Your fact-checks will appear here
United States military law
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) addresses lawful and unlawful orders primarily through Articles 90 and 92: Article 92 criminalizes failure to obey orders or regulations, and Article 90 cri...
Federal law does not use a standalone civilian crime labeled simply “sedition” with a death penalty; the federal offense most commonly invoked is “seditious conspiracy,” which carries a maximum prison...
The Pentagon has opened a review of “serious allegations of misconduct” against Sen. Mark Kelly (ret. U.S. Navy) and said he could be recalled to active duty and face court-martial or administrative m...
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires service members to obey lawful orders but also recognizes a duty to disobey “patently illegal” commands — those that clearly direct the commission ...
The term "rape" in U.S. law is not a single, uniform criminal code entry but is generally defined for federal statistical purposes as penetration—however slight—without the victim's consent, including...
Historical examples of military personnel carrying out or refusing orders later judged illegal most often center on war crimes and clear abuses—most prominently the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the ...
Refusals of military orders happen across history in two broad categories: lawful disobedience of manifestly illegal orders (e.g., orders to target civilians) and acts of insubordination or political ...
The Pentagon has opened a formal review into Sen. Mark Kelly for appearing in a video telling service members they can refuse “illegal orders,” and Defense officials say retired officers remain subjec...
The Pentagon has opened a formal review of Sen. Mark Kelly after he appeared in a video urging service members to refuse “illegal” orders; the Defense Department said it received “serious allegations ...
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and federal practice allow some retirees to be recalled and—if recalled—subject to court-martial, especially retirees who are eligible for or receiving pay;...
Active-duty members face limits on partisan and contemptuous political speech under the UCMJ and DoD directives: Article 88 bars contemptuous words against the President and certain civilian officials...
Historical precedent shows that soldiers have sometimes been prosecuted for following orders deemed illegal and, in other times, have been exonerated or spared full liability when courts found the leg...
U.S. military law requires service members to obey lawful orders and to refuse unlawful ones; the primary statutory baseline is Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 892), an...
Article 92 of the UCMJ governs failure to obey orders and regulations and is the principal statute used when a service member is accused of disobeying a lawful order (10 U.S.C. §892) . For disobedienc...
Sentences for possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) vary widely: federal statutes allow up to 20 years for possession-related counts and mandatory minimums of five years for certain receipt...
Yes — federal law and longstanding military policy allow many retired-list servicemembers to be ordered back to active duty, and courts and agencies treat most retirees as maintaining a “military” leg...
Few Americans have been prosecuted under sedition-related statutes in U.S. history, and modern federal law treats “seditious conspiracy” as a felony punishable by up to 20 years, not death for civilia...
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) presumes orders are lawful but makes clear service members are not required to follow orders that are contrary to the Constitution, U.S. law, or beyond the ...
A U.S. service member can be court-martialed for disobeying a superior’s order if that order is lawful — Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes failure to obey lawful orders a...
Available reporting and legal commentary establish that U.S. military law treats following an unlawful order as potentially criminal and that service members have a duty to refuse “patently” or clearl...