Your fact-checks will appear here
Courts have treated a “patently illegal” military order as a narrow exception to the ordinary presumption that orders are lawful: it is an order whose criminality is so plain that “a person of ordinar...
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) spells out the primary criminal provisions that govern obedience and disobedience: Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 90 (willful ...
Courts-martial and military tribunals have settled on a dual obligation: service members must obey lawful orders but must refuse orders that are so clearly illegal that “a man of ordinary sense and un...
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) treats orders as presumptively lawful but creates criminal liability for obeying clearly illegal commands; Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) ...
There are historically notable examples where following or refusing orders affected outcomes: Lieutenant William Calley was convicted for carrying out orders at My Lai, illustrating that obeying manif...