Here is an update on the soldier who refused to go!

[Tale]

It is not his place to determine his orders are illegal or not? Then whose place is it to tell him that he is following illegal orders? If no one tells him that he is following illegal orders should he be held accountable for following those illegal orders?

Who's saying it's not his place to determine if his orders are illegal? What's being said is it's not his place to determine if the war is illegal.

[Sand]

His orders was to head to war in Iraq. He views the war being illegal, thusly his orders are illegal and a soldier can be criminally responsible for his or her actions if they follow illegal orders. That is his chain of thought, and the only way to break that chain of thought is to deem the war in Iraq has being fully legal by the highest court in the land. As long as there is a shadow of doubt that his orders are illegal he should not follow them.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

That's the only way to break his chain of thought, but that's not how the law works. The war doesn't have to be legal for the deployment to be legal.

[Sand]

But his orders have to be legal in order for him to follow them otherwise he is criminally responsible for his actions for the excuse of "I was just following orders" does not make one immune to prosecution.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

But his orders have to be legal in order for him to follow them otherwise he is criminally responsible for his actions for the excuse of "I was just following orders" does not make one immune to prosecution.

Read what I said. The war does not have to be legal for deployment to be legal. Now read it again. His order is deployment. What's illegal? In his mind, the war. What's legal? His order, the deployment.

[Sand]

So it is okay to be ordered to be in a illegal situation and be a party to an illegal act? :confused:

[Tale]

In this case, sure? Why not? How many Nazi soldiers were tried for fighting on the front lines?

[Walsingham]

But his orders have to be legal in order for him to follow them otherwise he is criminally responsible for his actions for the excuse of "I was just following orders" does not make one immune to prosecution.

Read what I said. The war does not have to be legal for deployment to be legal. Now read it again. His order is deployment. What's illegal? In his mind, the war. What's legal? His order, the deployment.

 

 

NOw that IS an interesting angle. He was refusing deployment, but deployment isn't illegal. I guess in some ways one could argue in favour of a division by tactical, operational, and strategic responsibilities. In short, f a tactical actor (soldier) believes a tactical order (shoot gentleman x) is illegal then he is required to refuse. However, strategic decisions (go to war) are not his responsibility (in any way other than being a voter), and are the responsibility of the strategic authorty i.e. Congress. Is that any clearer?

[Sand]

So it is okay to be placed in a situation in where you will more than likely do an illegal act but not the illegal act itself?

[Walsingham]

So it is okay to be placed in a situation in where you will more than likely do an illegal act but not the illegal act itself?

 

I believe so. You must be guilty of an actual act under most legal systems. I can't find you guilty of shooting a civilian just because you were in a position to do so.

[Sand]

If you were responsible in putting me in that position to shoot a civilian and I did, would that make that civilian's death your fault as well as mine since it was you who placed me in that position in the first place?

[Tale]

If you were responsible in putting me in that position to shoot a civilian and I did, would that make that civilian's death your fault as well as mine since it was you who placed me in that position in the first place?

This is why computers don't run the legal system. Because human beings ask the obvious question of "what exactly happened?"

[Calax]

If you were responsible in putting me in that position to shoot a civilian and I did, would that make that civilian's death your fault as well as mine since it was you who placed me in that position in the first place?

yup... if sombody was resposnisble for putting you in a "kill that poor sap or I'll kill you" situation. the other person can be charged with Murder

 

I watch wayyyy too much Law And Order.

[Walsingham]

If you were responsible in putting me in that position to shoot a civilian and I did, would that make that civilian's death your fault as well as mine since it was you who placed me in that position in the first place?

yup... if sombody was resposnisble for putting you in a "kill that poor sap or I'll kill you" situation. the other person can be charged with Murder

 

I watch wayyyy too much Law And Order.

 

That's where they are coercing you to commit the act itself.

[alanschu]

If you were responsible in putting me in that position to shoot a civilian and I did, would that make that civilian's death your fault as well as mine since it was you who placed me in that position in the first place?

yup... if sombody was resposnisble for putting you in a "kill that poor sap or I'll kill you" situation. the other person can be charged with Murder

 

I watch wayyyy too much Law And Order.

 

 

Provocation.

[Sand]

Would threat of imprisonment belong the same lines?

 

If a soldier refused to go to a war he thinks is wrong, thusly being in a position to kill people, some being innocent, but those in higher power threatens him with imprisonment which forces him to go and he does in fact kill some innocent people would that make his superiors criminally responsible?

[Guard Dog]

Would threat of imprisonment belong the same lines?

 

If a soldier refused to go to a war he thinks is wrong, thusly being in a position to kill people, some being innocent, but those in higher power threatens him with imprisonment which forces him to go and he does in fact kill some innocent people would that make his superiors criminally responsible?

 

Actually... no. The rules for conduct for US armed forces personnel are pretty well laid out in the UCMJ, Code of Conduct, etc. Whatever moral problem one may have with the war, it is authorized by congress therefore it IS legal. Therefore ordering a soldier who swore an oath to obey the orders of the president and his superior officers (and is in fact contractually therefore legally obliged to do so) is not a criminal act by any means. And once deployed there are a rigid (too rigid to my thinking) set of rules and laws that tell him exactly how to behave. There is also a well run and oft used process of redress if he is ordered to do something that violates those rules.

 

I know where you are coming from Sand. It is up to the individual to decide what they think is right or wrong. But what is legal or illegal in not up to the individual. The long and short of it is, he joined the Army during wartime, he agreed to all the consequences of that. Heck right in the enlistment contract it tells you that combat and loss of life are possibilities. Now the government is trying to compel him to keep up his end of the agreement.

[Sand]

Even if it means forcing him to do something that is wrong, such as being part of an invasion that was only justified through false intel? If that is the case then I thank the gods that I am no longer in the military.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

It certainly sounds as if you'd have a hard time.

 

Firstly, I'm endlessly boggled by the notion that military intelilgence being wrong is surprising or evil. Secondly, as we've said before you make a commitment when you sign up to do x and y. If you fail to do so and suffer the penalties then have the good sense not to whinge about it.

 

I believe we had a similar debate at the end of last year about the need to obey the Official Secrets act. You are entitled to your own morality, but when you sign up you commit to keeping secrets, and handling objections in a certain way. If that certain way doesn't get the desired results then tough. You agreed to it.

[kumquatq3]

Secondly, as we've said before you make a commitment when you sign up to do x and y. If you fail to do so and suffer the penalties then have the good sense not to whinge about it.

 

and as the "back door draft" has shown, you can sign up for X and Y, and they can make you do them much pass your contracted date.

 

Basically, you sign up for the military, until they let you go, your pretty much **** out of luck on all fronts.

[Eddo36]

So whatever the government decides is right is right. Slavery, internment of Japanese, genocide and taking lands away from Native Americans, the government is never wrong. Especially in affairs on the rest of the world that the US government has no jurisdiction of and condemned by the rest of the world.

 

Do your job and follow. You are part of that system. Otherwise, you're wrong and therefore take punishment the governement gives you for it.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Eddo36

[Eddo36]

In this case, sure? Why not? How many Nazi soldiers were tried for fighting on the front lines?

 

The death of the Jews are on their hands.

 

And had they refused to go if they stood up for what they believed in, they would have gotten the death penalty. Would it be fair to impose that choice on them?

[alanschu]

In this case, sure? Why not? How many Nazi soldiers were tried for fighting on the front lines?

 

The death of the Jews are on their hands.

 

And had they refused to go if they stood up for what they believed in, they would have gotten the death penalty. Would it be fair to impose that choice on them?

 

 

You cannot prove that the death of the Jews is on the hands of soldiers on the front lines, mostly because there was too many people fighting on the front lines.

Edited February 10, 2007 by alanschu

[Eddo36]

And if they weren't fighting on the front lines, Jews wouldn't have died. Proof. $$

 

They were the front lines of interment camp defense.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Eddo36

[alanschu]

They were the front lines of interment camp defense.

 

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

 

 

But yeah, I'm sure the guy making the push to El Alamein was busy slaughtering Jews when he wasn't making a push or repelling an attack.

Edited February 10, 2007 by alanschu