Military Disobedience and Legal Liability: Implications for Natural Security and Governance.

 Military Disobedience and Legal Liability: Implications for National Security and Governance. By Ralph L Myers

An Analytical Review of Law, Duty, and Leadership in the U.S. Armed Forces

Introduction

Recent debates have questioned U.S. military personnel's responsibilities when faced with orders they consider illegal, especially when following the advice of elected leaders. The military chain of command is a foundational element of American defense and governance, ensuring operational effectiveness and accountability. When this structure is challenged by calls for disobedience, complex legal and ethical issues arise, with potential consequences for individual service members, the officials involved, and the nation's security.

Obligation to Obey Orders: Foundations in Military Law

The duty to obey lawful orders is a cornerstone of military discipline, codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 92 of the UCMJ makes it a criminal offense for service members to disobey a lawful order willfully. This obligation ensures the chain of command functions smoothly, allowing the military to act decisively and cohesively. Obedience is not absolute, however; it is limited by the requirement that orders be lawful. The expectation is that service members will follow orders unless they are manifestly illegal.

Disobeying Illegal Orders: Legal Standards and Historical Precedents

Military law recognizes an exception for illegal orders. Service members are not required to obey commands that violate the Constitution, federal law, or the laws of war. This principle was notably affirmed during the Nuremberg Trials, which established that "just following orders" is not a defense for committing war crimes. In practice, however, determining whether an order is illegal can be complex and fraught with risk. The burden is on the service member to reasonably believe the order is unlawful—a standard that requires both subjective belief and objective evidence. Historical cases, such as those involving My Lai and Abu Ghraib, illustrate both the moral imperative and the legal peril in refusing unlawful commands.

Legal Processes: Courts-Martial, Investigations, and Rights of the Accused

When a service member disobeys an order on the grounds of illegality, the matter is typically adjudicated through a court-martial or military tribunal. The legal process involves an investigation into the circumstances of the disobedience, evaluation of the lawfulness of the order, and assessment of the accused's belief and intent. The government bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of the order and the willfulness of the disobedience. Service members have rights to counsel, due process, and appeals. The outcomes can range from acquittal (if the refusal is justified) to conviction and punishment (if the order is found to be lawful or the belief unreasonable).

Liability of Elected Officials Advising Disobedience

Senators and elected officials occupy influential positions but generally lack direct authority in military command decisions. When they advise or encourage military personnel to disobey orders, they may face legal and ethical scrutiny. While the First Amendment protects free speech, officials may be liable if their advice incites insubordination, undermines military discipline, or encourages unlawful conduct. The boundaries of such liability are ambiguous and would depend on the specifics of the case, including intent, context, and the nature of the advice. Ethically, such interventions risk politicizing the armed forces and compromising the impartiality of military service.

Potential Harm to America: Risks of Undermining Command Structure and National Security

Undermining the principle of military obedience carries significant risks. If military personnel routinely question or refuse orders based on external advice or on grounds of ambiguity, the chain of command could collapse, leading to operational paralysis and loss of cohesion. Prolonged legal disputes over orders—especially if politicized—could delay critical missions, erode morale, and create uncertainty in crisis situations. The resulting instability poses threats to national security, as adversaries may exploit perceived divisions or weaknesses. Ultimately, the integrity of military governance depends on clear, consistent leadership and respect for established legal processes.

Conclusion

The intersection of military obedience, legal liability, and political influence is delicate, with far-reaching implications for individual rights, institutional stability, and national security. Service members must balance their duty to obey lawful orders with their responsibility to refuse illegal ones, guided by both law and conscience. Elected officials, meanwhile, must exercise caution and responsibility when commenting on military matters, avoiding actions that could undermine discipline or politicize the armed forces. Ensuring a robust, lawful, and effective military requires clear legal standards, responsible leadership, and unwavering respect for the rule of law.

Ralph L. Myers is a United States Army veteran and a supporter of the President Trump Administration and Defense Secretary Hegseth.

 

Ralph L Myers