It’s covered in that course. Like binomial equations are covered in Algebra.
And yes, everyone is supposed to use their best judgment when pondering the legality of an order. There is no list for reference or to hide behind. It’s actual adult judgmnent and adult accountability because, you know, death is on the line. First, you have to identify an illegal order; Second, you disobey that order; Thirdly, you may have to stand for a court martial for disobeying an order. This can be a tough process, and some folks might be in over their head intellectually and morally, but tough shit–the alternative is people get away with murder and besmirch the US Military’s (once) good reputation. If you can’t handle the responsibility, then take the uniform off. It’s that simple.
I think if you’re given an order that you’re uncomfortable with, you might ask for the order in writing and then stash that document someplace really safe. The idea is that you could present that document when you’re sitting there in court or in a congressional hearing being asked to justify your actions. (And also that the person suggesting you do this thing might balk at the idea of committing the order to pen and paper.)
Most orders given at higher levels get reduced to writing as they percolate down the chain. The ones close to the trigger guys and especially in army & Marines vs USAF & USN? Not so much.
This works in the business world, where the environment is fairly static. Military patrols are quite different, however. A situation pops up, the officer in charge decides how to handle it, and gives directions to whomever is at hand. Nothing is written. Imagine you’re manning the .50 cal on a Navy boat, and you receive an order to open fire on what appears to be a civilian fishing boat, occupied by civilians actively engaged in fishing. THAT is likely an illegal order (you are not allowed to murder civilians). You can engage, and maybe get caught up in the fallout when the event is prosecuted as a war crime, or you can refuse to engage, and spend the next however long clapped in irons awaiting trial. And as was mentioned previously, the outcome of that trial may well depend on current events, who is in power, who is in charge of the court, etc. Hegseth is such a problem because he’s a maniac who has disrupted normal military culture to the point where “what’s right, and what should you do” is no longer always clear.
The example you provided demonstrates why it’s not possible, as the OP requests, to provide “an official list that tells us, in no uncertain terms, what orders given by the POTUS would be seen as ‘illegal.’” Perhaps what appears to be a civilian fishing boat is known to higher command to be a terrorist cell with a bomb on board?
Yep. Trust within the chain is huge. Officers have to trust their underlings to execute orders quickly and efficiently so a swift battle will favor the good guys, and the ‘good guys’ have to trust the orders they receive will be legal irrespective of appearances. True to form for the pro-Chaos administration, Hegseth has made a great effort to undermine that trust.
There are also direct commissions. In more stable times, that’s typically only special branches like JAG, chaplains, or doctors where the civilian certifications are the driving qualification. In more extreme times like WWII there were direct commissions based on performance in combat (aka battlefield commissions) like Audie Murphy.
Growing the Army during OIF/OEF saw the need for commissioned officers increase enough that direct commissions for basic branch officers came back for a good chunk of it. It was mostly applied in the Army Reserve. Unlike the National Guard, the Army Reserve didn’t run an OCS program consisting of drill weekends and annual training periods. When the active component sucked up almost all the school seats at federal OCS, the Army Reserve had to almost entirely rely on direct commissions as a replacement.
It was technically allowed in the Guard too but rare. I recommended one of my NCOs for direct commission. My battalion commander even agreed with me that he wouldn’t learn much in OCS. The packet still got denied so he could have a pre-commissioning experience like his peers.
In the case of USAF JAGs, Chaplains, & medical folks, there’s a short-form OCS/OTS they attend to give them some vague idea of how to be an officer in addition to performing their specialty. My late wife was a USAF JAG & a grad of their school. See JAG - U.S. Air Force. I don’t know how USN/USMC or Army may differ from that practice.
For the more mainstream flavors of officer, I’m surprised to learn how much Army has relied on direct commissions in modern times. Not doubting your info that’s both closer and fresher than mine. Just surprised; I’d thought of those as relics of the World Wars.
Thanks for setting me, and the record here, straight.
That example is from 34 years ago.
Do we have an idea of what is taught to the troops today in basic about illegal orders. Unless the info is rather current, “Back when I was in the military…” stories aren’t very helpful.
I seriously doubt anything is taught about illegal orders to recruits in Basic. The entire goal of Basic training is to take civilians and turn them into minimally qualified soldiers/sailors/airmen/etc. who quickly follow orders. The realm of whether orders are legal are not, IMO, fall minimally within the NCO class. It is not reasonable to expect a private to question orders nor be held responsible for the aftermath of those orders being carried out. The staff Sergeant, company grade officers, etc. bear some responsibility, increasingly so as you go higher up in the ranks.
That’s…a different goal from what they had for us. But as noted, my experience is three decades old and irrelevant. Back in those halcyon days it was absolutely deemed reasonable to hold a uniform accountable for its actions. The lesson was learned in Nuremburg that ‘following orders’ is no form of exoneration.
But I also would like to hear from someone with 21st century military experience.
LMGTFY…No. Why do you ask? Did someone suggest they were?
I’m inclined to get prickly here (because I am old, speaking from firsthand experience, have conversed with young veterans about this subject, and am being nay-said by folks whose best credential and source of authority on the topic is their decision to not serve while remaining bleak-eyed about the military). I’m out. Have fun fighting ignorance with your opinions.
As a rule, commanders don’t like trying subordinates for disobeying illegal orders, because then the illegal orders become part of the official record, and they don’t want their commanding officers asking them why they issued them in the first place. So if you refuse, they won’t court martial you - instead, they’ll try to screw you over some other way.
Best thing to do is to say no, report your commander higher up the chain of command, and hope for the best.
The order to kill the floating survivors should be a textbook example of an illegal order, and the officer commanding the plane knew better, and murdered anyway.
The US Navy also has officer candidate school. My friend went through it when she was a Navy JAG. I don’t know if she went through a JAG specific OCS or something more general for every officer who was new to the military. I think it lasted a couple of months.
For what it’s worth, one of her duties was advising officers in the Pacific on rules of engagement and responding to inquiries from anyone on orders that might be illegal, so sailors don’t have to make these decisions entirely on their own when there is time for reflection and careful decision making. Of course, that doesn’t account for the exigencies if war.
According to AI yes, but a quick skimming of the Wiki articles on all twelve Nuremberg trials did not reveal any. Civilians, yes, including the directors of IG Farben and Krupp, but all the military personnel looked like officers.
However thousands of enlisted personnel, chiefly from concentration and death camp staffing, were tried and convicted at other trials.
I vaguely recall some enlisted soldier who refused orders to murder civilians in a French village in retribution for some offense and while he was relieved of duty he wasn’t shot or even sent to the Russian front possibly because it was very late in the war.
Everybody gets training on laws of land warfare. I got it as both officer and enlisted. It’s important for both.
Officers need to be aware of what could constitute an illegal order so that they don’t issue any, or countermand any that they see being issued by their subordinates or anyone else, or so that they can recognize a crime that needs to be reported through the appropriate channels. Enlisted need the training because they’re bound by law to refuse illegal orders.
There are nuances, but basically, everybody needs the training because everybody is responsible for complying with the laws of war as reporting any offenses they witness, whether they’re an order-giver or order-taker.
False. The first class I got on laws of land warfare was in Basic when I was 17. Everybody gets it.