> The entire point of the Nuremberg trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials) was that "I was just fo

> The entire point of the Nuremberg trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials) was that "I was just following orders" is not a defense That's precisely why the relevant articles of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice relating to "disobeying orders" explicitly requires that the orders be lawful for a crime to have been committed. U.S. servicemembers not only have the right to disobey illegal orders, they have the explicit and positive duty to disobey illegal orders. The catch is that ambiguous situations/"judgment calls" tend to break the tie in favor of an order being lawful. But beyond that the issue is not at all as complicated as you think. E.g. with Lt. Calley's company, they were clearly guilty of not only crimes, but war crimes, yet there was a concerted effort in the U.S. and in the military leadership in Vietnam to cover the incident up. The issue there wasn't about "just following orders", the issue there was that the U.S. never attempted to put the criminals on trial in the first place, and that the eventual justice process that was meted out was so watered down. Even worse the Army and U.S. leadership tried to (and did) ruin the careers and lives of the 3 who actually followed their training as soldiers to put a stop to the massacre. But you'll note that Lt. Calley was eventually court-martialed, and despite consistently claiming that he "just followed orders" was found guilty, sentenced to life, and his sentence upheld on appeal. Of course, U.S. leadership gutted that too, and effectively commuted his sentence, but "just following orders" was very much put on trial in the U.S. system and shot down again.