Would you follow an unlawful order?
02-12-2013, 10:00 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Posts: 880
Would you follow an unlawful order?
I am just a curious couch dwelling part-time fool but, for the military guys and gals out there, how do you distinguish between lawful or unlawful orders issued from your commanders? If you found yourself questioning an order do you ask for clarification?, do you reference a manual? , do you follow the order without question? I know there are occasions when an order must be executed immediately without time for deliberation but what about times when you DO have that moment to think and your "gut" instinct is screaming at you? If our President and Congress issued an order to invade, say, North Korea tomorrow without a declaration of war, how would you handle this? Thanks for the answers in advance and please realize that I'm not trying to insult or degrade anyone, just curious.
02-12-2013, 10:07 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Holding over Macho Grande
Posts: 602
02-12-2013, 10:17 AM
#3
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
Service members are trained on this, and the emphasis is on the specific issues that the individual might confront in his normal job.
Ie, junior front-line troops get training on laws related to harming civilians, collateral damage, prisoners, etc. The bottom line (and they are trained to this effect) is that it is your lawful duty to NOT obey an unlawful order.
Standing Rules of Engagement exist to guide troops in the situation where they don't have time to phone home, and we are all responsible for knowing those SROE. SROE are vetted by lawyers and fully comply with US and international law.
But junior troops are not trained on interpreting big-picture geo-political issues such as "should we invade X country?" or whether it is lawful to do so.
Senior officers get into this kind of thing while pursuing advanced degrees and attending senior service schools.
The problem with your question is that there is simply no right and wrong answer for that kind of question, except in the minds of the most uninformed dimwits.
The correct answer depends on your perspective and all the complexities and trade-offs. Also it is often the case that only history can accurately judge a decision like that.
If an large-scale order (ie an invasion) crossed the legal line, you would see a public split amongst senior officers as the first indication.
Iraq for example was perfectly legal but the legality had nothing to do with WMD, that was just a public-opinion stalking horse. Iraq signed a peace agreement after gulf-war I, agreeing to certain conditions in exchange for us stopping south of Baghdad. These conditions included inspections and disclosure of WMD activities, and Sadam was in CLEAR violation of those conditions (and a bunch of others) when we invaded. Legally, that's all that was needed...he was on probation, he violated probation, and the swat team had to come out. Whether it was legal (it was, 100%) and whether it was a good idea are separate and distinct issues.
Ie, junior front-line troops get training on laws related to harming civilians, collateral damage, prisoners, etc. The bottom line (and they are trained to this effect) is that it is your lawful duty to NOT obey an unlawful order.
Standing Rules of Engagement exist to guide troops in the situation where they don't have time to phone home, and we are all responsible for knowing those SROE. SROE are vetted by lawyers and fully comply with US and international law.
But junior troops are not trained on interpreting big-picture geo-political issues such as "should we invade X country?" or whether it is lawful to do so.
Senior officers get into this kind of thing while pursuing advanced degrees and attending senior service schools.
The problem with your question is that there is simply no right and wrong answer for that kind of question, except in the minds of the most uninformed dimwits.
The correct answer depends on your perspective and all the complexities and trade-offs. Also it is often the case that only history can accurately judge a decision like that.
If an large-scale order (ie an invasion) crossed the legal line, you would see a public split amongst senior officers as the first indication.
Iraq for example was perfectly legal but the legality had nothing to do with WMD, that was just a public-opinion stalking horse. Iraq signed a peace agreement after gulf-war I, agreeing to certain conditions in exchange for us stopping south of Baghdad. These conditions included inspections and disclosure of WMD activities, and Sadam was in CLEAR violation of those conditions (and a bunch of others) when we invaded. Legally, that's all that was needed...he was on probation, he violated probation, and the swat team had to come out. Whether it was legal (it was, 100%) and whether it was a good idea are separate and distinct issues.
02-12-2013, 10:51 AM
#4
Libertarian Resistance
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
I am just a curious couch dwelling part-time fool but, for the military guys and gals out there, how do you distinguish between lawful or unlawful orders issued from your commanders? If you found yourself questioning an order do you ask for clarification?, do you reference a manual? , do you follow the order without question? I know there are occasions when an order must be executed immediately without time for deliberation but what about times when you DO have that moment to think and your "gut" instinct is screaming at you? If our President and Congress issued an order to invade, say, North Korea tomorrow without a declaration of war, how would you handle this? Thanks for the answers in advance and please realize that I'm not trying to insult or degrade anyone, just curious.
WW
02-12-2013, 01:02 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Posts: 880
Service members are trained on this, and the emphasis is on the specific issues that the individual might confront in his normal job.
Ie, junior front-line troops get training on laws related to harming civilians, collateral damage, prisoners, etc. The bottom line (and they are trained to this effect) is that it is your lawful duty to NOT obey an unlawful order.
Standing Rules of Engagement exist to guide troops in the situation where they don't have time to phone home, and we are all responsible for knowing those SROE. SROE are vetted by lawyers and fully comply with US and international law.
But junior troops are not trained on interpreting big-picture geo-political issues such as "should we invade X country?" or whether it is lawful to do so.
Senior officers get into this kind of thing while pursuing advanced degrees and attending senior service schools.
The problem with your question is that there is simply no right and wrong answer for that kind of question, except in the minds of the most uninformed dimwits.
The correct answer depends on your perspective and all the complexities and trade-offs. Also it is often the case that only history can accurately judge a decision like that.
If an large-scale order (ie an invasion) crossed the legal line, you would see a public split amongst senior officers as the first indication.
Iraq for example was perfectly legal but the legality had nothing to do with WMD, that was just a public-opinion stalking horse. Iraq signed a peace agreement after gulf-war I, agreeing to certain conditions in exchange for us stopping south of Baghdad. These conditions included inspections and disclosure of WMD activities, and Sadam was in CLEAR violation of those conditions (and a bunch of others) when we invaded. Legally, that's all that was needed...he was on probation, he violated probation, and the swat team had to come out. Whether it was legal (it was, 100%) and whether it was a good idea are separate and distinct issues.
Ie, junior front-line troops get training on laws related to harming civilians, collateral damage, prisoners, etc. The bottom line (and they are trained to this effect) is that it is your lawful duty to NOT obey an unlawful order.
Standing Rules of Engagement exist to guide troops in the situation where they don't have time to phone home, and we are all responsible for knowing those SROE. SROE are vetted by lawyers and fully comply with US and international law.
But junior troops are not trained on interpreting big-picture geo-political issues such as "should we invade X country?" or whether it is lawful to do so.
Senior officers get into this kind of thing while pursuing advanced degrees and attending senior service schools.
The problem with your question is that there is simply no right and wrong answer for that kind of question, except in the minds of the most uninformed dimwits.
The correct answer depends on your perspective and all the complexities and trade-offs. Also it is often the case that only history can accurately judge a decision like that.
If an large-scale order (ie an invasion) crossed the legal line, you would see a public split amongst senior officers as the first indication.
Iraq for example was perfectly legal but the legality had nothing to do with WMD, that was just a public-opinion stalking horse. Iraq signed a peace agreement after gulf-war I, agreeing to certain conditions in exchange for us stopping south of Baghdad. These conditions included inspections and disclosure of WMD activities, and Sadam was in CLEAR violation of those conditions (and a bunch of others) when we invaded. Legally, that's all that was needed...he was on probation, he violated probation, and the swat team had to come out. Whether it was legal (it was, 100%) and whether it was a good idea are separate and distinct issues.
02-12-2013, 01:06 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Posts: 880
Service members are trained on this, and the emphasis is on the specific issues that the individual might confront in his normal job.
Ie, junior front-line troops get training on laws related to harming civilians, collateral damage, prisoners, etc. The bottom line (and they are trained to this effect) is that it is your lawful duty to NOT obey an unlawful order.
Standing Rules of Engagement exist to guide troops in the situation where they don't have time to phone home, and we are all responsible for knowing those SROE. SROE are vetted by lawyers and fully comply with US and international law.
But junior troops are not trained on interpreting big-picture geo-political issues such as "should we invade X country?" or whether it is lawful to do so.
Senior officers get into this kind of thing while pursuing advanced degrees and attending senior service schools.
The problem with your question is that there is simply no right and wrong answer for that kind of question, except in the minds of the most uninformed dimwits.
The correct answer depends on your perspective and all the complexities and trade-offs. Also it is often the case that only history can accurately judge a decision like that.
If an large-scale order (ie an invasion) crossed the legal line, you would see a public split amongst senior officers as the first indication.
Iraq for example was perfectly legal but the legality had nothing to do with WMD, that was just a public-opinion stalking horse. Iraq signed a peace agreement after gulf-war I, agreeing to certain conditions in exchange for us stopping south of Baghdad. These conditions included inspections and disclosure of WMD activities, and Sadam was in CLEAR violation of those conditions (and a bunch of others) when we invaded. Legally, that's all that was needed...he was on probation, he violated probation, and the swat team had to come out. Whether it was legal (it was, 100%) and whether it was a good idea are separate and distinct issues.
Ie, junior front-line troops get training on laws related to harming civilians, collateral damage, prisoners, etc. The bottom line (and they are trained to this effect) is that it is your lawful duty to NOT obey an unlawful order.
Standing Rules of Engagement exist to guide troops in the situation where they don't have time to phone home, and we are all responsible for knowing those SROE. SROE are vetted by lawyers and fully comply with US and international law.
But junior troops are not trained on interpreting big-picture geo-political issues such as "should we invade X country?" or whether it is lawful to do so.
Senior officers get into this kind of thing while pursuing advanced degrees and attending senior service schools.
The problem with your question is that there is simply no right and wrong answer for that kind of question, except in the minds of the most uninformed dimwits.
The correct answer depends on your perspective and all the complexities and trade-offs. Also it is often the case that only history can accurately judge a decision like that.
If an large-scale order (ie an invasion) crossed the legal line, you would see a public split amongst senior officers as the first indication.
Iraq for example was perfectly legal but the legality had nothing to do with WMD, that was just a public-opinion stalking horse. Iraq signed a peace agreement after gulf-war I, agreeing to certain conditions in exchange for us stopping south of Baghdad. These conditions included inspections and disclosure of WMD activities, and Sadam was in CLEAR violation of those conditions (and a bunch of others) when we invaded. Legally, that's all that was needed...he was on probation, he violated probation, and the swat team had to come out. Whether it was legal (it was, 100%) and whether it was a good idea are separate and distinct issues.
02-12-2013, 01:08 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Posts: 880
02-12-2013, 01:17 PM
#9
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
I admit it, I'm a dimwit when it comes to the commitment of our armed forces in foreign lands without a declaration of war. If we don't need it, why is it specifically outlined in the constitution? I realize this is a two pronged question but I feel it is of vital importance to the men and women of our military. Vietnam is the main driver of my questions.
We follow orders son, or people die! (and no, you can't handle the truth!)
We Follow Orders or People Die - A Few Good Men (6/8) Movie CLIP (1992) HD - YouTube
02-12-2013, 01:24 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 4,024
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bill Lumberg
Fractional
2
08-22-2008 04:58 AM
UCLAbruins
Fractional
3
08-29-2007 01:36 PM
