It’s common knowledge, and perfectly logical, that in the military it is a serious offense to refuse to obey a direct order from your superior. Obviously, if you are given the order to advance on the enemy, and you decline to do so, they can’t have you doing that. Or if your sergeant puts you on KP duty, and you tell him to go fuck himself, there is something wrong there.
But what are the limits to the scope of orders that a superior may lawfully issue and that a subordinate is bound to obey on pain of penalty? Obviously, it is your duty to refuse an unlawful order. But other than that? How much control over the person of a subordinate does a superior in the military have?
For example, suppose an officer got the idea to arrange kamikaze attacks in a theater of war. Would it be within their authority to order soldiers to do things like charging the enemy and blowing themselves up, or do other things that would be 100% deliberately suicidal? Would it be unlawful to refuse to obey such an order?
Or take something that falls outside the scope of military duties. Let’s say for example that the general’s niece needs a date for a dance. Can the general order the sergeant to take her out to the dance (I recall a situation similar to this from an old “Beetle Bailey”). If the latter refuses, can he be disciplined for it?
Or can a superior arbitrarily make up their own rules, including ones that contravene liberties afforded to military personnel by the regulations? Example: grooming standards. It’s common knowledge that many, if not most militaries require men to have short hair; moreover, in many militaries, their heads are shaved / their hair is closely cropped on entering basic training. So for example, I read years ago the grooming regulations in the US Marines. I don’t know if these rules are still current, but as I recall, “regulation length” for male Marines (i.e., the longest hair a man could have) was a tapered cut starting at zero length at the bottom and graduating to no longer than three inches on top. There was also a rule saying that no Marine could be required to have hair clipped to the scalp, except during basic training (i.e., the induction haircut). So, suppose some NCO ordered his troops to get high-and-tight haircuts (the very short haircut that many Marines wear). Can they lawfully refuse to on the basis of regulations allowing men to have up to three inches of hair length on top? Or suppose he orders them to shave their heads. Can they lawfully refuse on the basis of the regulation that specifically says a Marine outside basic training may not be required to have hair clipped to the scalp?
Similarly, I recently read that this year effective September, the Canadian Armed Forces allowed personnel to have long hair, regardless of gender, and that would apply to basic training as well. So if now a Canadian NCO orders a soldier to get a haircut, can they say “with respect, Sir, regulations now allow long hair” and ignore the order with no consequence? Or is that still a lawful order regardless of the permissive regulations?
Incidentally, I just remembered an anecdote dealing with grooming regulations. There was a time when the British Army required its members to wear mustaches. But some soldiers flaunted the rule and dared to shave theirs anyway. On 8 October 1916, General Sir Nevil Macready signed an amendment to the King’s Regulations deleting the requirement not to shave the upper lip (and promptly got rid of his own mustache, which he disliked). This was during World War I. I recall reading an anecdote that someone who served in the (Grenadier?) Guards during the War recorded. He didn’t wear a mustache, and an NCO (let’s say a Sergeant Major) told him that he was at once to discontinue shaving his mustache and start looking like a Guardsman and a man! To his remark: “But Sir, King’s Regulations allow a man choice in the matter!” He got the answer that that may be so, but that his Sergeant Major’s regulations do not. Would said NCO really have had the lawful authority to arbitrarily require a mustache of his subordinate? Had the informant refused, could he have been court-martialled?
Where, then, is the line drawn?