They quickly found out the facts by questioning the occupants in the boats when these were stopped. They
could only have gathered, from the order given by Patzig, that he wished to make use of his subordinates to carry out a breach of the law. They should, therefore, have refused to obey."

As naval officers by profession they were well aware, as the naval expert Saalwiachter has strikingly stated, that one is not legally authorized to kill defenceless people. They well knew that this was the case here.

One of the examples it cites is "it was perfectly clear to the accused that killing defenceless people in the life-boats could be nothing else but a breach of the law.

Subordinates are not required to screen the orders of superiors for questionable points of
legality, and may, absent specific knowledge to the contrary, presume that orders have been
lawfully issued.

On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate
whether the rule has been violated.

Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal.

The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to
perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal.
For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.

In addition, orders should not be construed to authorize implicitly violations of law of war.

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations.

In many cases (as with boat strikes) it has made its way down to enlisted soldiers who have the same legal responsibility to disobey illegal orders that officers do, but no option to resign that Os have.
In Abu Ghraib, only enlisted soldiers were punished.

When we look at Abu Ghraib, only enlisted people were punished for it. Es are risking much more.

The military justice system is very hesitant to punish officers.

Resigning. We expect all service members to be willing to die to do the right thing, sacrificing their military career is a smaller hit. It's unacceptable to issue orders that they feel are illegal to subordinates who don't have an option to resign.

Yeah I mean nothing changing there.

DEOCS still be happening. FEVS got murdered this year though.

Is there context for this lol?

Me trying to interpret what you mean by that:

Wait I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not about unit X. Is it a flop? Should I not read? Is there a book review somewhere?