If the JAGs are doing their job, there is instruction at every level of PME (now DE, developmental education) about the Law of Armed Conflict, which specifically includes the circumstances under which an order is considered unlawful and must be disobeyed. We don’t just parrot what the mucky-mucks want us to teach, we use the UCMJ, the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention as our guide. There’s a reason JAGs are officially authorized to have “non-conversations” with each other - to discuss the legal ramifications of any particular action, whether of a JAG or of a commander, and to seek and give advice on how to handle a commander who states that he intends to give an unlawful order or pursue an unlawful course of action.
Colonel, USAFR
I appreciate your view, sir. But I found no evidence of how these “conversations” manifested itself to real practical training or solutions. This in my view, should not be relegated soley to the opinions of lawyers (God love ‘em): they themselves can err, and an issue such as this should not be contained in JAG circles. Futhermore, a commander should certainly seek JAG advice in his decision-making; but at the end of the day, the commander will make a decision that the battle staff is inherently conditioned by military culture to carry out.
The Law of War course I attended (USN/USMC) had no mention of this topic. This was a pretty select group chosen to attend this training for battle staffs. None of the PME in my entire career made mention of it either.
Military training is excellent because it takes principles, and builds around practical application for each rank. Their is no such vehicle for dealing with the oath of enlistment/commission in practical terms.
Disarming Katrina victims is but one manifestation of this reality.
Great discussion.