The phrase “Crime of Obedience” as used in the article Kelman & Hamilton: “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience” (1976) refers to the notion that war crimes can be committed not only by those who initiate them, but also by those who obey orders to perform them. The authors argue that while Lieutenant William Calley was ultimately responsible for many criminal acts at My Lai and found guilty in a court-martial, he was just one actor among many whose obedience enabled the massacre to occur.

In describing the men of Charlie Company as “average,” Kelman & Hamilton imply that they were everyday soldiers with no extraordinary qualities or characteristics beyond what would be expected from individuals serving in Vietnam. By contrast, they suggest that their commander Captain Ernest Medina and platoon leader First Lieutenant Michael Bernhardt were more “unusual.” This indicates that there were certain qualities or characteristics which set these two men apart from their peers; it may even suggest that these two officers had greater ambitions than other members of Charlie Company and thus behaved differently towards their subordinates. For example, Medina is described as having an aggressive leadership style and displaying an inclination towards violence when dealing with civilians whereas Bernhardt is portrayed as being overly enthusiastic about his role during the massacre. While it is clear from the article that both officers displayed questionable judgment during this incident, it appears from this description that they may have been motivated by something more than simple obedience to orders.