Introduction

The concept of following orders is deeply ingrained in the military culture of many countries, including the United States. However, this principle can sometimes conflict with the obligation to obey the law. The Nuremberg Trials after World War II established the principle that "following orders" is not a valid defense for committing illegal acts, including war crimes. This raises an important question: what do US troops think about refusing illegal commands? A recent study has shed some light on this issue, revealing that a majority of service members understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders. In this article, we will explore the findings of this study, the implications of refusing illegal commands, and the importance of upholding the law in the military.

Understanding the Law of Armed Conflict

The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is a set of international laws that govern the conduct of war. It includes rules on the protection of civilians, the treatment of prisoners of war, and the prohibition of certain weapons. US troops are trained on the LOAC and are expected to adhere to its principles. However, in the heat of battle, the distinction between legal and illegal orders can become blurred. The study found that many service members are aware of the importance of following the law, even if it means refusing an order. For example, a survey of US Army soldiers found that 75% of respondents believed that refusing an illegal order was the right thing to do, even if it meant facing disciplinary action.

The LOAC is not just a set of abstract principles; it has real-world implications for US troops. In Iraq and Afghanistan, US forces have been involved in numerous incidents that have raised questions about the legality of their actions. For instance, the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in 2004 highlighted the importance of adhering to the LOAC. The scandal led to widespread condemnation and resulted in the prosecution of several US soldiers. The incident also highlighted the need for clear guidance on the LOAC and the importance of refusing illegal orders.

The Importance of Refusing Illegal Orders

Refusing an illegal order can be a difficult and courageous act. It requires a deep understanding of the law and the principles of justice. In the military, the chain of command is clear, and refusing an order can be seen as a challenge to authority. However, the study found that many service members believe that refusing an illegal order is not only the right thing to do but also a moral obligation. For example, a US Marine Corps officer stated, "If I'm given an order that I know is illegal, I have a duty to refuse it. It's not just about following orders; it's about upholding the law and protecting civilians."

The importance of refusing illegal orders cannot be overstated. It is a key component of upholding the rule of law and preventing war crimes. In the aftermath of the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, it became clear that the failure to refuse illegal orders had led to a horrific atrocity. The incident highlighted the need for clear guidance on the LOAC and the importance of refusing illegal orders. In recent years, the US military has taken steps to emphasize the importance of adhering to the LOAC and refusing illegal orders. For instance, the US Army has developed a new doctrine on the LOAC, which emphasizes the importance of protecting civilians and upholding the law.

Case Studies: Refusing Illegal Orders in Practice

There are several case studies that illustrate the importance of refusing illegal orders. One notable example is the story of Hugh Thompson, a US Army helicopter pilot who intervened in the My Lai Massacre. Thompson and his crew witnessed the massacre and immediately reported it to their superiors. However, when they realized that the killing was continuing, Thompson took matters into his own hands and landed his helicopter between the US soldiers and the Vietnamese civilians. He then ordered his crew to prepare to open fire on the US soldiers if they continued to kill the civilians. Thompson's actions were a clear example of refusing an illegal order and upholding the law.

Another example is the story of Joe Darby, a US Army soldier who exposed the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. Darby was a military police officer who was stationed at Abu Ghraib prison in 2004. He witnessed the abuse of prisoners and was horrified by what he saw. Despite the risk of retaliation, Darby reported the abuse to his superiors and provided evidence of the atrocities. His actions led to a wide-ranging investigation and the prosecution of several US soldiers. Darby's story highlights the importance of refusing to participate in illegal activities and reporting wrongdoing, even if it means going against the chain of command.

Challenges and Implications

Refusing an illegal order can have significant challenges and implications. In the military, the chain of command is clear, and refusing an order can be seen as a challenge to authority. Service members who refuse illegal orders may face disciplinary action, including court-martial and imprisonment. Additionally, refusing an illegal order can be a difficult and courageous act, requiring a deep understanding of the law and the principles of justice.

The implications of refusing illegal orders are far-reaching. It can help to prevent war crimes and uphold the rule of law. It can also promote a culture of accountability and respect for human rights within the military. However, refusing an illegal order can also have negative consequences, including damage to one's career and relationships with colleagues. The study found that many service members are aware of these challenges and implications, but still believe that refusing an illegal order is the right thing to do.

Conclusion

The issue of refusing illegal orders is complex and multifaceted. The study found that a majority of US troops understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders and are willing to refuse an illegal order, even if it means facing disciplinary action. The importance of refusing illegal orders cannot be overstated. It is a key component of upholding the rule of law and preventing war crimes. The US military has taken steps to emphasize the importance of adhering to the LOAC and refusing illegal orders. However, more work needs to be done to promote a culture of accountability and respect for human rights within the military.

As the US military continues to operate in complex and dynamic environments, the issue of refusing illegal orders will remain a critical one. It is essential that service members are trained on the LOAC and are aware of their obligations to refuse illegal orders. The study's findings highlight the importance of promoting a culture of accountability and respect for human rights within the military. By doing so, the US military can uphold the rule of law and prevent war crimes, while also promoting a culture of integrity and respect for human dignity. Ultimately, refusing an illegal order is not just a moral obligation; it is a legal and professional requirement that is essential to upholding the principles of justice and humanity.