What are examples of unlawful military orders
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Unlawful military orders are legally defined as directives that require commission of a criminal act, violate the Constitution, U.S. law, or international law; historical touchstones include the My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, the 2012 Quran burnings and the Maywand District murders, which courts and commentators have treated as paradigmatic examples of orders (and follow-through) that transgress legal and moral limits [1] [2]. U.S. military law—principally the UCMJ and courts-martial doctrine—imposes a narrow “manifest illegality” standard: service members must disobey orders that are clearly criminal, but face real risk if they refuse orders whose illegality is not obvious [3] [4].
1. What counts as an unlawful order: the legal baseline
Military law draws a bright-line rule in words but a narrow one in practice: an order is unlawful if it commands a crime, violates the Constitution, or breaches military regulations or international law; the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Articles 90 and 92) and scholarly summaries frame that definition while also affirming that obedience is required for lawful orders [3] [5]. International law echoes this: “criminal orders” (orders to commit war crimes) obligate disobedience because superior orders do not excuse the perpetrator [6].
2. Concrete historical examples that illustrate the boundary
The worst-known U.S. examples show how unlawful orders or the decision to follow them produce atrocity: the My Lai massacre and Lieutenant Calley’s conviction for killing civilians in Vietnam, the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal, the Maywand District murders in Afghanistan, and incidents like the 2012 Quran burnings have all been cited as instances where criminal or unethical directives — or the failure to stop them — produced prosecutable harms [1] [2]. Legal and advocacy accounts use these cases to signal the kinds of acts — killing noncombatants, torture, desecration of protected property — that clearly cross into illegality [2] [4].
3. Domestic law limits and the Posse Comitatus line
Within the United States, an additional legal constraint is the Posse Comitatus principle: using federal military forces to perform domestic law enforcement is generally prohibited absent specific statutory authority or an insurrection declaration, and orders directing troops to police civilians without lawful basis can become unlawful on that ground [7] [2]. Commentators and advocacy groups have flagged domestic deployments and mission creep as areas where servicemembers may face orders raising constitutional and statutory questions [7].
4. The “manifest illegality” standard and the practical risk to troops
Military commentators and courts repeatedly stress that refusal is only safe when an order is manifestly or patently illegal — so obvious that a person of ordinary understanding would see it as a crime — because refusing a lawful order itself can lead to court‑martial; that narrow standard means many operationally controversial or politically fraught orders will not meet the threshold absent judicial review [4] [8]. The Manual for Courts‑Martial and experts note the paradox: the law requires disobedience of illegal orders, yet the lawfulness of an order is often only finally determined by a military judge after someone has refused or followed it [7].
5. Contemporary debate: public advice, ambiguity and political theater
Recent public interventions—lawmakers’ videos urging troops to refuse illegal orders—have thrust the issue into politics: proponents argue the reminders reinforce constitutional duty, while critics say broad public messaging without concrete examples or legal context risks confusing troops about the narrow legal test and could be “careless” given disciplinary risks [8] [9]. Media coverage and legal sources show an implicit agenda on both sides: advocates aim to protect constitutional norms, critics aim to preserve command authority and avoid politicizing obedience [8] [4].
6. Guidance for servicemembers and open limits in reporting
Legal commentators advise seeking clarification, consulting JAG or counsel, and documenting orders when possible; however, reporting and sources make plain that many operational scenarios force split‑second choices and that the literature cannot answer every factual permutation — the ultimate legal determination often lies with a court or military judge after the fact [1] [7]. Sources used here catalogue examples and legal standards but do not settle every borderline case, so factual claims are confined to what those sources document [1] [3].