Should a US Military Officer refuse an order if it violates the Constitution?

Question

Since their oath is to the Constitution? The bill of rights applies to all people - not just US citizens, and if given an order that would violate a persons rights - what do they do? If given an order that they suspect is a violation - what do they do? Big dilemnas. Where does the geneva convention come into the question?

Answer 1

The Geneva Convention is only tangentially involved. The officer is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he'd better be very well prepared to justify any refusal to obey orders.

Answer 2

The military is set up in a way were unlawful orders cannot be followed through with especially if the person who was given the order to do something feels it is against the law or against the constitution. We have to many channels we can use to show the order is in violation of the constitution or in civil laws. That is why you are just as responsible for doing something unlawful even though you were ordered to do it. We are not robots any more and have the right to disobey a order especially if you think it violates a law. You better be sure your right though because you will get into some trouble if your wrong.

Answer 3

Members of the US military are taught what constitutes a "lawful" order in basic training. They are further taught that not only can they refuse to follow an unlawful order, but that they have an OBLIGATION not to follow it and to report it up the chain of command.

Answer 4

They should fallow through with that order unless tht order is suspect or corrupt.

Answer 5

at this stage in which we are it really doesn`t mind a little bit

Answer 6

it doesn't,, just Bush's ability to use his conscience,, not sure he has one,, but if not,, he and his deserve to face war crimes