This is extremely complicated though, and generally misunderstood by internet experts. There might be some trivial situational examples where a soldier can plainly see an order would be a crime. Executing a prisoner for example.
Orders like that are not going to come from the top. Should the soldier who carried out the extrajudicial execution of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki on President Obama's orders have refused? The action met all elements of civil criminal murder statutes and the Foreign murder of United States nationals statute. However at the time Presidential Immunity doctrine was widely accepted by mainstream legal and bipartisan political thinking, and outside fringe groups there were no serious calls to prosecute the president for this. The supreme court case that went on to confirm the immunity doctrine went exactly as everybody expected and confirmed this was the case.
A soldier pressing a button is not equipped to understand the issues let alone decide against his chain of command in a situation like this. He was told there is a terrorist to eliminate and that's what he does. The soldiers bombing Iran or invading Iraq or carrying out clandestine operations in Syria, they can't refuse those things.
The system is set up so situational crimes, crimes in the heat of battle or ones carried out by psychologically damaged men at low levels can be punished so the televisions and the politicians can tell people how moral and just and wonderful they are, while not really giving any room for a solder to be the hero who saves the world from fascism or whatever fantasy it is that the internet experts seem to think will happen.
Comments
This is extremely complicated though, and generally misunderstood by internet experts. There might be some trivial situational examples where a soldier can plainly see an order would be a crime. Executing a prisoner for example.
Orders like that are not going to come from the top. Should the soldier who carried out the extrajudicial execution of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki on President Obama's orders have refused? The action met all elements of civil criminal murder statutes and the Foreign murder of United States nationals statute. However at the time Presidential Immunity doctrine was widely accepted by mainstream legal and bipartisan political thinking, and outside fringe groups there were no serious calls to prosecute the president for this. The supreme court case that went on to confirm the immunity doctrine went exactly as everybody expected and confirmed this was the case.
A soldier pressing a button is not equipped to understand the issues let alone decide against his chain of command in a situation like this. He was told there is a terrorist to eliminate and that's what he does. The soldiers bombing Iran or invading Iraq or carrying out clandestine operations in Syria, they can't refuse those things.
The system is set up so situational crimes, crimes in the heat of battle or ones carried out by psychologically damaged men at low levels can be punished so the televisions and the politicians can tell people how moral and just and wonderful they are, while not really giving any room for a solder to be the hero who saves the world from fascism or whatever fantasy it is that the internet experts seem to think will happen.