Fact check: What is the Uniform Code of Military Justice stance on disobeying orders?

1. Summary of the results

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) establishes a clear framework regarding disobeying orders, primarily through Articles 90 and 92. Service members are required to obey lawful orders but have both the right and obligation to disobey unlawful orders ^{[1] [2]}.

Article 90 specifically addresses disobeying a superior commissioned officer, making willful disobedience a serious crime with severe penalties. During wartime, the maximum punishment can be death, while during peacetime, penalties include dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years ^{[3] [4]}.

Article 92 covers three main offenses: violating or failing to obey lawful general orders or regulations, failing to obey other lawful orders, and being derelict in performing duties ^{[5] [6]}. The UCMJ establishes that orders are presumed to be lawful, but this presumption can be rebutted if the order is clearly illegal ^[6].

Unlawful orders are defined as those that require the commission of a criminal act or violate the Constitution, U.S. federal law, applicable international law, international human rights standards, or the Geneva Conventions ^{[1] [2] [7]}. Service members who follow illegal orders can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important nuances not immediately apparent in the original question:

• Dual responsibility: Service members face a complex legal situation where they must both obey lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones. Following an unlawful order does not absolve them of criminal responsibility ^{[2] [7]}.
• Knowledge requirements: The UCMJ provides defenses including lack of knowledge of the order, the order being unlawful, and the accused not being willfully disobedient ^[4]. The standard is whether "a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the order to be unlawful" ^[8].
• Contextual factors: The provisions depend on various factors including the form of the order, the identity of the person giving the order, and the circumstances surrounding the disobedience ^[8].
• Survey data: Research indicates that 4 out of 5 U.S. troops surveyed understand the duty to disobey illegal orders, suggesting widespread awareness of this responsibility ^[2].
• Legal determination: The lawfulness of an order is ultimately a question of law to be determined by the military judge, not by individual service members' personal judgment ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias, as it is a straightforward inquiry about UCMJ provisions. However, the question's simplicity could lead to oversimplified understanding of a complex legal framework. The analyses demonstrate that the UCMJ's stance on disobeying orders is nuanced and context-dependent rather than absolute ^[8].

The most significant potential for misunderstanding lies in the presumption of lawfulness for orders - while service members have the right to disobey unlawful orders, they bear the burden of proving the order was clearly unlawful, which creates a challenging legal and practical situation for military personnel ^{[6] [7]}.