Arguably the most famous case of the „I obeyed only orders“ defense was the court martial of First Lieutenant William Calley for his role in the My Lai massacre on March 16, 1968. The military tribunal rejected Calley`s argument of obeying the orders of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life in prison for premeditated murder. There are potentially severe penalties for non-compliance with legal orders. A disobedient soldier could simply be „chewed“ or punished in court if the commander considers disobedience a minor offense. But disobedience to a legal order can, depending on the circumstances, lead to the death penalty in time of war and peace, up to five years in prison, stigmatizing parole (dishonorable or bad behavior for enlisted personnel, dismissal of non-commissioned officers), loss of wages and other sanctions. These articles require the obedience of TERRIBLE commandments. Not only should an illegal order not be followed, but compliance with such an order can lead to criminal prosecution. Military courts have long ruled that military personnel are responsible for their actions, even if they follow orders. (An order that infringes private rights is permitted if there is a valid military purpose; conduct on the base was a matter of military authority, which includes the protection of civilians from injury caused by military personnel.) (v) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights.
The order must not conflict with the legal or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. (Essential characteristics of a lawful order that give rise to a presumption of legality include: (1) adoption by a competent authority – a person empowered under applicable law to issue such an order; (2) the communication of words that express a specific mandate to do or not to do a particular action; and (3) the relationship between the mandate and a military duty; In light of the presumption of legality, the long-standing principles of military justice place the burden of rebutting this presumption on the accused). (the elements of turbidity under AR 600-20 are: (1) conduct, (2) unnecessarily causes further suffering or being subjected to cruel, abusive, oppressive or harmful activity; recklessness is sufficient mens rea for that offence; according to this mens-rea requirement for a defendant to be convicted under section 92, UCMJ, due to a violation of AR 600-20 para. 4-20, the defendant must have deliberately ignored a known risk that his conduct would unnecessarily result in the suffering or exposure of another member or employee to a cruel, abusive, oppressive or harmful activity; In this regard, a soldier who honestly believes that an activity is not cruel, abusive, oppressive or harmful could not be held criminally responsible; the standard of recklessness is sufficient to separate misconduct from innocent conduct in the application of the law in accordance with paragraphs 4 to 20 of RA 600-20. 2015 (September semester) In 2004, the military began court-martialing several soldiers sent to Iraq for ill-treatment of prisoners and detainees. Several members said they only followed the orders of military intelligence officers. Unfortunately (for them) this defense does not fly. Ill-treatment of prisoners is a crime under international law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see article 93 – Cruelty and ill-treatment).
United States v. Pacheco, 56 MJ 1 (under the Standard on Legal Sufficiency of Evidence, the applicant`s knowledge of his duty to protect a weapon from unlawful appropriation or retention – including appropriation or retention by members of the unit to receive and store weapons as trophies – and his intentional breach of this obligation are evidenced by the evidence, that, after being informed that the transport of weapons in the form of trophies was not permitted, the complainant did not return the weapon or inform the authorities of its withdrawal). United States v. Neu, 55 MJ 95 (The legality of an order is not a separate element of an offence under section 92, and the military judge has duly decided the question of legality as a point of law in this case; in a prosecution for violation of an order or regulation, the Constitution does not require that the validity of the order or regulation be decided by a jury). An order that is „arbitrary and capricious, excessively broad or unjustifiably restricts a personal right“ is not legal. United States v. Milldebrandt, 25 C.M.R. 139 (C.M.A. 1958) (the order to declare non-military financial conditions during the holidays was not legal); United States v.
Spencer, 29 M.J. 740 (F.A.C.M.R. 1989) (the order to surrender all civilian medical records to the military clinic by a certain date was illegal because it restricted private rights and personal affairs more and more restrictively than military needs require and provide for in the Service Ordinance); United States v. Jeffers, 57 M.J. 13 (F.C.A.A. 2002) (no social contact order with a woman in the unit with which the defendant had an adulterous relationship that was not excessively broad). It is important to note that you can be charged with this crime even if you did not intend to disobey a general order. The fact that a general legal order existed is sufficient. (A defendant may challenge an order on the grounds that it would compel the addressee to perform an unlawful act or that it is contrary to that person`s legal or constitutional rights.) United States v.
Haverty, 76 M.J. 199 (when interpreting an order — the violation of which is based on a violation of section 92, UCMJ, crime — commanders should decide whether to create a crime that does not require the government to prove the mens rea of an accused; that is, they must speak with a clear voice on the matter; if a commander does not, the offence is interpreted as including requirements of general application to scientists; As a result, in such cases, the right level of mens rea is only what is necessary to separate illegal behavior from otherwise innocent behavior). .