The Dispute Index

Rachel E. VanLandingham

Rachel E. VanLandingham is a law professor at Southwestern Law School, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel and president emerita of the National Institute of Military Justice. Her work focuses on national security, military criminal law and the law of armed conflict. She was chief international-law adviser at U.S. Central Command and taught at the Air Force Academy before joining Southwestern in 2014.

Website (opens in a new tab)

What we have documented

We have documented 2 statements by Rachel E. VanLandingham, in 2 cases. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.

Statements by Rachel E. VanLandingham

Rachel E. VanLandingham

Role at the time: Retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former chief of international law at U.S. Central Command, quoted by Task & Purpose

Condemned

Statement summary

In comments to Task & Purpose published September 25, VanLandingham said "the growing international condemnation makes it clearer that these strikes are unlawful", while adding that it does not create "a legal duty for any service member to disobey their boat strike-related orders". She also referred to "the illegal boat strikes".

“For the vast majority of service members, except perhaps the senior-most commanders, there is both no safe recourse for them to disobey orders related to the illegal boat strikes and at the same time, there is no exposure to criminal liability for them either … Yes, the growing international condemnation makes it clearer that these strikes are unlawful, but doesn’t overcome the White House’s own legal sanitization process and doesn’t create a legal duty for any service member to disobey their boat strike-related orders”
Open source (opens in a new tab)UN report says drug boat strikes are war crimes. What does that mean for US troops?Paragraphs quoting Rachel VanLandingham on service members' legal position
Why we used this label

Relative to the strike campaign that includes the September 19 strike and its legal basis, VanLandingham says the strikes are unlawful and refers to them as illegal. Her caution that service members have no safe recourse to refuse orders concerns troops' legal exposure, not whether the strikes are lawful, so the label is a condemnation.

Read statementFull case: Was the U.S. military's September 19 Caribbean boat strike justified by evidence of narcotics trafficking?

Rachel E. VanLandingham

Role at the time: Professor of law and retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel, writing an opinion column

Condemned

Statement summary

In a signed opinion column, law professor and retired Air Force officer Rachel VanLandingham argued that Hegseth should be impeached over his threats to court-martial Sen. Mark Kelly. The characterisation of those threats is hers.

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should be impeached for his abusive threats to court-martial Navy combat veteran Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., in retaliation for the senator’s participation in a video reminding service members of their extant legal duty to disobey unlawful orders.”
Open source (opens in a new tab)Pete Hegseth’s reaction to Mark Kelly’s military video is grounds for impeachmentOpening sentence of the column.
Why we used this label

Relative to whether the House should impeach Hegseth, VanLandingham states in her own voice that he should be impeached. The column is her position, not her outlet’s.

Read statementFull case: Should Pete Hegseth be impeached?

A participant is a subject of the case. A speaker has a statement documented in it. A commentator has an opinion or editorial documented in it.

Topics in this coverage