[OneWingedShark]

So then basically it says “if there is any question about the legality of orders then you are to assume they are legal.”

Interesting; what about the order to the soldier who recorded video of the Ft Hood shootings who was given an order to delete them?
Consider that the official investigation wouldn’t have had the time to subpoena the video by the time the order came around, also the laws regarding the destruction of evidence.

Is it therefore reasonable to assume that because the order wasn’t destroying what was officially listed as evidence it was a legal order?

[tired_old_conservative]

The police don't have to officially request that specific evidence be preserved for you to wind up being charged with destruction of that evidence. Destroying obvious evidence at a known crime scene falls well within the definition of an illegal order as discussed by Non-Sequitur.

[Non-Sequitur]

So then basically it says “if there is any question about the legality of orders then you are to assume they are legal.”

So long as those orders are in the course of your normal military duties yes.

Is it therefore reasonable to assume that because the order wasn’t destroying what was officially listed as evidence it was a legal order?

Without knowing all the facts of the matter it's hard to say. But destruction of evidence is a criminal act. On the fact of it the soldier could have refused to comply.