Quote Originally Posted by lancelot
@Redleg

Perhaps you could explain for me, as I freely admit to a lack of knowledge on such a topic...

From what I can gather from your last post- A solider is morally required to follow lawful orders- hence he should refuse an order by his direct superior to put a bullet in an unarmed prisoners head, for example...correct so far?
A soldier is obligated by his oath not to follow orders that are unlawful.

A soldier is obligated to follow all lawful orders. Its a legal responsiblity not a moral one.

But he is not allowed to refuse an order from the US government or authority way above his battalion commander (for want of a better expression)...ie- go invade this country.
I have not stated that. If the soldier refuses to obey an order that he believes to be unlawful - that soldier must be willing to face the consequence of his refusal. In the United States Military a Courts Martial is held if that is the course that the soldier elects to take if given a non-judicial or judicial choice. Sometimes the commander does not give the choice and immediately pursues the Courts Martial, a judicial action. At the Courts Martial the panel will determine if the order of the soldiers commander was lawful or unlawful.

Now since this was an order to deploy by his commander - which is based upon a deployment order from the Department of the Army, which is based upon an order by the Commander in Chief, which is based upon an authorization to use force. The Courts Martial will most likely determine that the soldier was incorrect in his refusal. The legality of the invasion comes from the United States Congress, with its authorization for the use of force. The case will have to go through the appeal process to the Supreme Court to determine wether the Order was an unlawful order, because of the nature of the individuals defense for refusing to obey an order.

So by this guy saying he thinks the war is illegal and refusing to follow that order, who is he disobeying and at what level is he committing his crime? his battalion CO, the constitution, both or something/one else?
He disobeyed his immediate superior officer, this is what this Courts Martial will be most likely dealing with given the reports that I have read and the two decisions of the head military judge that were linked to alreadly in this thread.
The main defense seems to be an appeal to the "Nurenberg Defense" and the United Nations Charter. Now because the lead judge in the case alreadly ruled on the 'Nurenberg Defense" without allowing it to be presented in this Courts Martial the defendent will most likely attempt to use it in the appeal process. WHich is probably why it was attempted at this level in the first place, so that the defense has a solid foundation for its appeal. Ie we wanted to introduce this defense but the Courts Martial judge would not allow us.


Last question- If a solider thinks XYZ orders are illegal/morally wrong/whatever and feels morally obligated to not follow it- he has to wait till the state, in effect decides to agree with him before exoneration?
He has to go through the Courts Martial Process and use the appeal process to attempt to get through to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can determine if the order of the President and the legislative actions of the Congress violates the constitution. Because of the very nature of the Military an order by the Commander in Chief authorized by Congress is considered lawful since it follows the interpation of the Constitution that allows authorization for the use of force. Only the Supreme Court will be able to satify the request of this soldier to determine if the order was illegal or not.
A lower court might try - but will also be meant with immediate appeal by either side depending upon the decision.

One must understand that so far his defense seemly is based upon using a treaty as a document to override the Constitution. Its going to be a long uphill legal fight for this young LT to prove that the order was unlawful.

A reference case would be Specialist New and his refusal to wear the blue beret.