This is also why I think Snowden did the right thing: he may have "betrayed his country" by helping inform the public about what is going on, but it was his moral responsibility to do so. If he had kept his mouth shut, he would have become an accomplice to the crime.
I've already been in a situation where I could choose between serious jail time and refusing orders I did not agree with so I'm pretty sure which side I would come down on.
So, with all respect mr. Anonymous Coward you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Principles come at a price, that's for sure.
I can see why you have a problem with this worldview.
Unless refusing orders would mean somebody else jails you, no you haven't been in that situation. The deal is that you follow orders and maybe get jailed/executed after losing a war, or you disobey orders and definitely get jailed/executed right away.
Following orders is not a 'get out of jail free' level excuse, though it might be used for mitigation.
So no, that ruling was not 'pure evil', it established a basic level of responsibility that applies even when acting under orders.