Evening Roundup, November 24
Featuring Senator Andy Kim, Jen Rubin with Stacey Young of the Justice Connection, Brian O'Neill, Jess Piper, "Talking Feds," Amanda Litman, and A Special Report on Breaking News
Trump Is Purposely Painting a Fuzzy Picture through Chaos. We Must Connect the Dots.
As families gather around the table for Thanksgiving, conversations will flow. Some about politics. Some easier than others. Some more essential than ever about the future of the American way of life as we know it.
The Justice Department is Being Systematically Dismantled: Stacey Young Explains
From day one of Trump’s second term, this administration has been hellbent on destroying the Department of Justice from the inside out. Over 200 people have been fired and approximately 5,500 employees have resigned. How can the federal agency continue operations as normal under these conditions? As Stacey Young, Founder and Executive Director of
Trump wants foreign brains, not foreign students
Last week, the Institute of International Education, drawing on responses from 828 colleges and universities, published its “Fall 2025 Snapshot” on international student enrollment in U.S. higher education. The headline number looks modest: Total international student numbers are down just 1% from last year.
"They're engaged, they're optimistic!" Jess Piper on Rural Voters, Gerrymandering, and Voting Blue
Missouri is “red” due to redistricting, but that should not discourage Democrats from investing in its electoral races. If anything, the Democratic Party should be incentivized—particularly as the Trump Administration continues to harm rural farmers, workers, and hospital systems.
Lame but Lethal
Three of the most insightful observers of American politics—Jason Kander, Mara Liasson, and Josh Marshall—join Harry to analyze a week in which President Donald Trump was knocked on his heels, and lashed out viciously in response. The panelists talk through the big questions: Will Republicans keep up the pressure for transparency about Jeffrey Epstein? …
YOU should run for office! Amanda Litman On Why, and How, to Support New Candidates
As November 4th’s multiple blue wins at the ballot box showed, the people are sick and tired of the old-guard Democratic establishment. As Amanda Litman, Co-Founder and President of Run For Something shares, after November 4th, “more than 5,000 people signed up to run for office…that’s more people in the last 12 months than we did in the entirety of…"
Special report: Comey and Tish James cases dismissed!
Thank you Ann Telnaes, Dianne Mize, Liadán Hynes, CO, and many others for tuning into a special *Live* report on TWO cases being dismissed: Tish James and James Comey.
"I Was Only Following Orders"
Trump Labels Those Who Refuse to Obey Illegal Orders as "Traitors" "Punishable By Death".
In response to six U.S. Senators and Congressmen with military or intelligence experience advising members of the military that "Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders" and that their oath is to the Constitution and not to unfettered individual authority, Trump reacted by accusing them of "serious allegations of misconduct" subject to court-marshal proceedings and accused them of seditious behavior , calling them "traitors" and claiming that they should be "arrested and put on trial" for "seditious behavior" which is "punishable by death".
Trump has a short memory. It was only a few years ago that he launched an armed and violent attack on the Capitol to overturn Biden's legitimate election as President of the United States.
International court decisions, beginning with the Nuremberg trials, United Nations principles and the laws and decisions within the United States , among other countries, are replete with citations to court cases, military codes and humanitarian principles that the illegality of a law or order is not only a defense to refusing to follow such law or order but imposes an affirmative duty to refuse to comply with an unlawful law or order.
There is so much legal and ethical support for these duties to refuse to comply with illegal laws or duties that it would take volumes to cite them.
Instead, I have chosen the easy way out by relying on the below citations, compiled by ChatGPT, that set forth these principles which fully support the call by these courageous Senators and Congressmen to uphold the law and our moral principles:
Here are the key Nuremberg and other legal decisions that firmly established the principle that “just following orders” (the “superior orders defense”) is not a valid defense when the orders are manifestly illegal.
[A fuller listing, especially if this is truncated, may be found in the Posting I sent out today and which may be found o my Substack home page]
Nuremberg Trials (1945–1946)
International Military Tribunal (IMT)
The IMT at Nuremberg was the foundational decision rejecting “just following orders.”
Article 8 of the IMT Charter explicitly states:
“The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility…” But it may be considered in mitigation.
The tribunal repeatedly held:
“Moral choice was possible.”
Key Nuremberg Findings
High-ranking Nazis (e.g., Keitel, Jodl, Göring) were convicted even when they argued they were following Hitler’s commands.
In the Hostage Case, Einsatzgruppen Case, and others, defendants were told that an order to commit atrocities is manifestly unlawful, and no soldier is obligated to obey such orders.
Nuremberg Principle IV (1950)
The United Nations codified Nuremberg’s rule as Principle IV:
“A person acting pursuant to orders of his government or a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
This is now one of the most cited international rules on command responsibility.
U.S. Supreme Court
Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170, 179 (1804)
Chief Justice Marshall:
“The instructions cannot change the nature of the transaction… the officer was liable for obeying an unlawful order.”
Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 754 (1974)
“The military constitutes a specialized society… but obedience is required only to lawful orders.”
In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 14–16 (1946)
“The law of war imposes on an army commander a duty to take such measures as are within his power to prevent… violations of the laws of war.”
(Not an obedience-case per se, but establishes individual responsibility regardless of superior directives.)
II. U.S. Military Courts / UCMJ
United States v. Calley (My Lai), 46 C.M.R. 1131 (C.M.A. 1973)
“The order to kill unresisting civilians is a manifestly illegal order and provides no defense.”
United States v. Keenan, 18 C.M.A. 108, 39 C.M.R. 108 (1969)
“A soldier is a reasoning agent, and he must refuse to obey a manifestly unlawful order.”
Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), R.C.M. 916(d)
“It is a defense that the accused obeyed an order not manifestly unlawful… An order to commit a crime is manifestly unlawful.”
UCMJ Articles 90 & 92 (10 U.S.C. §§ 890, 892)
Implicit but controlling rule:
Only lawful orders are enforceable under Articles 90 and 92.
The High Command Case (Nuremberg Subsequent Trials, 1948)
Defendants argued they were following Hitler’s orders. The tribunal held:
“There is a positive duty to disobey illegal orders.”
It also said that soldiers must recognize grossly unlawful orders, especially involving killing civilians.
The My Lai Massacre – United States v. Calley (1971)
Lieutenant William Calley argued he was following Captain Medina’s orders to kill civilians in Vietnam.
The military court rejected this defense:
“The order to kill unresisting civilians is a manifestly illegal order. A soldier is not obligated to obey it.”
This remains a major U.S. precedent for the modern UCMJ.
There are consequences to obeying illegal orders. Nuremberg tells us that disobeying isn't just countenanced, it's demanded -- especially of officers. To them in particular, think very carefully before you commit yourself to disobeying stuff you know to be wrong. "I was just following orders" hasn't worked as an excuse since 1947.
https://sylvestercat.substack.com/p/thanksgiving-revisited.