Rachel E. VanLandingham and Geoffrey S. Corn

The presidential campaign has produced an insidious “fog of election” that is obscuring what should be obvious: The current top Republican contender is unfit to be the next commander in chief.

Donald Trump doesn’t simply disdain the law and U.S. military values; his avowed commitment to ordering war crimes disqualifies him from leading our men and women in uniform.

He has proudly stated that “torture works” and said he would “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” He has also declared that he would deliberately bomb civilian relatives of Islamic State terrorists, rationalizing that such action would be acceptable since they are family members.

You don’t need to be steeped in the law of war to recognize that these are crimes, acts that violate the high standards American service members have adhered to for centuries. Following orders to target civilians and commit torture would pull U.S. military conduct down to the gutter of brutality where our illicit enemies dwell, while simultaneously violating both international and domestic law.

War crimes such as torture and the deliberate attack of civilians cause the moral degradation and eventual rot of the military from the inside out, which is why many military commanders and military lawyers fought moves in that direction during the Bush administration. Furthermore, today’s military leaders have painfully internalized the strategic failures of Abu Ghraib, where failure to ensure humane treatment cost not only soft power but American lives by drawing more enemies into the fight.

The evangelical war over Donald Trump: David Brody

That is why uniformed leaders at every level of command would refuse to obey a commander in chief like Trump.

U.S. generals and admirals would refuse the president’s commands, potentially precipitating a constitutional crisis, because our military has a duty to refuse clearly illegal orders. While military obedience to civilian command is a bedrock principle of our constitutional government, every commissioned officer swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That singular focus of duty certainly includes obedience to the commander in chief, but only when his orders are lawful.

Ordering a war crime violates both international law and federal criminal law. The duty to disobey patently illegal orders is embedded in the military's Uniform Code of Military Justice and was championed by the United States at the Nuremberg trials following World War II: Soldiers cannot hide behind a “just following orders” defense to avoid criminal liability for war crimes.

The specter of military leaders tendering their resignation after refusing orders from a future President Trump isn’t mere hyperbole based on personal animus or political partisanship. The alarm was sounded last month by none other than retired four-star general Michael Hayden, who helped lead the Air Force and then served as the director of both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency under former President George W. Bush.

Trump redefining 'so-called conservatism' one primary at a time: Jonah Goldberg

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

That in itself is remarkable: The man who spent years providing our president with warnings about external and internal national security threats is now warning Americans that the leading Republican candidate for president may himself be a threat to our national security by issuing illegal orders. And the reason for his message is clear: Trump has repeatedly stated that he would issue such orders to our military, orders every member of the military is constitutionally bound to refuse to obey.

It’s not unusual for presidential candidates to say things on the stump that they really don’t mean. But Americans should reject any candidate who proudly espouses his commitment to lead the American military into the underworld of war crimes. This nation simply cannot condone a presidential candidate who makes war crimes a central plank in his national security platform. Instead of making “America great again,” such policies would destabilize the foundations of our professional military while pitting military leaders against their commander in chief. The military cannot ignore these risks, and American voters must not either.

Rachel E. VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and judge advocate, is an associate law professor at Southwestern Law School and vice president of the National Institute of Military Justice. Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and formerly the Army’s top law of war adviser, is a law professor at South Texas College of Law.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.