[Wonder Warthog]

I've never served in the military (4F for Vietnam), but I have many family members who did, some career, both career officer (Lt. Colonel at retirement) and career enlisted (Sgt-Major at retirement, I think). Also have read a number of WWII training manuals.

I simply must believe that "somethere" there is a training manual for recruits that lays out the doctrine of legal and illegal orders, and at least "some" grounds for distinguishing between them. The military that prides itself on training for any and every eventuality simply can NOT fail to have have some such basic information/training on the subject.

They will NOT leave it with "you don't obey illegal orders...period" as the final say (which is to say completely UN-trained on the subject).

[BroJoeK]

Wonder Warthog: "They will NOT leave it with "you don't obey illegal orders...period" as the final say (which is to say completely UN-trained on the subject)."

Now you're just lying about my response.
You clearly believe recruits get some form of legal training, and you wish me to post just exactly what that is, right?

And you are labeling anything short of that as "doctrinaire" or "tap-dancing" or you'll just lie about it as being "completely UN-trained".

And your reason for making such a ludicrous fuss over this is what, exactly?

Consider, here is the military oath of office:

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]"