Timothy Snyder in his book On Tyranny directs a chapter toward people who have the duty to carry arms – the armed forces, the police, and others under authority. When an authoritarian comes to power, these people will be the first to face the pressure to use force to implement the commands of those in power. What happens when the commands exceed what is right or lawful? Professor Snyder says “Be ready to say no.”
+ + +
“Be ready to say no.”
This instruction can apply to anyone under authority, armed or not.
Each of us has the responsibility (to ourselves, if no other) to know when we will refuse to obey an order. Where do we draw the line? We all need to figure out, in advance, in detail, the answer to that question.
It is easy to see, however, that armed forces or police forces can face the quickest, most dire consequences for refusing to obey an order. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn tells of the Russian soldiers who refused the order to fire on an unarmed crowd during the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Solzhenitsyn says “They were immediately executed, as they knew they would be.”
“As they knew they would be.” These soldiers saw the entire picture – the command, the wrongness of the command, and the consequences of refusing to obey the command – and they thought it was worth it to refuse. They were ready to say no.
In the U.S. military, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) states that it is the duty of the service member to disobey an unlawful order. An example would be the command to inflict torture on a prisoner in custody or the command to target or torture a family member of a prisoner, in order to force the prisoner to talk. Torture is forbidden under U.S. law and international law. The effects of reports of U.S. forces committing torture would be felt by U.S. soldiers in the custody of others. The effects of the adoption of torture as a matter of policy would be felt for generations to come:
- Enemy soldiers unwilling to ever surrender to U.S. forces, because they fear the torture to come, resulting in more “fights to the death” with more death on the U.S. side as well;
- Whole nations and peoples whose attitude toward the U.S. is formed by the knowledge that the U.S. officially regards their people as having no value, no human rights.
Some of these consequences are already present, due to the toleration of torture by U.S. administrations in the past.
+ + +
C. S. Lewis, in a public letter on “The Conditions for a Just War,” argues that, alongside the questions (sometimes unclear) of a just or unjust war, there is a much clearer question of just and unjust actions within war.
A man is much more certain that he ought not murder prisoners or bomb civilians than he can ever be about the justice of a war . . . I feel certain that one Christian airman shot for refusing to bomb enemy civilians would be a more effective martyr [i.e., “witness”] . . . than a thousand Christians in jail for refusing to join the army.
A veteran of World War One, Lewis was well aware of the consequences that would follow when a subordinate refuses to wage war on civilians. He considers the witness of that refusal to a particular, wrongful, order, to be more powerful than a blanket refusal to obey any orders at all. As a Christian, he sees that there is a proper place for governmental authority, for the good of all. But there is a limit to that authority.
In American terms, the government is constituted among us to help us into a more perfect unity, bring us justice, insure tranquility, defend everyone, promote everyone’s well-being, and give all of us (and all of who come after us) the blessings that a free life can bring. When a government goes against this proper authority, it may rightly be resisted.
However, for an individual to “be ready to say no,” they need to also be ready to take the consequences.
Alexei Navalny, who perished in a Russian prison for defying the government of Vladimir Putin, described In his memoir Patriot what it took for him to have the courage and peace at heart to deal with the consequences of defying the government.
Here are the techniques I worked out. Perhaps others may find them helpful in the future (but let’s hope they are not needed).
The first is frequently found in self-help books. Imagine the worst thing that can happen, and accept it. . . . Get into your prison bunk and wait to hear “Lights out.” The lights are switched off. You invite yourself to imagine, as realistically as possible, the worst thing that can happen. And then, as I said, accept it (skipping the stages of denial, anger, and bargaining).
. . . The second technique is so old you may roll your eyes heavenward when you hear it. It is religion. It is doable only for believers but does not demand zealous, fervent prayer by the prison barracks window three times a day (a very common phenomenon in prisons).
I have always thought, and said openly, that being a believer makes it easier to live your life and, to an even greater extent, engage in opposition politics. Faith makes life simpler.
The initial position for this exercise is the same as the previous one. You lie in your bunk looking up at the one above and ask yourself whether you are a Christian in your heart of hearts. . . .[A]re you a disciple of the religion whose founder sacrificed himself for others, paying the price for their sins? Do you believe in the immortality of the soul and the rest of that cool stuff? If you can honestly answer yes, what is there left for you to worry about? . . . Don’t worry about the morrow, because the morrow is perfectly capable of taking care of itself.
My job is to seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and leave it to good old Jesus and the rest of his family to deal with everything else. They won’t let me down and will sort out all my headaches. As they say in prison here, they will take my punches for me.
And that’s how his memoirs end.
+ + +
The Commands of Donald Trump
This issue, this call to readiness, come to us at this time because of the elevation of Donald Trump to be the next U.S. president.
In 2016, when he first ran for president, candidate Trump said that he would have no hesitation in ordering the members of the armed services to torture people in their custody.
When he was told that “the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?”Trump said “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me. . . . We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.”
When asked about targeting terrorists’ families, Trump replied, “I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.”
“They won’t refuse. . . . they’re not going to refuse me. . . . I’m a leader. . . .
If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”
The day after this declaration (which was greeted by applause by the audience of a Republican debate) his campaign issued a statement that, of course, Trump as president would obey the law. However, after Trump’s first term was over, a number of high-level officials have indicated that, while in office, he did in fact give or discuss giving unlawful orders – firing on unarmed citizens, executing political opponents – that the high-level officials talked him out of, ignored, or simply did not carry out. (By and large, these interactions were not publicly known at the time. They were revealed in books written later.)
The implications for a second Trump term are dire.
The officials that a re-empowered President Trump appoints, will not be people ready to say “no” to his orders. If high-level officials, military officers, state authorities, or police leaders do not say “no,” then that responsibility will fall on mid-level officers and enlisted personnel – people who have little power to protect themselves from the consequences of refusal. But refusing to obey will still be the right thing to do.
Military personnel may appeal to the UCMJ for the authority to refuse to engage in torture, to fire on civilians, or other unlawful orders. Even if this appeal to the law may be in vain in a lawless administration, it is still an appeal to what is right. And there is a higher authority.
+ + +
The Higher Authority
Anyone – military or not, armed or not – who considers the consequences of refusing to obey an order, may find courage in knowing, as Navalny did, that there is a higher authority. A higher authority not only to appeal to, but to rely on. For many of us, the pledge to a “nation under God” does not consist only of empty words. Nor are they words that elevate any nation over another. Every nation is a nation under God. Every nation is answerable to a higher authority. As we all are.
Which means that refusing to obey an unlawful order is not only a duty for the sake of our nation and those we deal with. Saying “no” connects us to the only power that has the power to make us promises.
The only way to serve our nation, where it is going wrong, is by working to make it right. Torture, war on civilians, and other human rights violations do not establish or ennoble a nation. They debase it. And these wrongs cannot be simply ignored or waved off. They need to be faced, admitted, and addressed. Victims need to be faced, addressed, and redressed wherever possible. Nations need to own their history – good and bad – just as individuals do. It is no good to talk about unity, justice, tranquility, defense, well-being, and blessings of liberty unless it is done on the basis of honesty.
And honesty demands that we say “no” to false ways.
Alexei Navalny, facing the consequences of his refusal to obey, found peace in accepting the consequences that he saw coming. For him,
My job is to seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and leave it to good old Jesus and the rest of his family to deal with everything else. They won’t let me down and will sort out all my headaches. As they say in prison here, they will take my punches for me.
Not many of us will be called on to make the total sacrifice that Alexei Navalny faced.
We are, however – all of us – called on to “Be ready to say no.”
+ + +
+ + +
Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny, chapter 7
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Mortal Danger
Uniform Code of Military Justice
See also, Section 240A of Title 18, U.S. Code
C. S. Lewis letter, 1939,“The Conditions for a Just War,” in God in the Dock
Alexei Navalny, Patriot
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/4/1495933/-The-Leader
Bruce The Cameron 