..the US military has very strict rules that obligate a soldier to disobey an illegal order, and there is a significant number of individuals, and their commanders, who have been prosecuted under military law for not doing so.

Would it be unfair to say in practice this seems to mean that the guy at the bottom end of the chain of command may be tried, charged, found guilty of a minor charge, given a token sentence. And the guys who give the orders, all the way up to the top, are untouchable?

As demonstrated in the case this week where a soldier who tortured to death an Iraqi prisoner got a reprimand, a fine of $6,000 deducted from his pay, and is restricted to his home, office and church for two months.

His explanation that he was who only obeying orders didn't actually get him off, but the court dismissed the charge of murder - "Initially charged with murder, assault and willful dereliction of duty at his court-martial at Fort Carson, Welshofer was found guilty of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty.

However the poeople higher up who had given the orders which led to the killing - for example a memo to Welshofer specifically telling him to telling him to, "take off the gloves" - do not appear to be facing any charges.

"I was only obeying orders is a pretty excuse" - but "I was only giving orders" is an even worse one.