We all know (or we should know) that "I was only following orders" is not an accpetable defense in the case of war crimes. And I believe we all know that shooting prisoners or raping civilians, etc is wrong and we would not follow an order to that effect.

However, what about less clear cut issues? What if you get an order you feel is wrong and possibly illegal, say an order to give someone government materials out of stock or to accomplish an action you think is against the regulations? What are you supposed to do then? Is there a mechanism for checking this out, say by going to legal? Can you delay following the order until you get legal guidance? What if you follow the order and it turns out to be illegal? Who takes the heat, the enlisted or the officer who gave the order - or both?

Nothing like this is going on with me, mind, but I have seen people faced with quandries like this in the past and it's not something that we get training on (outside of the war crimes area). Typically the answer I've seen is "I disagree, but on your head be it" to the officer and the order is followed. And I have seen the enlisted get in trouble for it, which bothers me. We're trained to follow orders. How do we burn the guy who voiced his objections if we have no mechanism for figuring out if the order is legal or not?