> It's not a personal judgment for what is a lawful order. As someone who's refused to follow an order because I believed it wasn't lawful, I disagree with you

> It's not a personal judgment for what is a lawful order. As someone who's refused to follow an order because I believed it wasn't lawful, I disagree with you. The UCMJ provides good general guidance over what constitutes a lawful order, but like any legal document, it doesn't cover specifics or edge cases that crop up. This puts military personnel in hairy areas where they have to know what the UCMJ states on the subject of the order, and make a decision whether or not an order is lawful. I know you followed up with "It's only a personal judgment whether you follow an order. Soldiers aren't the legal arbiters.", but what your statement comes down to is that the person following the order needs to decide on the spot whether it's lawful or not, and sometimes may have to argue their decision in a Military Court. This makes them de facto legal arbiters.