Vonz90 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:30 amHowever, we can get ordered to charge into a death trap, we can be ordered to take a vaccine. It may be stupid or not, but it is a lawful order.
Yes and no:
https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when- ... -an-order/
To go back to the statute you quoted before:
A superior’s order is presumed to be lawful and is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. To sustain the presumption, the order must relate to military duty. It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate. United States v. Moore, 58 M.J. 466 (C.A.A.F. 2003). The dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot excuse disobedience. United States v. Stockman, 17 M.J. 530 (A.C.M.R. 1973).
There are some limitations here, specifically the Constitutional and statutory limitations, as well as valid military purpose.
The above link is about orders to commit war crimes, and you have an obligation to disobey that order. However your example of "charging into a death trap" also has some limitations.
For example, if you were in my command and I said "Private Vonz, go out in that field and draw fire from that DShK". You have a right to say "That's suicide! Why?"
If I say, "Because I want to see the effect of a DShK on a human body", you have the right to refuse the order because I haven't stated "a valid military purpose" for my order.
If I say, "Because that DShK has us pinned down. If we can't take it out, we're all going to die. I want you to draw fire while we try to flank it and take it out," now you have to "charge into a death trap" because I stated "a valid military purpose" for my order.
You might still die, but it is now a lawful order and you are subject to Article 92 if you disobey.
Yeah, I think that SCOTUS ruling means the Federal Court will just kick this back to the UCMJ.
At that point, his only defense is that the order didn't have "a valid military purpose".
Yeah, that's going to be hard.
Either way, his career is over. The only difference is a LTH discharge now (if he is found guilty of violating Article 92), or retiring out as a CDR after sailing a desk for another two or three years (if UCMJ finds him not guilty).