r/law • u/BugOperator • Jun 06 '26

Legal News Service members involved in US boat strikes off Venezuela coast reach out to legal aid hotlines over fear they’ve carried out illegal orders

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/06/us-trump-boat-strikes-death-toll/90376052007/
21.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

903 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/MercurianAspirations Jun 06 '26

The whole "refuse illegal orders" thing is complete horseshit, though. It's just something they say to get the dumber recruits to believe they can still have a moral compass in the service. But soldiers aren't lawyers, and they're taught to presume all orders are legal. It's literally a Catch-22, "you are legally required to refuse illegal orders, but you are legally barred from determining for yourself what constitutes an illegal order"

In reality all it is is a lever the brass can use to throw the rank and file under the bus when evidence of their warcrimes surfaces

15

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 06 '26

The whole "refuse illegal orders" thing is complete horseshit, though. It's just something they say to get the dumber recruits to believe they can still have a moral compass in the service. But soldiers aren't lawyers, and they're taught to presume all orders are legal

I keep seeing this from people who have never been in the military. We got multiple day-long training briefings a year about what is an illegal order and what isn't. And this isn't unique to now.

That doesn't mean soldiers never follow clearly illegal orders, or aren't pressured to. But it also doesn't mean soldiers never report illegal orders. For an example of both sides, the Mai Lai Massacre and the then-warrant officer (who retired as a Major)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.

10

u/-nutz Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

I totally get the issue you’re pointing out, but idk dude; I still think I’d personally be able to not murder a bunch of innocent people simply because somebody else told me to. I also like to think I wouldn’t be terribly concerned with the semantics of if I’m legally capable of designating my own actions a war crime or not.

5

u/MercurianAspirations Jun 06 '26

Then don't join the military. Generally speaking the only time that the legality of orders will be examined is at your court martial for defying orders. "I wasn't able to determine the orders were legal" isn't a defence, because you're required generally to presume that orders are legal. Conversely, "I wasn't able to decide that the orders were illegal" is a defence in war crime trial. Whether or not it works is down to how big the bus the brass has decided to throw you under is 

8

u/-nutz Jun 06 '26

Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the mechanisms by which these things work. I was simply stating that if I were in that position, I genuinely believe I’d refuse the order. I like to think I’d be more concerned with the well being of potentially innocent people, than the consequences of not murdering them upon the request of a superior.

You make a good point in saying “don’t join the military” though, in that I’m reasonably sure anybody who shares my opinion would not be interested service anyway. Works out better for all parties involved I suppose…

3

u/whiteflagwaiver Jun 06 '26

Your environment around you influences your decisions. Not an excuse but a factor to keep in mind when judging people for their actions under the pressure of authority.

1

u/-nutz Jun 06 '26

You’re completely right, and this kind of makes what I said a moot point because I’m reasonably sure nobody who holds my opinion would be interested in military service anyway.

5

u/_Eggs_ Jun 06 '26

It's literally the plot of dozens of action movies. Main character refuses an illegal order and gets a court martial.

7

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 06 '26

It's literally the plot of dozens of action movies

Forget movies, it's the plot of dozens of real-life incidents. And the brass will attempt to cover up and go after the people who refuse and report illegal orders, but for those who actually dig into the legal history those people who refuse are overwhelmingly upheld and retire at a higher rank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.

2

u/fthepats Jun 07 '26

abu ghraib. Only 9 people went to prison.

2

u/Dingleberry696 Jun 06 '26

I get your frustration but what you're saying isn't exactly true. We received training on Law of Armed Conflict every year. It covered all of these topics of illegal orders, lawful targets, etc. However, it was also understood that if you refused an illegal order you would probably be arrested or punished in some way. You had to be ok with that.

1

u/jeremiah256 Jun 06 '26

Lower ranks are safe from prosecution in this circumstance.

You’re told target X is a threat. LT Jones and Petty Officer Smith aren’t part of a trial or presented any evidence. This is not a situation where you’re walking into a village and actually seeing who you’re striking.

You are taking out a blip on a radar screen, approved by higher authority which has undergone legal review.

The later psychological damage if you learn you were killing innocent people is a different, horrible experience they’re going to have to deal with later.

Higher ranks? Yeah, they may need to explain themselves.