What little that most non-military people know about the circumstances under which a soldier, sailor or Marine might refuse to obey an order likely comes from the 1992 movie, “A Few Good Men.”

The story centered on the question of whether two Marines at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base did the right thing by following an order to administer an illegal disciplinary “code red” to an underperforming private, who accidentally died during the beating.

The resulting court-martial produced the following forceful courtroom statement from the commanding officer, played by Jack Nicholson:

“We follow orders, son. We follow orders, or people die. It’s that simple.”

But as became clear in Nicholson’s ensuing, memorable “You can’t handle the truth!” soliloquy and the jury’s subsequent ruling against the two Marines, it wasn’t that simple. It demonstrated that there are indeed circumstances when an order should not be followed: when it demands an illegal or unconstitutional action.

None of this is, or should be, news to anyone who has served in the military.

It’s included in the oath that every enlistee pledges at his or her induction. The oath says in part, “… that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). So help me God.”

The UCMJ repeatedly prohibits service members from following unlawful orders — including burglary, murder, assault, rape and property destruction. And it specifies that, “A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders ...”

All that leaves no confusion as to the rights and responsibilities of both order-givers and order-takers. Now comes U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, along with five other congressional veterans, posting a video dramatically restating that active military members must refuse unlawful or unconstitutional orders.

The other five, all Democrats, as is Kelly, include Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official; and U.S. Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, an Army Ranger veteran; Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, an Air Force veteran; and Navy veterans Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire.

The 87-second video shows the six veterans sternly addressing the troops:

“We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep America safe,” the video begins, as the six alternate, each speaking a few words, and violins play softly in the background. “We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.”

Well, OK. But then the video goes off the rails.

“Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk,” they say in alternate short bursts. “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.

“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”

Any mystery about where this allegedly public-spirited video might be going is now erased, but just in case anyone missed it, here’s the payoff:

“Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders,” they say, again in alternate dramatic voices, repeated again and again.

This wasn’t an effort by the six to explain or encourage anyone or anything. It was a blatant, political anti-administration attack, using the military officers and personnel they were addressing their comments to as props to drive home their opposition to President Donald Trump.

The video failed to even specify just what illegal or unconstitutional orders the speakers were concerned about.

These were serious, if undefined, accusations. What trust, specifically, were the six warning is at risk? How, exactly, is the administration pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens?

Slotkin was asked point-blank about that by ABC’s Martha Raddatz on last Sunday’s “This Week” broadcast:

“So, let’s talk right now,” said Raddatz. “Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?”

Slotkin: “I — I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.”

Based on that, she wants military pilots and others to defy orders?

Pressed further, she said that “my primary concern is the use of U.S. military on American shores, on our city — in our cities and in our streets.”

But again, she was long on insinuation, short on detail. Those concerns didn’t come close to backing up the accusation that Trump is pitting the military against American citizens.

Whether that’s legal is still being sorted out in the courts. But, to the contrary, anything the president has said about using the military on city streets reflects his intent to protect American citizens.

Slotkin spoke of young officers coming to her and others and saying, “I’m not sure. What should I do?”

If that’s really true, and she sincerely wanted to help, she should advise the officers to speak with their superiors about potential orders and conflicts … not whine to opposition members of Congress so they could be used for political capital.

As ever, Trump and his minions overreacted, fumbling their chance to rise above crass opportunism.

The president accused the six of sedition, spoke darkly of the death penalty and reposted a social media comment that President Abraham Lincoln would have considered the video a hanging offense.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth talked of recalling Kelly to active duty and then court-martialing him. This to a decorated veteran who, despite the video misstep, has served his country long and well.

It might have been too much to ask for the administration to react with maturity, but the fact remains that the six did the military a grave disservice with this video. How does introducing doubt about the legality of instinctively following orders do anything but hurt our military preparedness?

Instruction on how the military chain of command should respond to unlawful orders demands clarity — not politically charged innuendo.

Ted Diadiun is a member of the editorial board of cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer.