Actually, in law, that is precisely the case "if" the order is sufficiently illegal. That is why I pointed out that the Nuremberg precedents specifically rule out the "I was just following orders" defense.
And we're not talking about "every order", but the very specific situation in which a law has been passed by "duly elected authority", and an order issued for the military to deliberately violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
"That's ludicrous -- broad outlines of lawful behavior are well known, with special training for special situations."
Same mantra, slightly different words. WHAT ARE THOSE OUTLINES and WHAT IS THAT "SPECIAL TRAINING FOR SPECIAL SITUATIONS"? And particularly for the SINGLE ILLEGAL SITUATION specified.
"But just so we're certain, you do realize, don't you, that action-adventure movies like, say, Jason Bourne are fantasies?"
Yes, I do.
So you're still fantasizing.
Unconstitutional laws are subject to Supreme Court strike-down.
The US military is still subject to posse comitatus & Insurrection Act limitations.
So now you fantasize all that goes away, the Dems rule everything and, in effect, launch all-out civil war on conservatives.
Well, I'd say fantasy is fun, but the reality would certainly be more, ah, complex & textured, and it would be impossible predict now how that may or may not play out.
But the bottom line is: any military or police are required to obey constitution & law, regardless of orders.
So I just don't think it's going to happen.
Wonder Warthog: "WHAT ARE THOSE OUTLINES and WHAT IS THAT "SPECIAL TRAINING FOR SPECIAL SITUATIONS"?"
Rules of engagement typical for any military situation.
They are under presidential authority and, as we've seen this year against terrorists, those rules can be changed as needed.