Yes hopefully Congress gets the basic training they desperately need.
But seriously. Should soldiers be refusing to murder civilians on boats? If the law is clear (which I think it is) and they should be refusing why aren't they?
The answer of course is that they're being put in an impossible situation. Pinning the responsibility on them, because they took basic training, to interpret the law and go against the majority of the US govt at huge personal risk is just absurd.
Maybe instead the government should get their head out of their ass and do something themselves beyond trying to pass the buck via a stupid tv ad.
If an order is legal, yes. Not if an order is illegal. If a superior officer orders a private to shoot unarmed civilians or commit some other war crime, the private is supposed to refuse the order. They are not protected by a "just following orders" defense.
"And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?"
Sure. But that does not excuse committing war crimes or otherwise knowingly following illegal orders.
Most of the time, the presumption is that illegal orders will be issued infrequently and by rogue elements in the armed forces -- so disobeying may have unpleasant immediate consequences (say, get thrown in the brig) but long-term they should prevail.
Right now? Well... that's the problem. But if significant numbers of the armed forces refused illegal orders, there's little that the administration can do. Which is why they've been cleaning house to kick out anybody at the top who might push back.
They're only required to obey lawful orders. An order to massacre a village would not be lawful, to pick an extreme (but historical) example. Following such an order is a crime in itself, they should disobey it.
