Your fact-checks will appear here
The UCMJ requires service members to obey lawful orders but recognizes that manifestly illegal orders need not be followed; orders that are "clearly" violative of U.S. or international law—such as dir...
The UCMJ imposes a duty to obey lawful orders and makes disobedience punishable under Article 92, but American military law and international precedent reject obedience as a blanket defense when an or...
U.S. military law recognizes that service members must refuse “manifestly illegal” orders, but the phrase is not pinned to a single definitive U.S. precedent in the supplied reporting; commentators ci...
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 La...
U.S. military law presumes orders are lawful, but it also recognizes that truly unlawful commands — those that clearly violate U.S. or international law (for example, orders to intentionally target ci...
U.S. military law treats unlawful orders as a narrow category — “patently illegal” orders (e.g., orders to commit crimes or atrocities) that service members must refuse, a legal standard for judges to...
U.S. servicemembers are legally obliged to obey lawful orders under the UCMJ, and orders are presumptively lawful — but they also have a duty to refuse orders that are “manifestly unlawful,” a narrow ...