No one knows whether ordinary soldiers, even from what is no longer in any normal sense a citizen army, would obey
clearly illegal orders to oust an elected government or whether the officer corps would ever have sufficient confidence to issue such orders.
Could anyone be shielded from legal liability if they can prove that they were carrying out direct (illegal) orders from the President, or would they be legally required to refuse to
implement illegal orders?
Moreover, prosecutions of low - level military torturers from Abu Ghraib prison and killers of civilians in Iraq have demonstrated to enlisted troops that obedience to
illegal orders can result in dire punishment in a situation where those of higher rank go free.
Or should
illegal orders be refused, for the moral good of * our * side, as the war needs to end someday, and you don't want soldiers trained to do immoral but expedient and violent acts back amongst * our * citizenry?
When I served in the U.S. Army I was taught that
any illegal order, even from the president, must be refused.
The PFC correctly stated his position regarding
an illegal order, specifically the requirement by a superior to bow his head during a prayer.
If there had been no inappropriate /
illegal order, there would never have been a scene.
So if they get
an illegal order, they have the choice between risking trial and getting fired?
Is there something in sovereign law of major countries (I'm specifically interested in USA, USSR - or - RussianFederation, and France) which compels their military to do so, independently of international law (e.g. a law which would make an order to NOT take a surrendering fighter as POW and kill him instead be
an illegal order).
All soldiers have the duty and obligation to refuse to obey
an illegal order.
If the president issues
an illegal order it is the responsibility of the person whom the order was given to to then refuse that order.
That said
the illegal order defense is rarely successful at court martial.