An emergency webinar titled "Illegal Orders under US Military Law" is scheduled for December 30th from 1-3 PM Central Time. This two-hour live session will be led by Attorney James M. Branum, who is affiliated with the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild and the Oklahoma Objector Community. The webinar will focus on the implications of illegal orders within a military context, addressing both international and US law.

Participants will learn about the potential legal, moral, ethical, and practical dangers that servicemembers may encounter when faced with illegal orders—both in obeying and disobeying them. The discussion will also cover ethical considerations for attorneys and GI Rights Counselors regarding these issues.

The event is open to a wide audience, including attorneys, law students, military personnel (active duty, reserve, and Guard), veterans, and members of the public. While attendance is free, participants are encouraged to make a donation to support the Military Law Task Force.

James M. Branum has extensive experience defending military servicemembers in various legal matters and has been involved with multiple organizations advocating for GI rights. He also serves as an Interfaith Minister and Jewish educator.

This webinar aims to provide critical information about illegal orders under military law to enhance understanding among those affected by or interested in military legal issues.

Original article (veterans)

The article provides information about an upcoming webinar titled "Illegal Orders under US Military Law," which is scheduled for December 30th. Here’s a breakdown of its value:

Actionable Information: The article does provide actionable information in the form of details about the webinar, including the date, time, and how it is open to various audiences such as attorneys, law students, military personnel, and the public. However, it lacks specific instructions on how to register or participate in the webinar. Without clear steps for attendance or engagement, readers may find it challenging to take action.

Educational Depth: The article mentions that participants will learn about illegal orders within a military context and covers legal implications under both international and US law. While this indicates some level of educational depth, it does not delve into specifics regarding what constitutes an illegal order or provide examples that could enhance understanding. Thus, while there is potential for learning during the webinar itself, the article does not teach much beyond surface-level facts.

Personal Relevance: The topic of illegal orders has significant relevance for military personnel and those involved in legal advocacy related to military service. However, its impact may be limited primarily to those directly affected by military law rather than a broader audience. For civilians or individuals with no connection to military service or legal matters concerning it, the relevance may be minimal.

Public Service Function: The article serves a public function by addressing important issues related to military law and ethical considerations surrounding obedience to orders. It raises awareness about potential dangers faced by servicemembers when confronted with illegal orders but does not offer warnings or safety guidance that could help individuals navigate these situations effectively.

Practical Advice: While there are references made regarding ethical considerations for attorneys and GI Rights Counselors in dealing with illegal orders, there are no concrete steps provided that an ordinary reader can realistically follow outside of attending the webinar itself. This lack of practical advice diminishes its usefulness.

Long-Term Impact: The focus on a specific event means that any long-term benefits are contingent upon participation in the webinar itself. There is little information provided that would help readers plan ahead or make stronger choices regarding their understanding of military law outside this context.

Emotional and Psychological Impact: The article presents factual information without inducing fear or shock; however, it also lacks elements that would foster clarity or constructive thinking around such serious topics as illegal orders within a military framework.

Clickbait Language: There is no indication of clickbait language present in this article; it maintains a straightforward tone without exaggerated claims meant solely for attention-grabbing purposes.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: While highlighting an important issue—illegal orders—the article misses opportunities to provide deeper insights into what constitutes such orders or how servicemembers can prepare themselves ethically when faced with them. It could have included general guidelines on assessing whether an order might be illegal based on established laws and principles.

To add real value beyond what was provided: Individuals interested in understanding more about illegal orders should consider researching basic principles of military law independently through reputable sources like legal textbooks focused on military justice systems or government websites outlining servicemember rights. Engaging with community organizations focused on GI rights can also offer support networks where individuals can discuss concerns related to their experiences with commands they believe may be unlawful. Additionally, maintaining awareness of one’s rights under both domestic laws and international treaties governing armed conflict can empower servicemembers when navigating complex moral dilemmas associated with obedience versus disobedience towards potentially unlawful commands.

The text uses the phrase "illegal orders under US Military Law," which might create a strong emotional response. This wording suggests that there are clear and present dangers in military orders, framing the discussion in a way that emphasizes fear and urgency. This choice of words could lead readers to believe that illegal orders are common and pose significant risks, even if this may not be universally true. The strong language can manipulate feelings about military authority and law.

The description of James M. Branum as having "extensive experience defending military servicemembers" serves to enhance his credibility but may also create bias by implying he is an authority on all matters related to military law without providing specific examples of his successes or failures. This could lead readers to accept his views uncritically based solely on his title and experience. It positions him as a trusted figure while potentially obscuring any dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints within military legal discussions.

The phrase "potential legal, moral, ethical, and practical dangers" implies that there are serious consequences for servicemembers regarding illegal orders. This broad range of dangers might exaggerate the risks involved without offering concrete evidence or examples of such situations occurring frequently. By using vague terms like "potential," it creates a sense of alarm while lacking specificity about what these dangers actually entail.

The text states that the event is open to “a wide audience,” including “attorneys, law students, military personnel (active duty, reserve, and Guard), veterans, and members of the public.” While this seems inclusive, it does not address whether there are barriers to participation for certain groups or individuals who may be interested but feel excluded due to lack of knowledge or resources about military law issues. The wording suggests openness but may mask underlying exclusivity based on familiarity with legal concepts.

When discussing ethical considerations for attorneys and GI Rights Counselors regarding illegal orders, the text does not provide details on what those ethical considerations might entail. This omission can mislead readers into thinking that there is a consensus on these ethics when in reality there may be significant debate among professionals in this field. By leaving out specifics, it simplifies complex issues surrounding legality and morality in military contexts.

The encouragement for participants to make donations supports the Military Law Task Force but could imply financial pressure on attendees who wish to support the cause without necessarily being able to afford it. The phrase “participants are encouraged” softens any obligation they might feel while still suggesting an expectation for donations from those who attend freely. This subtle pressure can create an impression that financial contributions are necessary for continued advocacy work related to military law issues.

In describing Branum's roles as both an attorney and an Interfaith Minister/Jewish educator without further context about how these roles intersect with his legal work, the text could unintentionally suggest a conflation between religious beliefs and legal expertise. This connection might lead some readers to assume his religious background influences his professional opinions more than they actually do without providing evidence for such claims. It raises questions about whether personal beliefs should impact interpretations of law within a secular framework like the U.S. Military Justice System.

The mention of "GI rights" advocates implies a specific political stance favoring servicemembers' rights against perceived injustices within military structures without presenting counterarguments or perspectives from those who might disagree with this viewpoint. By focusing solely on advocacy efforts aligned with one side—servicemembers' rights—it creates an imbalance in representation regarding differing opinions about legality within military operations.

The text conveys a range of emotions that are intricately woven into the message about the upcoming webinar on illegal orders under US military law. One prominent emotion is concern, which is evident in phrases like "potential legal, moral, ethical, and practical dangers." This concern highlights the serious implications of illegal orders for servicemembers and serves to inform the audience about the gravity of these issues. The strength of this emotion is significant as it underscores the urgency and importance of understanding military law. By expressing concern, the text aims to guide readers toward recognizing the potential risks involved in obeying or disobeying illegal orders, thereby fostering a sense of responsibility among participants.

Another emotion present in the text is empowerment. The webinar promises to provide critical information that can enhance understanding among those affected by military legal issues. This empowerment comes through phrases such as "participants will learn" and emphasizes that knowledge can equip individuals to navigate complex situations involving illegal orders. The strength of this emotion lies in its ability to inspire action; it encourages attendees to engage with challenging topics and take informed stances regarding their rights and responsibilities.

Trust also emerges as an underlying sentiment through references to Attorney James M. Branum's extensive experience defending servicemembers and his affiliations with reputable organizations like the Military Law Task Force. By highlighting Branum’s qualifications, including his role as an Interfaith Minister and Jewish educator, the text builds credibility around him as a knowledgeable leader for this discussion. This trust serves to reassure participants that they are receiving guidance from someone who genuinely understands their concerns.

The emotional landscape crafted by these sentiments—concern, empowerment, and trust—guides readers' reactions effectively. Concern prompts attendees to reflect on their own experiences or those of others regarding military law violations, while empowerment motivates them to participate actively in discussions about their rights. Trust fosters a safe environment where participants feel comfortable engaging with sensitive topics.

To persuade effectively, the writer employs specific language choices that evoke strong feelings rather than neutral descriptions. Terms like "illegal orders," "dangers," and "implications" carry weighty connotations that amplify emotional responses compared to more neutral phrasing one might expect in standard informational texts. Additionally, emphasizing phrases such as “open to a wide audience” creates inclusivity while reinforcing urgency around participation.

The use of repetition also plays a role; reiterating themes related to legality and ethics throughout reinforces their significance within military contexts without overwhelming readers with excessive detail at once. Furthermore, framing Branum's credentials alongside his advocacy work personalizes his expertise while making it relatable for various audiences—from attorneys to veterans—thereby enhancing emotional resonance across diverse groups.

In summary, through careful word choice and strategic emotional appeals like concern for safety, empowerment through knowledge acquisition, and building trust in leadership expertise—all serve not only informative purposes but also aim at inspiring action among attendees regarding crucial military legal matters.