安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
8 
举报此帖
In short: An unlawful order is any command that violates U.S. law, the Constitution, or international law. Military members have a duty to obey lawful orders, but they also have a duty to refuse unlawful ones.
⚖️ What Makes an Order “Unlawful”
Violation of U.S. law or the Constitution Orders that contradict constitutional rights, federal statutes, or military regulations are unlawful.
Contradiction of international law Orders that breach treaties or conventions (e.g., Geneva Conventions) are unlawful.
Criminal acts Commands to commit murder, torture, or other crimes are unlawful.
Void from the start An unlawful order carries no legal obligation to obey—it is invalid the moment it is given.
📜 Legal Framework
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
Article 92: Criminalizes disobeying lawful orders.
Article 90: Covers disobedience to superior officers. Together, they establish that only lawful orders must be obeyed.
Nuremberg Principle “I was just following orders” is not a defense if the order itself was illegal.
🚫 Examples of Unlawful Orders
Using military force against innocent civilians (as you mentioned).
Orders to commit war crimes (e.g., targeting hospitals, executing prisoners).
Deploying troops in ways that violate U.S. law, such as the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement.
Commands to falsify reports or evidence.
Orders that discriminate unlawfully (e.g., targeting individuals based on race or religion).
⚔️ Why This Matters
The distinction between lawful and unlawful orders is not just theoretical—it protects both the military and democracy. If soldiers blindly obeyed every command, leaders could misuse the armed forces against citizens or political opponents. By refusing unlawful orders, service members uphold the Constitution and prevent abuse of power.
💡 Discussion Point
You’re right to highlight force against civilians as a clear example. But the gray areas are where debates get heated:
What if a president orders troops into a city under the guise of “restoring order”?
What if intelligence suggests civilians are being used as shields?
What if the order is legal under U.S. law but violates international law?
These scenarios show why military lawyers and commanders often step in to interpret legality before action is taken.
👉 So, unlawful orders are essentially commands that break the law, and refusing them is not insubordination—it’s a constitutional duty. Do you want me to expand with some historical cases where soldiers faced this dilemma? That could make the concept more concrete.
https://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/fieldman.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm27-10.pdf
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/es/customary-ihl/v2/rule156?country=us
https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF
Basically, any order that requires a service member to violate a law or international law of conflict.
The most readily-available example is the "double-tap" strike against a Venezuelan boat accused of moving narcotics. The first strike destroyed the boat, achieving the stated military objective; the second strike, directed against survivors in the water, violates the "hors d'combat" provision in both international law and UCMJ doctrine with relationship to the conduct of lethal strikes.
Issuing the order for the "double tap" was illegal, as it violates both US military law and international law.
The Obama administration did something similar with drone strikes, firing more rounds than were necessary to neutralize targets, resulting in civilian casualties.
Those orders were illegal, and the actions constituted war crimes, as does this most recent example.
The Oath of Enlistment covers this, in part; the Oath of Comission goes a few steps further. Both are supplemented by the legal briefs provided to servicemembers in-theater and at the outset of any mission wherein combat may be a possibility.
But we have a *lot* of "I woulda served, but..." types here who've never worn a uniform who will try, absent evidence, to claim differently.
Also Trump led an insurrection on January 6 so we know he will break the law to hold onto power. People are just worried he will do the same but this time involve the military since this second term has been a revenge tour.
The affordability crisis was caused by Sleepy Joe.
The immigration crisis was caused by Sleepy Joe.
The NASDAQ is up over 20% this year. Energy prices are down. Inflation is under control. Not bad.
No, they're trying to create divisions. People in the military don't need politicians to tell them which orders are valid or not.
Every order has been lawful. Every order will be lawful.
Dems are just doing that seditious thang they do, baby.
They do not. Nor did the Congresspersons who released the video you're alluding to try to dictate which orders are lawful and which are not.
They simply pointed out a basic truth that anyone who has ever taken the Oath of Enlistment or Comissioned into any of the branches of the US military already knows: there's a literal legal obligation baked right into the UCMJ to disobey unlawful orders.