> On the other hand there is basically zero jurisprudence of a soldier ever getting in trouble for following an order they thought was given under competent military authority, even though it was illegal.
Are you kidding me ? It was called the Nuremberg trials. Following orders has not been a valid defence ever since.
Were any U.S. soldiers tried at the Nuremberg trials?
A comparable incident would be the My Lai massacre, after which 20+ soldiers and officers were tried of various charges, only 1 was convicted, and even that 1 soldier was promptly paroled by the President.
Despite that, it is still theoretically possible to be tried and convicted of crimes despite having a military order to do so (and this was true even before Nuremberg). My point is that in practice having an order to do something counts for a great deal.
Are you kidding me ? It was called the Nuremberg trials. Following orders has not been a valid defence ever since.