Your fact-checks will appear here
Family name
Military precedent and practice treat the phrase “manifestly unlawful” as a narrow, high bar: an order must be “clear and obvious” or “patently illegal” on its face (for example, ordering murder of ci...
A soldier may legally and ethically refuse an order when that order is unlawful—most clearly when it commands a criminal act such as murder of civilians, rape, torture, or other violations of the law ...
The U.S. military legal framework treats the question of whether an order is lawful as a legal determination ultimately reserved for courts-martial or military judges, not for individual subordinates ...
United States v. Calley made clear in military practice that subordinates cannot rely uncritically on “superior orders”: an order is unlawful if “a man of ordinary sense and understanding” would know ...
United States v. Calley solidified that “following orders” is not an absolute defense: an order to kill unresisting civilians is legally “palpably illegal,” and a soldier who knew or should have known...
The Calley rulings applied a two-part test: an unlawful order can excuse a subordinate only if the accused did not actually know the order was unlawful and a “man of ordinary sense and understanding” ...
Courts and commentators describe “unlawful orders” under the UCMJ as those that require clear violations of U.S. or international law (for example, intentionally targeting civilians or committing stat...
The dominant legal standard described in post‑Calley military and legal commentary is that obedience is not a blanket defense: an order must be “manifestly” or “palpably” illegal — i.e., one that “a p...