Your fact-checks will appear here
Historic and legal precedent makes clear that military personnel may refuse orders that are “patently” or “manifestly” illegal — a rule rooted in Nuremberg and applied in U.S. practice such as the My ...
Key U.S. military-law precedents on obedience and unlawful orders center on high‑profile criminal prosecutions like Lt. William Calley for My Lai, plus federal civil rulings about using troops domesti...
Landmark examples and recurring themes show U.S. military law balances obedience with a narrow duty to refuse “manifestly” unlawful orders—especially orders to commit war crimes—while courts routinely...
Historical prosecutions for following orders reach back at least to the Nuremberg trials, which established that “just following orders” does not excuse war crimes . U.S. cases such as Lt. William Cal...
Courts-martial treat "obeying superior orders" narrowly: a default duty of obedience exists under the UCMJ, but courts and military rules say a manifestly unlawful or patently illegal order cannot be ...
There is significant legal guidance that a service member must disobey patently illegal orders (for example orders to commit crimes) and that lawfulness is decided by military judges; however, the pro...
Military law presumes orders are lawful unless they violate the U.S. Constitution, federal law, lawful superior orders, or exceed the issuer’s authority; a military judge decides lawfulness as a quest...
Courts have treated so‑called “manifestly illegal” orders differently depending on forum and facts: international tribunals after Nuremberg established that following orders is not an absolute defense...