To the Journal editor:

To Congressman Bergman:

Concerning attacks on unarmed boats in the Mediterranean, your office’s Oct. 23 email stated, “Congressman Bergman will continue to review the situation in light of his responsibilities in Congress and his commitment to upholding the Constitution.”

Six members of Congress, veterans or former members of the intelligence community, released a video addressing military and intelligence personnel. The video reiterated the truism that no one is obligated to comply with an illegal order. The president condemned the video, stating that their statement was punishable by death. He reposted a message stating that the legislators should be hanged.

In the summer and fall of 1969, the Basic School in Quantico for new Marine officers taught that an officer does not obey an unlawful order. It was at a time when Americans were becoming aware of the murder of between 300 and 500 non-combatants at My Lai. It was less than a year before members of the Ohio National Guard killed four students at Kent State.

Marine officers, as well as officers in other branches, do not swear an oath of allegiance to the “chain of command” or the president but to “support and defend the Constitution” and to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it. Whenever an order violates the Constitution, an officer must not obey it.

The president appears to be unaware of an officer’s duty to the Constitution. He lacks military experience, and his administration wants officers to follow commands whether lawful or not. Will you address this with the administration?

The Constitution grants individuals the right to express their views publicly, assemble, freedom from searches and seizures, and have due process rights. These military troops are trained to engage, close, and destroy the enemy in a combat zone. Their specialty is not keeping order or patrolling domestic cities. The chance of impinging on Constitutional rights is obvious.

The president claimed he wasn’t threatening death. If he wasn’t advocating for the legislators’ deaths, why did he post twice that their actions deserve death? Can you reconcile this contradiction?