Joy Behar Draws Parallels Between Trump’s Orders and Historical Nuremberg Trials

Joy Behar Draws Parallels Between Trump’s Orders and Historical Nuremberg Trials

On a recent episode of The View, co-host Joy Behar issued a stark warning to military service members. She invoked the infamous Nuremberg trials, which held Nazi officials accountable for war crimes following World War II, urging caution against obeying potentially illegal orders from the Trump administration.

Discussion of Pentagon Investigations

Behar’s comments came during a compelling discussion about the Pentagon’s ongoing investigation regarding certain congressional members involved in a controversial video. This video has raised eyebrows due to claims suggesting a breach of lawful military orders. In a moment of reflection, Behar recommended that viewers watch a newly released film titled “Nuremberg,” which dramatizes the historic trials and their profound implications.

She stated, “It’s about the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis after World War II—following orders is not a defense. So these soldiers have to pay attention.” This statement not only reflects Behar’s concerns but also emphasizes the enduring relevance of moral responsibility in military conduct.

Highlighting Illegal Orders

In the same episode, Behar emphasized the seriousness of senators’ remarks regarding military operations. She highlighted a clip featuring Senator Elissa Slotkin from Michigan, one of the lawmakers central to the discussion about the illegal orders video. Behar pointed out, “These are the things that [Slotkin’s] talking about. Carrying out military strikes on boats in the Caribbean without congressional approval. That’s an illegal order.” This statement directly raises questions about the legality of executing such orders without proper authorization.

Past Events and Military Orders

Moreover, Behar referenced former Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s alarming account where President Trump allegedly suggested employing force against protesters during the George Floyd demonstrations in 2020. This context adds a layer of complexity to the debates surrounding military engagement and the legality of orders by high-ranking officials.

Contrasting Opinions on Military Conduct

Alyssa Farah Griffin, another co-host, voiced her disagreements with Behar’s assertions. Griffin cautioned against conflating various military decisions, particularly those involving drone strikes and hypothetical orders that could potentially endanger civil liberties. She stated, “But these are issues that could be potentially seen as illegal orders. Using major American cities as a training ground for the military,” reinforcing the idea that defining illegal orders is nuanced and context-dependent.

The Broader Context of Congressional Authorization

Griffin further emphasized the need for clarity on congressional authorization in military operations. She argued, “You would have a major problem at the Pentagon if you had rank-and-file members raising their hands saying, ‘I don’t know if this got congressional authorization.’” This emphasizes the significant implications that arise when military personnel question the legitimacy of their commands.

The Role of Military Leaders

Co-host Ana Navarro shared an example of U.S. Navy Admiral Alvin Holsey, who is noted for choosing resignation over following orders he perceived as unlawful. This anecdote serves as a powerful testimony to the idea of moral obligation within military hierarchy.

Addressing Due Process Concerns

In response, Griffin argued the importance of maintaining focus on broader military ethics, saying, “America has bigger issues. I’d be very careful about saying the U.S. Military should stand up and defy orders from their generals. They should discern clear unlawful orders from lawful commands.” Her perspective suggests a necessity for soldiers to understand both their rights and responsibilities when confronted with questionable orders.

Griffin succinctly concluded, “You know when an order is outside of the Constitution,” highlighting the significance of constitutional awareness among service members when fulfilling their duties.

Calls for Comment from the White House

As the discussion unfolded, the White House remained silent, failing to provide immediate comments on the issues raised during the segment. This absence of response might reflect the complexity and sensitivity surrounding the judicial and legislative aspects of military orders.

Fostering Responsible Discourse

The conversations prompted by Behar and her co-hosts reveal an essential discussion about military integrity, legality, and ethical responsibilities. As service members navigate the challenging landscape of orders and commands, understanding the implications of their choices becomes increasingly critical. The dialogue also encourages viewers to reflect on the price of obedience and disobedience within the context of lawful military conduct.