Plus if the order that has made its way down to enlisted in such a way that the enlisted has to determine if it's illegal or not, then theres a bigger problem.

If officers can give the order to hold any return fire, then they can also give the order to do something that is not illegal.

Chain of command is a powerful structure

This administration is built on the concept of gradually but continually pushing the boundaries of what's legal. First it's using federal troops to guard CBP as they violate constitutional rights, then it's murdering unnamed persons in boats in the Caribbean. Next will be something just a little bit more illegal, and eventually there may come a day where there's something as clear cut as opening up on a crowd of kids. But by then, how are a few troops supposed to prove that this is illegal while not speaking up about whatever they did last? Not to mention the longer this goes on the more they organize the command structure by loyalty over competence.

I don't think we can rely on waiting for a clear cut example like yours, people in power need to be pushing back now or it will be too late

The problem is that the UCMJ puts the onus on the "accuser" to prove that the order was unlawful. It's an awful lot to ask of a public servant. The whole situation sucks.

What was ambiguous to you? Also I said that. You must swear or affirm. I personally chose to affirm when I took my oath of enlistment.

Look, you don't need a JAG officer on standby to know you're not supposed to open up on a crowd of fuckin kids.

Agreed, but the order is not always so clearly unlawful. You pretty much do need a lawyer on standby to challenge violations of Posse Comitatus. It is the servicemember's duty to refuse to conduct domestic law enforcement activities like deportation, for example, but they can be required to support those same activities in other ways.

Your example? Sure. Almost certainly unlawful. It's an extreme though. How about shooting civilian vessels in international waters? That's more vague. How about shooting American citizens who are accused of attacking federal officers?

Yes, there are some situations that are pretty unambiguously illegal. Most orders will have some kind of argument behind them that they're illegal, however dubious that may be. It won't be as clear as your example most likely.

to know you're not supposed to open up on a crowd of fuckin kids.

Unfortunately Fox has been screaming that the kids/Dems are traitors for 20 years now. And that Patriots something something. I don't think a little ceremony is going to undo decades of brainwashing to hate libs.

Ahh, I was enlisted so I didn't know that the officer's oath excludes the "following orders" bit.

Thank you for sharing! Added it to my watch list.