adventurers searched for in vain during the period of the 15th-19th Century, would greatly shorten the trade/sea-travel time between Europe and Asia. Forgotten is the fact that this same maniacal quest cost many lives and in the end made no difference, a point moderns might want to recall. Doesn’t the control of sea lanes equate to strategic dominance?

While there is an argument to be made in favor of strategic sea power, it’s not the 1600s any more. One can’t wait for the Spanish Treasure Fleet and steal all the wealth of the New World (alas). Trade routes are useful as long as they remain free. Here’s the little secret: The United States doesn’t need this route, as we have shorter routes to both Europe and Asia. It’s important to Europe, important to China, and would be important to Russia if they ever make anything anybody wants to trade for. The great American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan was quite correct for his time (19th Century). Some things have since changed.

Back in the day, Henry Kissinger was asked about the strategic importance of the nation of Chile. He responded, “Chile is a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica.” When I hear about Greenland’s alleged strategic value, I wonder what Henry would have thought.

What if it’s not all about trade, but defense? Okay, let’s go there. Who are we defending against? Neither Russia nor China has any ability to project land forces into Greenland, nor could they sustain them if they did. If they landed, they would quickly become the world’s largest voluntary prisoner-of-war camp, and a miserable one at that. Basing air forces there is even more out of the question for either. And while there are some ice-free ports available, by themselves they don’t control anything. Greenland is part of the famous GIUK gap, a naval defense and warning line that runs between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom. But the US and NATO have controlled this path for half a century, and have laid the sensors to even track (Russian) submarines that dare to pass through.

Missiles and missile defense, that’s the reason! The US and Canada have established a missile tracking capacity in this region since the first Soviet ICBMs were fielded in 1959; it’s still there, still working. One of our key bases is the former “Thule” (pronounced Too-ley) base, now Pituffik Space Base. Under full US control. If we needed to put more radars or missiles in, we may do so. Now.

Which leads to another observation: under the 1951 US-Danish treaty governing the defense of Greenland, the US can pretty much move any military forces it wants to Greenland, simply by notifying the Danes and the Kalaallit (Greenlanders, as they call themselves). No prior approval necessary. If President Trump foresaw an immediate threat, he could deploy as many forces as he desired, in full compliance with US treaty obligations. So let’s put the whole “strategic threat” argument to bed. There is no threat, and if there were, we could respond immediately as we wished.

Maybe it’s about strategic minerals? Greenland has many unexploited mineral reserves, so that is tempting. And they have some rare earth minerals, which the US and the West crave for advanced computer electronics, but the available supply of which is currently under China’s control. So ask yourself this: if these rare earth minerals are so valuable, why hasn’t anybody exploited them in Greenland? Several reasons! First, rare earth minerals aren’t “rare” at all: they’re everywhere! They are called rare because unlike gold or silver or copper, they aren’t found in dense, exploitable veins. One basically scoops up megatons of dirt and refines it with several caustic, expensive chemical processes (which are environmentally destructive) to get usable rare earths. Second, Greenland’s minerals lie deep under an ice sheath, so first you have to drill through that before you can start scooping. Oh, and third, there are no roads and no infrastructure where the minerals are. So despite having some valuable minerals, mining Greenland is about as logistically challenging as mining the moon. Except there’s also those pesky locals who don’t want their pristine Arctic wilderness to look like West Virginia (no offense to any Mountaineers out there!).

We are rapidly running out of reasons to take Greenland. Perhaps we should trust the President when he was asked this question, point blank: Why does the United States need to own Greenland? “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.” He even texted the Norwegian Prime Minister that, in light of his Nobel Peace Prize snub, he saw no reason to “think purely of Peace.” You have to admire the man for saying the quiet part out loud. He wants it, period.

Now there’s nothing crazy about seeing Greenland as potentially important (if not strategically vital). The United States has been after it for some time. President James Monroe’s eponymous doctrine explicitly included Greenland, since it lies in the Western Hemisphere. Andrew Johnson considered buying it, Woodrow Wilson offered to trade for it, Harry S Truman made a formal purchase offer. After Truman, the Danes got tired of all the US interest and negotiated the 1951 treaty which gives America vast and exclusive rights in the land. They thought that ended the issue. Until President Trump came along.

Perhaps he’s trying to burnish his legacy. Perhaps he’s flush with the (very real) success of taking down Maduro and “running” Venezuela. Perhaps he’s reverting to his real estate developer mindset and looking for a signature deal. Whatever deep-seated need he’s trying to address, it is not one of America’s vital national interests. I trust cooler heads to prevail, and some compromise agreement to be inked which papers over the very real differences. But Trump is still looking for a signature “win,” something he can claim and market and slap his name (metaphorically) on in history. So this won’t be the first, nor last, crisis like this.

By now, everyone in America has seen multiple videos of the ICE agent shooting Renee Good on January 7th in Minneapolis. Many folks (including administration figures) jumped on single initial videos on Bluesky or X to rush to judgment. Almost all of them are wrong: wrong about the facts, wrong about the law, just plain wrong. I’ve taken a few days to capture the most important video elements, create a timeline, and clear away the bulls!t* both sides have been spewing. I will attempt to show (1) what happened, (2) why (where we can tell), and (3) what does not matter to the story.

Let’s start with the background. On the day in question, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, along with allied federal agencies) was involved in an Enforcement and Removal Operation (ERO) in the Minneapolis area. These are targeted raids wholly within the legal duties of ICE. While many Americans don’t agree with the policy ICE was enforcing, there is no legal basis for any citizen to impede the actions. In this instance, it is no different from deciding the bank robber is innocent and tackling the police officer arresting him. It will not end well, regardless of your intentions.

According to her spouse, Renee Good was a member of an online community called ICE Watch, which coordinates protest activities against ICE ERO. This is legal. Watching where ICE agents are, showing up and protesting with signs, whistles, or car-horns, and even following them are protected activities under the First Amendment. However, most of these actions are profoundly ineffective: ICE targets still get detained, arrested, and deported. Which makes the protesters angry, and wanting to do more. Anytime the protest crosses over into actively or passively interfering, it becomes illegal. Yet many such illegal activities do not result in arrest. ICE agents detain people who are interfering, and after completing the operation, release them without pressing charges. They do this in order to complete their daily mission, and to recognize the fine line between legal and illegal behavior, whether you believe that or not. In fact, all law enforcement officers exercise the same restraint: ever had a cop let you off with a warning when the radar gun got you “dead to rights?”

By all accounts, Renee Good was a very nice person. A great neighbor, a loving spouse, a kind mother, a committed member of her community. This would all be relevant character witness if she were charged with a crime. She is not; she is dead. Morally, it is a tragedy that she was lost to the community. Legally it matters not at all. What matters is what she did that morning, and although she is not there to tell us, why?

Renee Good dropped off her child at school around 9:00 AM. At 9:37 AM she was shot. We don’t yet know what she did between the time she dropped off her child and when she parked her car laterally blocking a two lane street. We do know that ICE was completing a mission in the area and one of their vehicles, which had pulled off the street to park, was stuck in the snow at the same location. Some other cars did pass by, but Good remained in the driver’s seat with her window rolled down and her engine idling. Her spouse, Becca Good, exited the passenger-side of the vehicle and began filming with her phone the collection of ICE vehicles that had arrived on the scene to extricate the trapped vehicle. ICE agents in two vehicles (one in front of Good’s car, one behind) also exited their vehicles and approached her car.

These videos contain important audio explaining several aspects of the incident. Renee Good can be heard saying “That’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you.” The agent who approached from the passenger side is filming the encounter, and he comes face-to-face with Becca Good as he moves to the rear bumper. He does not speak, but he is walking around Good’s car, filming the license plate and circling around to the front of the car. Becca Good can be heard saying, “That’s okay. We don’t change our plates every morning. Just so you know. . . . It will be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That’s fine. . . . US Citizen!” Then a moment later, “You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy.” The agent continues toward the front of the car as Becca returns to the passenger door. As she reaches for the passenger-side door handle to open it, the two agents approaching her car from the driver’s side shout, “out of the car” “get out of the f*cking car” and “get out of the car” in overlapping succession.

While the two agents continue to approach Renee’s car door, the other (filming) agent moves to the front of her vehicle, holding his cell phone in his left hand. Becca tries to opens the passenger door, but it is locked. She says “Drive. Drive, Baby drive!” One of the agents arrives at the driver’s door and attempts to open it from the outside; he fails. He then reaches inside, either to grab the steering wheel or unlock the door. Renee Good places the vehicle into reverse (the back-up lights come on) and the car moves a foot or two back, as the officer reaching-in staggers off balance with his arm still in the car. Renee Good places the car in drive, as indicated by the back-up lights going off and the vehicle moving forward slowly. The agent still has his arm inside the car.

At the moment the car begins moving forward and accelerating, the agent in front of the car is slightly in front of the driver’s side headlight. At that moment, he reaches for his weapon with his free (right) hand. Simultaneously, the agent with his arm in the car disentangles himself and staggers away from the car. Renee Good turns her steering wheel to her right as the agent in front fires one round through the front windshield. He fires two more rounds through the open driver’s side window. Becca Good never got back into the car before it accelerates away, crashing into a parked car down the street. Renee Good is dead from one or more gunshots to the head. Someone (certainly one of the ICE agents) is heard saying “F*cking b!tch.”

There are some opinions floating around which are not supported by the facts. Early BlueSky coverage indicated the ICE agents gave conflicting commands to “get the eff out of here.” There is no evidence to support this conjecture. All three commands heard, from two different voices, are to “get out of the car.”

Some have voiced uninformed opinions about the the rules for deadly force, and the fact three rounds were fired. To be clear, ICE agents are authorized to use deadly force if there is a threat to the agent or anyone else. Whether the shooting agent could evade the car or not is irrelevant, as the car is the deadly weapon in this case. To put it in perspective, imagine telling a police officer they can’t shoot back at a suspect if the suspect shot first and missed them! In this case, the officer with his arm in the vehicle was clearly at risk of being dragged. That is a deadly threat.

Were the three rounds fired excessive? A forensic analysis of the shots shows they occurred within a single second. The Supreme Court has held (Plumhoff v. Rickard) that an officer employing deadly force is within his rights to continue shooting until the threat is disabled. The shooter in this case had no time to stop and consider whether his first round had hit the target. In fact, at this time, we still don’t know whether the first round did hit or kill Renee Good.

Several former law enforcement officers have commented negatively on the fact the agent who fired his weapon “stopped in front of a car.” Their complaints cite the police rule that you never stand in front of a car. This is indeed a rule of policing, but the agent in question barely–if at all–stops in front of the car. He is circling the car, filming it as evidence. That’s why he is able to get out of the way. Cops walk in front of a cars all the time; it’s practically impossible to avoid doing so in a public environment. One doesn’t take up a blocking position in front of a suspect vehicle, or one might become a hood ornament. That wasn’t the case here.

What does the geography of the crime scene and videos show us? Renee Good was not attempting to run over the agent who shot her. Look at the video labelled #4 in this Washington Post coverage. Renee Good clearly looks forward at the agent in front of her car as her spouse commands her to “drive.” And her hands show her turning her steering wheel to her right to avoid the agent who is moving away to her left. There is a hidden clue here. When Renee looks forward at the agent in front of her car, she is no longer looking at the agent who has his arms inside her car door. She does not know it, but the agent in front of the car can see both her, and the other ICE agent about to be dragged.

Is it relevant that the agent who shot Renee Good had been previously dragged? Probably not. If opposing counsel in a hypothetical case could introduce other evidence that the shooting agent was mentally unwell, or unbalanced, hateful, or unfit for duty, that might be relevant. But the simple fact he was previously dragged does not by itself indicate anything. Likewise, the fact the alleged shooter was a member of a highly trained ICE element, and taught firearms safety, is not necessarily relevant. It does remove the possibility the shooter was untrained, but that is all it does. The decision to shoot is a split-second one where officers are supposed to let their training kick in. That is the purpose of training.

So what really happened here? Two women active in anti-ICE protests happened upon (or were notified of) some ICE vehicles in their vicinity. They decided to join-in the protest. If you listen/watch closely to the various videos, you’ll see a number of people gathering on the street, some filming, and unidentified voices (not the protagonists mentioned here) shouting epithets at the agents. For reasons known only to them, the women park their car directly across a street, blocking access. There is no legal reason on the planet to do so. Even a local police officer would have arrested them for blocking traffic.

According to Secretary Noem, the ICE personnel stuck in the snow were leaving after an earlier-morning operation. So the ICE agents were not involved in an active operation: they were headed home, or to the office for a debrief. They are not chasing a suspect. The verbal exchanges between the women and the ICE agents show a degree of hostility, but not malice. I would characterize them as taunting, and law enforcement personnel are trained to ignore such taunting. Furthermore, since they are not involved in an active operation, the ICE agents should be exercising maximum discretion toward any attempt to impede them.

Within forty seconds, the incident goes from ridiculous to deadly. Law enforcement personnel have the right to defend themselves, and are trained to do so. The protesting women do not evince any professional training in the fine art of legal non-violent resistance. They are treating this as a bit of theater to be filmed and disseminated for the cause. The officer filming circles their car to get full data on it; when he does, he ends up directly in front of the vehicle at the exact moment when the women decide they don’t have to obey the agents’ commands and attempt to flee (but not kill anyone).

Here is the split-second decision that agent has to make: he hears the engine revving and sees the car moving forward towards him. He can see both the car approaching him and he can see his associate struggling to get free of the moving car. He assesses deadly force is necessary and pulls his weapon. Self-preservation kicks in and he starts to evade the front bumper of the vehicle, which either brushes or narrowly misses him (someone, presumably the shooter, shouts “woah” at this moment), as he fires a shot that enters through the front windshield. As the car passes him, he fires two more times. All of this happens in under three seconds.

What’s important in all this?

An American citizen is dead, for no good reason. It’s not the shooting agent’s fault, he reacted as he was trained. It’s not the victim’s fault; she did not intend to injure anyone. ICE bears a responsibility to ensure its officers employ greater discretion when not involved in active operations. We entrust ICE with the difficult task of capturing and removing illegal aliens, and with the right to use deadly force. ICE should conduct a safety stand-down and remind its agents that conduct outside of operations is not the same as conduct during operations. If the Goods had been driving to block an imminent arrest, that would have been one thing. There was nothing in particular going on, and greater discretion was necessary.

Groups which form to track ICE also shoulder blame. Law enforcement is law enforcement, whether you agree with the law being enforced or not. On Instagram, the account called MN (Minnesota) ICE Watch has a tab indicating “If you don’t have a crowd asserting pressure there may be some interference charges that come with blocking a police vehicle that may be more easily handed down for only one or two people blocking a police vehicle, but in many cases these are misdemeanor offenses and catch and release.” These anti-ICE groups even acknowledge what they are advising is illegal, but brush it off as a “misdemeanor or catch and release.” Law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force, and are trained to do so. This is not street-theater. It’s all fun and games until somebody gets shot in the face.

The whole situation reminds me of the countless videos of people detained by police who suddenly decide to flee, with predictable consequences. Even if the Goods had done nothing wrong up to that point (they had), when law enforcement orders you to get out of the car, you must get out of the car. Not “drive, baby, drive.”

If you jumped on the bandwagon of labeling the deceased woman a domestic terrorist, or ICE as trigger happy Gestapo: congratulations, you too share in the blame. Hyperbole never helps, and in this case you are not offering your opinion, you are factually wrong. People think it’s a partisan hoot when they post highly-provocative bullsh!t* on social media: it’s not. When you do so, you help raise the temperature, not lower it. For God’s sake, even Renee Good kept her commentary civil, although she did a make one tragic, fatal mistake.

Stop it. Just stop it, now. Or accept your part in the blame.

Post Script: It has only been days since the event. More evidence may come to light, and the FBI investigation will also provide more information.

*technical term I heard from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. The opinion he voiced had the exact same stink.

I considered using “for Dummies” in the title but didn’t, because it’s a copyright and my friends simply aren’t dummies. After President Trump’s daring raid to capture Nicolas Maduro, I found myself in many online exchanges, only a few of which were interesting. I won’t bore you with all the details. Let’s just say some people can’t get past the notion “if Trump did it, it’s immoral, illegal, and doomed to failure.” As I said, not very interesting. But another point did pique my interest: a suggestion that I undervalued the international rule-of-law. That’s worthy of discussion.

The international rule-of-law is a global state of affairs where countries agree there are norms which they will abide by and not break when convenient. Throughout history, it has been the exception, not the rule. It greatly benefits the establishment of peace between nations and furthers business and travel. It’s generally good for everybody, except for peoples or nations who believe the system hasn’t worked for them, and therefore they don’t want to obey the rules.

The Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was an early example of such a system. Within the empire, subjugated peoples/nations had greater degrees of autonomy as long as they acquiesced to Rome’s oversight, adopted Rome’s state religion (which was pantheistic and broadened to incorporate their gods), and acknowledged the divinity and leadership of Caesar. As brutal and unfair as the Pax Romana was, no one was able to create another such system until Napoleon came on the scene.

As a result of the challenge presented by Napoleon’s (mass conscripted) Grande Armée and overthrow of established monarchies, the nations which exiled him decided to build a lasting peace in Europe around a set of international norms. Known as the Concert of Europe , it lasted almost one-hundred years. The major European powers generally avoided interstate conflict and suppressed the spread of revolutionary movements, creating the conditions for peace and stability. Sadly, the Concert met its end when technological advances and a rising Germany set off the Great War.

Immediately after that war, and spurred on by the internationalism of American president Woodrow Wilson, Europe tried to recreate a new set of norms based in the League of Nations. Military forces were constrained, unprovoked attacks outlawed, and diplomacy ensconced as the way to keep the peace. Alas, there were too many aggrieved countries (Germany again, now Italy & Japan) and too many extremist, expansionist ideologies (fascism, communism, racist imperialism). British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain wasn’t a stupid man; he just thought that under the rules-based international order he thought was in effect, his Munich agreement would keep Hitler in check. World War II was the result.

After that war, the United States parlayed its massive economic, military, and political power into a new system designed to create a modern-day Pax Americana. The US insisted on the global judicial trial of the war’s criminals, the forerunner of the International Criminal Court. It sponsored the United Nations and built a series of defensive alliances to protect against Communist subversion. And it created a series of global financial and trade regulations designed to foster free-and-fair trade. All this was not American largess: it was a system to create the conditions whereby the international rule-of-law made life freer, fairer, and more conducive to America’s view of how the world should be. America greatly benefited from this system, but so did other nations. Even the Soviet Union, which had little taste for the American system, found itself playing by American rules. No better example exists then when the Soviets walked out of the UN to protest an American effort to stop the seating of Communist China. The Soviet’s absence permitted the Security Council to give the US military mission to defend South Korea a UN imprimatur, meaning that to this day the defense of South Korea against North Korea exists under a UN flag (including Russia, China, and even North Korea!).

Why this history lesson? Some folks think that history is a one-way ratchet, always progressing toward more peaceful, more just outcomes. When it comes to the international rule-of-law, history is more cyclic: sometimes it works, mostly it fails. The Pax Americana was immensely successful from 1945 to the 1990s. Its ultimate exemplar was the global response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. But soon after, the consensus started to crack. Countries started to use the system, gaming it, or even flat out ignoring it. And those nations who still respected the system did not stay united to defend it.

The signs of this change were everywhere. Russia was clearly a rejectionist power. Under Putin, they acted to reject one international norm after another. They brutally suppressed insurgencies, hired out mercenary forces, conducted lethal attacks on dissidents in other lands, and ignored sanctions. I contend that the best date for the absolute end of the Pax Americana is 2014, when Putin invaded and occupied Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula, to nothing more than diplomatic hand-slaps. The rest of the sad tale of the war in Ukraine is all tied directly to that event.

China played along with the game, but undermined it with relish. Recall it was the Chinese who demonstrated their willingness to ignore international outrage in 1989 when they massacred the protesters in Tienanmen Square. They agreed to join the international economic system, only to undermine it by unfair trade practices, state-supports, currency manipulation, extortionary lending, and pirating intellectual property rights. They remained respectful of military norms just until they were powerful enough to bully within their sphere of influence.

And the list includes states which sponsored terrorism as a political art, those that poisoned international groups like the UN Human Rights Commission, and those who simply shirked their obligations for defense or national security. In the end, an international rule-of-law order is only as good as those committed to maintaining it. And sometime in the last twenty years, the Pax Americana went away. To be clear, I am not celebrating the fact. I would much rather have a world still defined by international rule-of-law. But it is naive-bordering-on-negligent to suggest we still live in one, and must therefore abide by its rules.

Another history lesson. Franklin Delano Roosevelt clearly recognized that the nascent League of Nations had failed, and the world had reverted to a Hobbesian condition where might would define right. FDR went boldly about breaking all the rules–domestically and internationally–to support the floundering allied war effort. He ignored the international rule of law as it was defined at the time, “leasing” ships, planes, and even bases to a combatant during a conflict. He extended loans without authorization. He authorized US forces to engage hostile raiders at sea. None of this was legal under international law, but it was necessary, and he was right to do it. Not because he was a tyrant, or bent on getting involved in a world war, but because he correctly understood the nature of the international environment.

Now somewhere out there a friend is throwing his hands up, asking, “so we’re supposed to just let Trump invade Greenland next?!?” NO, No, no. Recognizing we aren’t in an international rule-of-law order is not carte blanche to behave like petty dictators ourselves. But it does require the US (and you, mis amigos) to think about how we respond. If you heard that an angry mob was headed to your children’s school, you wouldn’t accept the idea the Principal sent out the adolescent crossing guards to stop them. You would want the police on hand, if not the National Guard. Laws generally stop those who are law-abiding. It doesn’t mean the laws are irrelevant, it just means you have to assess whether you live in a law-abiding or law-breaking world. And act accordingly.

With respect to Venezuela, the Biden Administration had a US$ 25 million dollar bounty for the capture of Maduro. Was that just theater, not law? I might have missed where those objecting to his capture were protesting the bounty. Or are they only objecting to success?

Finally, I long for a world where respect for the international rule-of-law is restored. Today’s world is not it. Yes, that world will be ushered in by states like the US who recommit to its order. I pray I live long enough to see it. But pretending we still live in that world now? That indeed would be “for dummies.”

After much threatening and signalling, President Trump sent US military forces into Venezuela and arrested Nicolas Maduro, the man occupying the leadership position in the government there. He was a de facto, not de jure Presidente. For those unfamiliar with the terms, it means he was not the legitimate president (by law), but he did occupy the office. The Organization of American States did not recognize him. The United Nations (UN) recognized him as the de facto leader, while the UN Panel of Experts on election integrity found Maduro’s last election victory lacked “basic reliability.” Most impartial observers agree he lost the election.

Ostensibly, the administration conducted the operation to end Maduro’s facilitation of drug-trafficking, a claim that is much in doubt. There is no doubt he was a ruthless dictator, entirely corrupt, and a thug. Whether he actively ran a cartel or simply benefited from a cartel’s largess is the main sticking point, if that matters to you.

As I write this, the operation is less than twelve hours old, and as I like to remind folks, initial reports are often wrong. That hasn’t stopped many from hyperventilated critiques. Let’s start with the obvious one: did the US break international law? This may be technically true, but irrelevant. The UN Charter prohibits one nation from attacking another, with exceptions for self-defense and UN Security Council authorization. But there is no international enforcement mechanism recognized by the United States. There is the International Criminal Court (ICC) which can bring charges, but its status has been severely undermined by politicization, and the US does not recognize its authority anyway. While some will make a case that the US should be a beacon upholding international law, American leaders of all parties have routinely ignored the concept when American interests, or common sense, so directed.*

What about the War Powers Act? The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law, but its constitutionality has never been litigated before the Supreme Court. Why not? Because both sides fear they might lose. It stands as an informal agreement between the Executive and Legislative branches, regardless of which political party holds what offices (or even when they’re all the same partisan side!). The law requires “consultation in every possible instance” with the Congress before a military action. You don’t need to be Harvard Law-trained to see the loopholes in the vague words “consultation” and “possible.” Who in Congress must be “consulted,” and how many? Consultation is not the same as permission, is it? Does an emergency or operational secrecy undermine what’s “possible?” Presidents of both parties have interpreted this language to pretty much do as they please. After the attack, the law requires the President to notify the Congress of “the necessity, the legal authority, and the estimated scope of the conflict” within forty-eight hours. Presidents have taken to issuing a bland statement that the action taken “is consistent with” the resolution. There is also a sixty-day deadline to withdraw troops if the Congress hasn’t authorized the operation, but it too has had no effect, since Congress doesn’t want to be responsible for military casualties pursuant to a withdrawal they ordered. Long story short, neither side really cares about the War Powers Act, and neither should you.

What if all this goes wrong? Some will cite the esteemed Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz to remind those who engage in frivolous war that it often backfires. They are right to do so. Venezuela could descend into a mess. But Clausewitzian uncertainty cuts both ways: war can also go well. Carter’s Tehran hostage rescue effort turned into a debacle; many pundits predicted a US strike on Iran’s nuclear program would send the entire region into a conflagration, but . . . crickets. The duly-elected leader of Venezuela may emerge from hiding and come to power, or not. We can definitely say this: Maduro is no longer the thug-in-chief. If you’re not celebrating that fact, ask yourself “why?”

What if there were a precedent? On the same date thirty-six years earlier, US military forces captured Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega under the orders of President George H.W. Bush. Noriega was a corrupt thug who had trafficked with drug cartels. He suggested he might get cozy with Russia or China or Cuba. He was the de facto leader, and his chosen puppet as Presidente did not win the election fairly. We arrested him, tried him, sentenced him. Here are some of the reactions from Democratic leaders at the time:

• Speaker of the House Tom Foley said Noriega had engaged in “reckless incitement” and went on to say that when US forces are in the field, it is not the time for debate.
• Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell supported the action.
• Then Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Les Aspin said, “Finally, at last!”
• Senator Chris Dodd called the US action “legitimate” while Senator Alan Cranston said “the White House has done too little for too long.”
• Then-Representative Dick Durbin suggested it should have happened sooner.
• Representative Dave McCurdy cited Bush’s “wimp factor” and wondered why he waited to remove Noriega.
• Jesse Jackson and others called it a violation of international law and “gunboat diplomacy.”

Don’t take from this that I wholeheartedly support the action to take-down Maduro. It’s a judgment call and the final results aren’t in. We may say–like a football referee–after further review, not so much a good idea. But the reflexive backing into partisan corners? Ridiculous. In Iraq, we took down Saddam Hussein and tried to create a democracy. Bad idea. In Panama, we just lanced the boil (a near-perfect metaphor for the human pineapple, Manuel Noriega), and it went well. No one knows where this one will fit along the spectrum, so those proclaiming its immorality or stupidity are showing a lack of careful thought.

What should we make of this? First, the US military has the capability to snatch a foreign leader who is already on notice. That’s no small thing. It’s one thing to pinpoint target a bomb on a location a la Qasem Soleimani. Taking one out alive in one piece? Priceless. Others will take notice.

Second, Trump’s ad libbing about a “Don-roe” doctrine has some teeth. You never know with Trump when he’s talking off the top of his head, but that may be the point. When it comes to the Western Hemisphere, he clearly believes he has the authority to act, not just talk. Others have already noticed.

Third, perhaps it’s best to consider what’s happening from an American national security perspective, not a MAGA or resistance one. Oh, sorry about that last one, it’s the wide-eyed optimist in me!

*For examples, Reagan arming the Contras in Nicaragua (1986), Bush (Sr.) deposing Noriega (1990), Clinton bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, Bush (Jr.) invading Iraq (2003), Obama intervening in Libya (2011). And that’s just the greatest hits!

I just heard that some members of Congress are seeking to refer Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi for contempt because she did not release all the Epstein Files last Friday, as required by law. I’ll get to my thoughts about that in a few minutes. In the meantime, here’s a relevant story about my own dealings with Congress, lightly edited (in the spirit of the season) to obscure the main participants. You may find it enjoyable, ghastly, unsurprising, or all three!

During my last years for federal service, I occupied a position that was held in bipartisan regard for being nonpartisan and competent, not due to anything I did, but by virtue of the job. Around the same time, the Benghazi affair became a cause célèbre in partisan politics. To remind, in its most basic/factual form, a group of armed men took over an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, setting fire to it, which led to the death of the American Ambassador. The Obama Administration blamed an obscure anti-Islamic internet video for causing the event, and Democrats rallied around the theme the incident was tragic but unavoidable. Republicans called it a cover-up, suggesting it was a planned terrorist attack. Neither side was entirely truthful.

Congress asked the administration to present all it knew, including classified material, about the attack. Due to my position, I was tasked with writing the summary which was appended onto a massive report, including never-released video footage of the event. The entire effort was exhaustive and authoritative: once you read the report and see the video, you can come to only one conclusion. I can say that because I asked a staffer for one Senator–a man known for his fierce honesty who would one-day run for President–why the Senator did not watch the video, and the staffer told me “because if he did, he wouldn’t be able to keep going on television and saying the things he wants to say.” That passes for honesty in DC.

Which is to say partisans of one stripe or another were very unhappy with the report, and called it part of the cover-up. Anyone who knows my politics (which were publicly obscure at the time, as a federal civil servant) knows the likelihood I engaged in a cover-up to aid Secretary Clinton’s campaign was beyond fantastical. Still one Congressional staffer was so angry he requested I turn over all the raw material used to develop the report. I refused, citing the agreement between the Congress and the administration that the report answered the Congressional request, period, end of sentence. This enraged the individual so much, the staffer then spent the rest of the year developing language to be included in the appropriations (or was it the authorization?) law specifically targeting me (not by name, but by position) and my organization. My budget was cut by about twenty percent (if I remember correctly). The remaining amount was frozen until my organization’s leadership acknowledged I had been counselled and given a performance improvement plan (normally a way to redress serious personal under-performance in government). The staffer then tucked the provisions away in a classified annex to the law, which passed!

To say the least, I was shocked, and my organization’s leadership was outraged. I was asked to complete the original task as an honest broker, and was now being punished for doing so. When my boss asked a senior Senator why this language was included in the classified annex, she responded, “what classified annex?” Note I said “senior”; that’s a clue. The good news in all this is that the staffer had spent so much time completing his work of vengeance, the fiscal year was almost over. Meaning the law explaining what I was supposed to do came after I had already spent all the money.

My organization of course had to explain the discrepancy between what I had done and what the Congress had belatedly directed me to do. We dutifully responded with an official note that stated we would have happily acted in accord with the law, but the law came too late to do so. And my boss stated I had been counselled, without mentioning the counselling amounted to a perfect performance rating and sizable bonus.

All of which is to highlight that Washington is a place of strange goings-on, some partisan, some just plain silly. Congress can pass a law (signed by the President) that states “pigs can fly,” but gosh-darnit, Des Moines International Airport (DSM) need not worry, because your pigs will still not fly. Politicians say one thing and do another, or perhaps try even a third. There is always an element of show, or theater if you prefer. Take the Epstein files (please!). If the law says do something that you can’t possibly do (like review mounds of material) in time, it just won’t happen. In the rush to meet the deadline, the Department of Justice (DOJ) already posted some pictures that were not properly reviewed to protect the identities of victims. Not that that matters, apparently.

If Congress wants to refer charges on AG Bondi, it will refer them to . . . (wait for it), the DOJ. You know, the governmental department run by . . . AG Pam Bondi. I wonder what they’ll do with it? But wait, I hear there is a special provision in such circumstances where the Congress can make a referral directly to a federal judge. Who can try the case, and if convicted, refer the defendant for arrest by (wait a little longer) . . . the DOJ. That is so much better. No, that’s not it. Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie announced on Sunday that they are pursuing “inherent contempt”charges against AG Bondi, which requires no judge or trial. The House simply orders its Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the offending figure. What do you think AG Bondi’s security detail will do? Enquiring minds want to know! Everybody involved with this issue in Washington knows all this is nonsense. Now you do, too.

What lessons shall we draw here? First, if you want to spend your Christmas season dreaming of incriminating Epstein photos, you have my sympathies. Sugar-plum fairies are a better option. Second, nothing in DC is as it seems. That is politics, and the sooner one learns that, the clearer one sees. Finally, while a wise mentor once told me “no good deed goes unpunished,” there remains a great deal of satisfaction for doing the right thing in the end.

*Apologies to A Christmas Story. At least no one got shot in the eye-glasses by a BB-gun in my story.

I got some interesting feedback on my last post (you can see it in the comments section below the post). Even more interesting was the Washington Post story accusing SecWar Hegseth of a war crime regarding the very first boat-strike (back in September), which was published just days after the Democrats’ video dropped. Is this to what the video-makers were alluding? I still have my doubts, as they cited the administration pitting soldiers against civilians, which connotes the National Guard/Regular Army deployments to various cities, not the drug-boat interdiction effort.

Sticking to the war crimes accusation, the Post reported that a single anonymous source quoted the Secretary as saying “kill them all” in reference to the boat-strike. The source (and the Post) did not place this quote on a timeline of the action: before the initial strike, or after. The inference was that the first missile killed many of the fisherman/drug-smugglers (two things can be true, as they were both fishermen and smugglers), but the boat did not sink, and two men “clung to the burning ship.”

As a means of showing just how complicated all this is, let me use a land warfare example. Others will quickly point out war at sea is different, and they are right, but I’ll cover how the difference plays out at the end, so please hold your objections!

Here’s our notional scenario: you’re in a war, operating as a tank commander. You are in a “hide-position” from which you can see the enemy, but they won’t see you at first, so you get a clean first shot. You’re surveying the battlefield in front of you, and an enemy tank pulls clear out from a tree-line. It stops. Its turret is pointed away from you, and you have a clear shot at its flank, one of the most vulnerable spots. Can you fire on the tank legally?

Absolutely! There is no fairness doctrine in war. You get an easy kill, cheers to you. So you look through your gun-sight, which gives you enhanced magnification, and you see the other tank’s commander standing behind the turret, taking a whiz off the back of his tank. If you think this doesn’t happen, you’ve never been around tankers. This man and his tank present no danger to you; can you legally open fire and kill him and his tank?

Yes. The fact he is otherwise engaged does not mean he and his tank aren’t still legitimate targets. A soldier urinating (or bathing, or praying) is still a soldier at war and it is entirely legal to kill him. Sometimes soldiers adjust their views on this, called the rule of military necessity (“I don’t need to kill him peeing because I want to pee in peace, too”) but this is informal and a courtesy, not the law of armed conflict.

You fire on the tank. The commander is blown off the vehicle, and smoke is billowing out of the open hatch. The tank is not moving, but it is unclear if it is disabled or not. Can you fire at it again?

Yes. It remains a target until it is destroyed or surrenders. Note here you can assume there are injured crew members inside; it doesn’t matter.

You scan for other targets, not wanting to waste another round on a tank that may be out of the fight. You scan back to the tank, and you see the crew climbing out of the hatch and falling off the sides, clearly escaping the vehicle just to breathe. Can you target them or the tank? This is murky water. You are judging from a distance that they are incapacitated, but the tank is not. You can legally fire at the tank. If you target the tank crew, it’s a shady value judgment. You may be wrong. But the larger point to this part of the exercise is that while you may not target the incapacitated, there is no such thing as a “no-fire” or safe-zone due to injury or incapacitation. It’s unfortunate, but being near a piece of military equipment makes you possibly collateral damage.

Now you see the tank commander climbing back onto the tank, and motioning his crew to join him. Can you legally fire at the tank and/or the crew? Yes. The tank is a weapon of war, and by climbing back on, they are signalling they want to continue to fight. But wait, the commander grabs a white hanky and starts waving it: ceasefire! This tank and crew have surrendered and are no longer legal targets.

See how clear and clean cut it all is? Now imagine this scenario while you’re inside a sixty-ton metal monster, bouncing around at fifty miles an hour, with your crew screaming in your headset, your commander asking for updates, shells exploding around you, and (oh, yeah) facing imminent death if you make a mistake. All the armchair lawyers should take a breathe.

Now back to the differences between war on land and war at sea. Soldiers separated from their vehicle are still–literally–on terra firma. Man is a land mammal, and being on the land is not in itself deadly. The same is not true for sailors. A sailor in the water is at risk (side note: I always wondered why the Navy had a swim test. If a sailor is in the water, they are already in the wrong, no? Why test for it?) So when a sailor is separated from his boat/ship, there are rules which require the opposing side to rescue them, not to leave them to their inevitable fate. Sailors have to make the same difficult choices I described above: is the ship viable? Are the men surrendering? And the circumstances of naval warfare are just as prone to the fog of war as the land examples I cited above. When all is said and done, the sailor has a duty to police-up the survivors. Even on land, the soldier has to collect up and process the enemy wounded, not shoot them.

People jumped all over the original Washington Post story. While several sources in that story confirmed multiple strikes, only one quoted Hegseth as giving his “kill them all” directive. Now the Admiral in charge has denied it. Before you even think “of course he did, he sees his career flashing before his eyes,” know that he is a thirty-year veteran of the US Navy Seals, was one of the first SOF officers deployed to Afghanistan, was recently unanimously confirmed by the Senate as head of Special Operations Command, and when he was confirmed, Senator Tillis described him as one of “the most extraordinary people that have ever served in the military.” If you want to call him a careerist or a coward, I hope you forward the comment to him first. Let me know how that works out.

So there was no “kill them all” order. I admit that it sounds like the kind of thing Secretary Hegseth would say, and it would be lousy command guidance. Truman didn’t need to tell Colonel Paul Tibbets, who piloted the Enola Gay over Hiroshima, Japan, to “kill everybody.” He already knew that. To the extent such a command represents a no-quarter order (do not accept surrendered enemy, kill them) it is always illegal. The fact remains there is no evidence such an order was given, and there is a complete denial of same from the one man with authoritative knowledge: the Admiral in charge.

In other news, there appears to have been two strikes on the boat. The second strike comprised three missiles (perhaps in sequence, that part is unclear as I write this), because the damn thing just wouldn’t sink. Which reinforces the story the boat was the target, not the fishermen-smugglers. They were collateral damage, not the victims of a war crime. We still haven’t seen the video of the second strike. Congress members who did reacted along predictably partisan lines. But remember, the issue revolves around (1) who gave the order, (2) what was the order, and (3) what was the reasoning behind the order. Not what Senators felt when watching a video.

If the video is eventually released, I will bet people will have strong opinions on it. If you’re debating the legality of the second strike, remember one thing. You’re not debating me, nor Hegseth. You’re debating the Admiral who gave the order. The professional we all count on to do the right thing. The man, who according to the video from the Congressional Democrats, we can count on to uphold his oath.

I know it’s hard for some to believe, but one can make the arguments here about the law of armed conflict as I did without supporting the boat-strike campaign either as an effective or legitimate policy. Plinking speed boats may help intimidate the traffickers in the short term (it certainly intimidates-to-death the fishermen-smugglers), but it does nothing to staunch the flow of drugs into the US (note: those boats can’t get to the States, and what they carry is mostly cocaine headed to Europe). Perhaps it helps intimidate Venezuela. But it’s ineffective as counter-drug policy. Furthermore, the “authorization” the administration had publicized is based on the concept that (1) the President is authorized to strike terrorists, (2) the President has designated drug cartels as terrorists, therefore (3) the campaign is legal. To see the obvious fallacy here, re-read (2) and replace “drug cartels” with “elephants.” Babar beware.

This is part of a larger problem with the War Powers Act and the Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF, the initial post 9/11 law), whereby Presidents have sought ever more leeway in the use of the military, and Congresses have worked hard to avoid being blamed for it. Once again, a real, long-standing issue has been corrupted by the “Trump effect.”

The entire controversy rests first and foremost on the notion SecWar Hegseth gave a no-quarter order which never happened. Some leapt from that to the notion he actively supervised the murder of defenseless, shipwrecked fishermen (note the drug-smuggler part of their job is omitted in this version of the account). Which Hegseth contends he wasn’t there for, and which the Admiral in charge flatly confirms that he gave the command in order to destroy the boat, not to kill the fishermen/smugglers. Because he is well trained, well-versed in naval warfare, and because that’s the kind of guy he is. If you continue to contend this is a war crime, you’re not making a case against the Secretary of President Trump; you’re calling into question the morals and professionalism of Admiral Bradley. That’s okay, but be clear about it.

If you’re asking me whether I trust Secretary Hegseth or Democrats in Congress, I pass: both would merit a chapter in the book entitled, “Lyin’ Liars and the Lies They Tell.” If you’re asking me whether I trust Admiral “Mitch” Bradley or an anonymous Washington Post source: please. In the end, the boat-strikes in general and the first so-called “double-tap” are poor policy, not war crimes.

People who know me know I don’t lose my temper often. Okay, with the exception of watching my favorite Notre Dame football team lose (not often), or when driving (more often). Even those cases are momentary, as I try to keep a pretty even keel, probably because my Irish-German heritage makes me prone to behavioral extremes. Something I just saw had me simmering, because when anything masquerades as morality, morality suffers. At first glance, you may think I’m overreacting. Please consider my full case. For starters, here’s the offending video (this copy of the video repeats, so you only need to watch the first two minutes):

Firstly, I have just as much credibility to discuss this matter as anyone you saw speaking: West Pointer, Army officer, career federal civil servant in the departments and agencies cited, with over thirty-eight years under this oath:

“I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

That oath is basically the same for all civilian federal employees and military officers. Enlisted personnel have a slightly different version, which includes the following: “to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Notice the differences, as they are important. No mention of orders for the civilians and officers, and a requirement to obey among the enlisted.

Service members (civilian, officer, and enlisted) receive a great deal of training in what the oath means. Part of that training always covers the concept of an illegal order: that under this oath, we not only didn’t have to obey such an order, but that we were morally and legally required to disobey such an order. I joined the Army less than ten years after the infamous My Lai massacre, so that was often the focus of the Army’s training. To wit, just because your commanding officer says everybody in the village is an enemy combatant, you can’t justify shooting unarmed women and children. It was a recent, searing example which drove the point home. The overwhelming majority of the oath takers would never face such a dilemma in their careers.

The emphasis in the training was that for officers and civilians, there was a system you could engage if you found an order to be questionable. The enlisted were taught the same, but the emphasis in the oath is clear: obeying is the norm, engaging with the system is the exception. For those public servants, the training went on to explain what to do: when you see something you consider potentially an illegal order, you should state such to the officer/leader giving the order, that they may clarify or reconsider. You can ask that it be referred up the chain of command. You can go to appointed persons like the Judge Advocate General, Inspector General (IG) or an Ombudsman, who can investigate it for you. You can even in some circumstances contact your Representative or Senator under special “whistleblower” provisions.

Here’s the catch: whatever path you choose, it does not include deciding for yourself. Once you choose among these different options, you are required to accept the legal or moral judgment rendered by the official in question. That’s the system in law, as in the Constitution. What is not in the Constitution is the right of an individual to abrogate to him or herself the right to decide what is Consitutional/legal or not. Why is that? The oath-takers are taught that they may not have the same advantage of information the person making the decision does. They might not be expert in law, or the overall situation. What may seem counterproductive or unreasonable at one level may be entirely justified at another level. That is why there is a system for you as the person “pulling the trigger” so-to-speak to reach out to others to confirm or deny your suspicions.

As a practical example, Eddie Snowden decided the electronic spying the National Security Agency (NSA) was doing was morally wrong and probably illegal. He made this decision on his own, from his lofty perch as an analyst and later contractor. He didn’t do the right thing; he sent an email to the NSA General Counsel asking a vague question about whether an Executive Order can override federal statute (it can’t), and from this he made the definitive legal judgment to leak massive volumes of classified data to the Russians, Chinese, and who knows who else. He continues to defend himself from a protected spot in Moscow, calling himself an advocate for truth, transparency, and individual rights. Rather, he is the avatar of ego, mal-education, and moral turpitude. This is what happens when people mistake using the system with being the ultimate decider.

Now the video I asked you to watch reiterates much of the training I experienced, so you might be wondering why my blood pressure spiked. It did so because it adds some things and omits others. It adds specifically that “this administration” is the threat to the Constitution. Not that a certain policy is wrong or illegal, but the administration itself is a threat, “pitting” soldiers and civilian professionals “against American citizens.” That is a sweeping statement well beyond the confines of the subject of lawful orders. How is the average oath-taker supposed to process such a generalization, other than to suspect everything they are told?

Second, it omits the most important part: what the oath-taker is supposed to do. Yes, if you’re the trigger-puller on the Special Forces Black Hawk helicopter in the Carrib, you do face a real, instantaneous decision on whether to blow the boat out of the water. But there was a time before that, during the pre-operational briefing, to ask the right questions. There is a system to do so. Telling that soldier, or any government employee, that they have the right–nay, the obligation–to ignore an order without explaining what that means within the system they operate? That is unconscionable. Suggesting the hundreds of thousands of oath-takers in the government who don’t face such a stark, immediate decision do the same? Immoral.

I have seen some of the people featured in this video explaining that they have “constituents” in the military expressing concerns, for example, about the drug-boat strikes near Venezuela. This explanation makes the situation worse. If it is true, they should be referring the constituents to the system designed to answer their concerns, not making generalized videos about “the administration.” Whether it’s the drug boats or domestic military deployments, these issues are either currently in the courts (domestic deployments) or an issue of international law, and not something a soldier or civilian is placed to decide for themselves. Worse still, the self-identified patriots in the video have ample means to seek redress if they think the administration is in error. They are in Congress. They can be specific about issues and use their (constitutional) authority. Instead they spout generalities and spark others to act; that’s cowardly.

For my friends who never had the honor of taking the oath, here is an analogy that might resonate. Imagine you wake up tomorrow and there’s this video, from a former Surgeon General of the United States, the head of the Mayo Clinic, and other prominent medical officials. They say “the administration” is the problem and you shouldn’t follow the medical advice of the government elements like the CDC, the Public Health Service, or the National Institutes of Health. They don’t take issue with any specific thing, like vaccine recommendations or puberty blockers or hormone treatments for women in menopause. No, they simply remind you that it’s your health, your right, and you can stand up to the government. But remember, the government’s medical advice is suspect. Does that sound like a good idea, or a recipe for disaster?

The leaders in the real video say that they “have your back.” There are two kinds of people who stand behind you. Those that have your back, and those who will stab you in the back.

Choose wisely.