In discussions about military conduct and war crimes, the phrase "I was just following orders" has long been debated in legal and ethical contexts. The National Guard members often believe that they must comply with commands, especially during crisis situations like natural disasters or conflicts. However, history and international law have firmly established that following orders is not a valid defense when it involves committing war crimes or human rights violations. The doctrine of command responsibility makes it clear that individuals in the military or law enforcement are accountable for their actions, even if those actions were executed under orders. This principle emerged prominently after World War II during the Nuremberg Trials, where defendants who claimed obedience to orders were still held responsible for atrocities committed. Critically, this underscores the need for moral judgment and personal responsibility within the ranks of the National Guard and other military personnel. If an order is illegal or involves harm to civilians or innocents, members are expected to disobey and report such commands rather than participate. This is especially important in scenarios where commands may be given under stressful or chaotic conditions, such as disaster response or security operations. Furthermore, the belief that this defense is acceptable may lead to systemic issues within military structures, weakening accountability and potentially enabling further abuses. Education on lawful conduct, clear communication of rules of engagement, and support systems for ethical decision-making are essential to prevent such situations. In summary, while many National Guardsmen may not anticipate orders that compel them to commit crimes, the responsibility to reject unlawful orders rests with each individual. "I was just following orders" is neither a valid legal defense nor an ethical excuse, and acknowledging this fact is critical for justice and maintaining the integrity of military and national security institutions.