Your fact-checks will appear here
The standard for determining when a service member must disobey orders that are manifestly unlawful, including the obligation to refuse orders that are clearly illegal and the tension between obedience and accountability.
Courts‑martial have long rejected blanket immunity for "I was following orders," instead treating obedience to superior orders as a constrained defense: lawful orders must be followed, but manifestly ...
Courts-martial test the lawfulness of a military order primarily as a question of law for the military judge, applying a presumption that orders are lawful unless they contradict the Constitution, fed...
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...