"I was just following orders" is not a legal excuse.

[kentuck]

As the followers of Hitler learned at Nuremberg.

Yes, and the Democrats should re-iterate and say once again, troops should not follow "illegal" orders and are taught the rules of the Geneva Convention in basic training.

They should also be told that they do not take an oath to Donald Trump or any President, they take an oath to the Constitution.

Democrats should repeat this until they are red in the face. Trump does not like to have his authority challenged in any way. He needs to be challenged at every turn. The military does not have to follow illegal orders. If they are unsure if an order is legal or not, they should consult with their superior officer or their chaplain for guidance. They should never assume that every order from the Commander in Chief is "legal".

[RockRaven]

1. Not only that, they need to start pointing out that being told the order is legal by their superiors

is also not an excuse.

And also that DOJ opinions/memos saying that something is legal does not actually make the thing legal.

And perhaps Dems also need to start pointing out that a pardon from the President does not protect against international entities prosecuting Americans -- and that defending Americans against such actions has historically been done by later Presidents wielding influence and bullying, and that future Presidents may have no interest or ability in doing likewise when it comes to people who murder/conspire/etc on Donald Trump's behalf.

[odins folly]

2. I'm sorry, but the last people I would ask if I felt an order was not legal

Would be my commanding officer or a chaplain.

Chances are the suspect illegal order came from the officer and if he or she was passing that along, they are part of the problem.

And the chaplain wouldn’t know fuckall about the order.

In the AF it would have been the Area Defense Council (ADC) that would get my phone call. I’m sure the other services have something similar

[viva la]

3. However, "That is an illegal order and it's my duty to refuse it,"

will not be allowed with enlisted service members, even with officers. The lower ranks will probably be court-martialed, and the higher ranks will be fired or forced into retirement.

What happened to the admiral who (apparently) on legal advice refused to go through with the bombing of yet another fishing boat? Fired/retired.
I wonder what happened to the JAG officer who told the ship captain that the order was illegal.

The generals and admirals should be standing up LOUDLY and saying, "This is illegal. We will not give these orders."

Otherwise they are committing crimes by ordering others to do these illegal acts.
No quiet retirement and fading out and collecting the pension. Stand up and be public!

[kentuck]

6. I think they need something like the Supreme Court for our military.

It could consist of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from each service, and anytime a question arose about whether an order was illegal or not, should have to be voted on by the Joint Chiefs, in my opinion.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Nuremberg established that Individuals are legally accountable for unlawful acts even if committed under orders

Link to tweet

Justice Robert H. Jackson, a Supreme Court Justice and the chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg, established the modern doctrine that individuals are legally accountable for unlawful acts even if committed under orders—a principle that underpins today’s U.S. military law and the Nuremberg Principle IV.

[Turbineguy]

5. And so will the guy that hangs ya!

[kentuck]

7. Very true.

It is not risk-free, for sure. Legal or illegal, is not a question that authoritarians ask themselves?