Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which commanders were prosecuted for issuing unlawful orders and what precedents did those trials set?
Executive summary
Historical U.S. prosecutions for following or issuing unlawful orders include high-profile cases such as Lt. William L. Calley Jr. (My Lai), which set a precedent that “just following orders” is not an absolute defense to war crimes; courts will evaluate both the lawfulness of orders and whether they were “manifestly unlawful” [1] [2]. Contemporary reporting frames the duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders as embedded in the UCMJ and international law, while also warning that refusing orders that are legally ambiguous can itself be punished [2] [3].
1. Famous prosecutions: the My Lai case and its legal ripple effects
The most cited U.S. example of prosecution tied to orders is Lieutenant William L. Calley Jr., convicted in the My Lai massacre for his role in the killing of hundreds of Vietnamese civilians; that case established that participation in mass atrocities cannot be excused solely by obedience to superior orders and helped cement individual criminal responsibility for war crimes [1]. Reporting points to My Lai as the U.S. benchmark used in later commentary and legal training when discussing the obligations of soldiers to disobey clearly illegal commands [2] [1].
2. The doctrine: “manifestly unlawful” and where it came from
U.S. practice now recognizes a duty to disobey “manifestly unlawful” orders — a term relied on in the Manual for Courts-Martial even though the UCMJ does not define it precisely. The manual and legal commentators explain the test as whether an ordinary person would “know in their gut” that the order was illegal under domestic or international law [2]. International precedents such as Nuremberg are often invoked to show the legal lineage of personal responsibility for war crimes [2].
3. What prosecutions have set as precedents
Trials like Calley’s set several durable precedents: (a) superior orders are not an automatic defense to charges for killing civilians or other war crimes; (b) courts assess both the content of orders and whether unlawfulness was obvious to subordinates; and (c) individuals can face U.S. courts-martial or international tribunals for following manifestly unlawful commands [1] [2]. Contemporary journalism and legal guides rely on those lessons when advising service members that disobeying an unlawful order is legally required but fraught in practice [2] [4].
4. Tension in practice: obligation to obey versus risk of liability
Reporting emphasizes a hard operational tension: service members have a “default duty of obedience” under the UCMJ, and willfully refusing a lawful order can incur punishments under Articles 90 and 92, while obeying a manifestly unlawful order can create criminal liability [3] [5]. That is why military structures place JAG officers throughout the chain of command and why commentators warn junior troops against making unilateral determinations about complex legality on the battlefield [3].
5. Contemporary debate and political context
Recent political controversy — for example, a video by six Democratic lawmakers urging troops to refuse unlawful orders — highlights the contemporary relevance and political sensitivity of these legal standards. Some commentators and Defense Department statements warn such messages can undermine “good order and discipline,” while advocates insist the advice merely reiterates established legal obligations [3] [6] [7]. The Pentagon’s move to examine whether public advocacy crossed line into misconduct (in Sen. Mark Kelly’s case) shows how legal norms intersect with politics and command cohesion today [8] [6].
6. Limits of the available reporting and what’s not said
Available sources explain general precedents (My Lai, Nuremberg) and the current legal framework (UCMJ, Manual for Courts-Martial), but they do not provide a catalog of every commander ever prosecuted for issuing unlawful orders nor do they list the full range of subsequent appellate decisions refining the “manifestly unlawful” standard [2] [1]. Detailed statutory history, comparative international case law beyond the high-profile examples, and granular military court decisions are not covered in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. Practical takeaway for service members and policymakers
Journalistic and legal commentary converges on a clear practical rule: soldiers must disobey orders that are manifestly unlawful, but because most orders are legally ambiguous and refusal carries career and criminal risk, the institutional safeguards (JAG counsel, chain-of-command review) and careful legal training are essential to prevent both unlawful conduct and unjust discipline [3] [2] [4]. Policymakers and military leaders arguing about public guidance should acknowledge that historical prosecutions shaped the rule but left difficult judgment calls for present-day troops and commanders [1] [2].