Refusing to Comply

I don't have much sympathy for this guy. He volunteered - what did he expect?

The fact that he volunteered is irrelevant. Soldiers have the DUTY to refuse illegal orders.

A military order must have a military connection and must not contravene existing law, such as the Constitution, treaties, and statutes. An illegal order is just that - illegal, and does not require that it be obeyed. As the law either has no valid military purpose or contravenes existing law, obeying the order may expose the person to prosecution.

A recent example is the Abu Ghraib situation in Iraq. There, the soldiers who were being court-martialed for abusing prisoners attempted to defend themselves by saying they were ordered to commit abuse. Since abuse is illegal and has no valid military purpose, any such order given (and there is no evidence that such an order was ever given - in fact, MG Taguba's investigation, which is publicly available on the Internet, found no such order was ever given) would be illegal and would be no defense. Historically, this is known as the "Nuremberg defense" because Nazi officials tried to defend their conduct during WWII as simply following orders. The Military Tribunal at Nuremberg rejected this defense, as have all other legal systems confronted with it. The American military legal system does not recognize the "following orders" as a defense to criminal charges.

The Nuremberg Principles, which are part of US law, provide that all military personnel have the obligation not to obey illegal orders. The Army Field Manual 27-10, sec. 609 and UCMJ, art. 92, incorporate this principle. Article 92 says: "A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the law of the United States …"

Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States. The United States is a party and signatory to the United Nations Charter, of which Article II, Section 4 states, "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…"

Following the orders of your government or superior does not relieve you from responsibility under international law. Under the Principles of International Law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, complicity in the commission of war crime is a crime under international law.

It's a rock and a hard place. I respect the men and women in the military and the sacrifices that they make. And I understand when people (like uniatrix0) say that they volunteered for it so they should not complain. But I also think our solders should be able to trust the government to only use them for the right reason and only when necessary. It is our governments duty to provide a clear objective and the means to reach it.

The founding fathers never envisioned a standing Army in the first place so even though I volunteered during the Vietnam war era I soon found the truth and thankfully I never had to take an illegal order. It is your duty as a soldier to refuse illegal orders according to the military code of justice.

I served in the Navy, Gulf war era, and kenny has it right, according to the UCMJ. This is not a legitimate war, overextends those who need to be at home guarding our "homeland". (What the hell is the Vermont national Guard doing in Afghanistan?- that's why we have a regular Army. But this does not meet the definition of a "just war". So Spc. Agosto is to be commended for speaking out. I learned in the military you get penalized for thinking. But Agosto has a moral obligation to refuse, and would be justified in doing so.