ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

"You can refuse illegal orders."

But that cleverly conceived sentence contained within it an explosive package of political and legal implications.

When U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, the Tucson Democrat, and five other members of Congress participated this week in a video aimed at members of the U.S. military, it came out at an especially potent moment in American politics.

President Donald Trump has been exercising outsized political power, but that power is diminishing. That's been evidenced by his defeat on the Epstein-files issue, the big Republican losses in November elections and .

No wonder, then, that Trump responded explosively, accusing Kelly and the others of sedition, suggesting they should be arrested, tried and executed. It was an overreaction that reflects the tensions of the moment.Ìý

The president's declining power means he and his allies may not be able to protect loyalists who commit wrongdoing for him.ÌýThe Congress members' video helps plant that seed of doubt in people who might otherwise be willing to carry out borderline or obviously illegal orders.Ìý

While Kelly and the others directed their comments to members of the military and intelligence communities, the same ramifications also apply to people in other areas of government: Public health, education, or immigration, for example.Ìý

“To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties," in an Oct. 24 Fox News interview.

This is one of several overt and implied offers of protection for people who help carry out the president's agenda the administration has made. The president has also offered pardons to a slew of supporters.Ìý

But the video, especially coming out at this moment, carries the implication that you may be held accountable despite the administration's assurances.

'Patently or manifestly illegal orders'

What the six Congress members said was tricky because it was correct on its face, but more complicated in real life and packaged in broader accusations.

Reading from a script that cuts between the members, Kelly, Sen Elise Slotkin and Rep. Jason Crow said in succession: "This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens." 

"Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home," Crow and Rep. Chris Deluzio said.

The climax of the 90-second video is the two utterances of the sentence "You can refuse illegal orders," followed by Deluzio emphasizing, "You must refuse illegal orders."

In real life, it's not that simple. Tucson attorney Robert McManimon, a retired U.S. Marine Corps captain and judge advocate, told me that troops can only refuse "patently or manifestly illegal orders." He cited the order to kill Vietnamese civilians in the 1968 My Lai massacre as an example.

"There is a presumption that every order is lawful unless it meets that very high requirement of being so obviously unlawful that it is your moral and legal imperative to disobey that order," McManimon said.Ìý

You can't expect National Guard troops ordered to deploy to an American city to sort through the various federal court rulings and determine whether their deployment is legal. They'll need to report or risk discipline.Ìý

"You as a service member should assume the order is lawful until a persuasive authority tells you otherwise," McManimon said.

Prosecution for war crimes

In most cases, the determination of whether an order is illegal comes after the fact, but there is risk in waiting, especially in a combat situation with potential war crimes at play.Ìý

"The consequence of carrying out an illegal order is you could be prosecuted for engaging in a war crime," said Kristine Huskey, a professor at the University of Arizona's James E. Rogers College of Law who directs its Veterans Advocacy Law Clinic. "It’s not a defense to say, 'it was an order.' "

While the law of war isn't likely relevant to Trump's domestic National Guard deployments, in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Those strikes could be war crimes resulting from illegal orders, Huskey said.Ìý

"If it turns out you were carrying out an illegal order, you're going to be prosecuted, and that's not a defense. That's a Nuremberg defense," Huskey said, referring to the failed excuse used by Nazi war criminals.Ìý

You can imagine other scenarios where this legal logic could apply in future years. who get in their way, or in affidavits. It could even play out in the white-collar offices where public-health laws or legal professional standards may be violated.

Raising the prospect of accountability 

In the immediate aftermath of the video, Trump walked into a trap laid, intentionally or not, by Kelly and the others. By his angry reaction, Trump unleashed the usual passions of his most avid followers, some of whom threatened the lawmakers.Ìý

"I never thought I'd see a President call for my execution," .Ìý

, "In this job, with rising political violence, you have to be concerned. Any president’s words carry a lot of weight. He’s got supporters out there who listen to what he says. When he calls for the execution of myself and five of my colleagues in Congress, that means something to a lot of people."

While that's bad, and especially poignant in the case of Gabby Giffords' husband, the upshot hasn't been all bad for the six members of Congress. from people arguing they interfered with the chain of command, but they also got the country talking about illegal orders and whether the president is making them.Ìý

They also got a new fundraising hook. On Thursday and Friday, Kelly's campaign sent out fundraising emails with the subject line "President Trump is calling for me to be hanged."

But perhaps most importantly, they raised the prospect of accountability. As Trump weakens, it becomes clearer he may not be able to protect people who commit wrongdoing for him.Ìý

That could have repercussions in places like Tucson, if and when immigration sweeps arrive, and around the country, wherever borderline or illegal orders may be made. If people are afraid they'll be held accountable, those orders might not be carried out, and that's a good thing.Ìý