In the latest Battlestar Galactica rerun, there was a scenario where the commander in chief was testifying at a hearing. It was stated that he did not have authority over the investigation (and I guess he was effectively under subpoena). Anyway, he decided he’d had enough and got up to leave. Which resulted in a classic cinematic cliche. The officer in charge of the hearing demands that the poor schlub MP guarding the room take the commander in chief into custody. The commander in chief demands that the MP take the officer into custody and says “Make a decision, son.”
What would happen in “real life” if an MP were ever put in this situation? I’m assuming that your average NCO is not particularly up to date on the intricacies of the command chain and how to resolve conflicts there-in. So if you have two officers giving you conflicting orders and you have no idea who has the greater authority, what do you do?
Is the soldier in a world of hurt no matter what decision he makes? Or is there a "right" decision by the book that will allow him to defend himself against any possible disciplinary actions? (We'll assume US military here, and not some mythical science fiction military organization.)
Would it be reasonable for the MP in question to take both parties into custody and then kick the argument up to his commanding officer?
(1) You obey officers in a direct line of commend over you. While guarding a court-room, the MP presumably reported to the officer in charge of the court, so would obey those orders.
(2) If they aren’t directly over you, you would obey the officer with senior rank.
Well, the Commanding Officer was a commisioned officer, i.e., a true officer. The woman leading the inquiry board was a sergeant, i.e., a non-commissioned officer. So I think just about any officer would outweight about any NCO. Yes, that means you should follow a lieutenant’s orders before a command sergeant major, both being in the chain of command.
Chain of command is another, though. Typically you should follow the orders in your chain of command despite rank. In BSG, though, it’s all one chain of command.
Soldier’s (unwritten) 4th general order: I will guard my post from flank to flank and take no shit from any rank. MPs are professional guards, their orders come from their chain and they will subdue and arrest even a lieutenant general if he gets belligerent in a DUI arrest.
If the commissioned officer is in the MP’s direct chain, then he has general authority to command the MP. I would anticipate, however, that the officer’s boss would be on hand at the inquiry, especially if the hearing has any official merit. And that the officer being questioned would have no command authority during the proceeding–it’s someone else’s show. Of course, it’s a small spaceship in a huge galaxy–the MP might exercise a degree of politique and suck up to the officer. But that would represent a military discipline breakdown.
And yeah, a lieutenant CAN boss around the sergeant major, but seeing as how the sm is some colonel’s right hand, Mr. Butterbar would think better of this and instead kiss the sm’s thorny ass. I guar-on-tee.
I would think that even if it were God himself testifying to a court under subpoena (or under testimony) that CINC (or God) would be subject to the laws of that court. Thus, if the judge/officer in charge of the court holds a witness under subpoena, that bailiff or MP is there to enforce the laws of the court–not the orders of the witness.
There’s no cliche in my mind. The MP is there to serve the court, not the testifying CINC.
Tripler
But I base my comments off my assumption that BG operates similarly to the U.S. law.
As the (apparently) sole former MP active on the boards, I’ll second the recommendations given above. If you’re a poor little PFC MP and your team/squad/patrol leader (next higher person above you) tells you to do something that sounds reasonable (i.e. does not involve a patently illegal act), you’d better do it. The higher the person giving the order is within your own chain of command, the stronger the traditional compulsion to follow the order. If the person you are trying to apprehend is of a much higher rank but outside your chain of command, the equivalent rank in your own chain of command will cover for you, in theory, if the sh*t hits the fan.
Unfortunately, in real life, things are seldom so easy. In the Iraqi detainee abuse scandal, the testimony so far seems to indicate that the MPs were influenced by officers and civilians outside their chain of command. Even those that just stood by and did nothing are being sentenced to jail time. There was a massive breakdown in command in the 800th MP Brigade and no one was around to look after the poor kids caught in the middle. Real life just doesn’t have happy endings when the bigwigs start flexing muscle.
I’m not trying to start an argument, but I think you guys are confusing the matter. In a courtroom, there is no chain of command other than the judge to the bailiff/MPs.
That MP would report to nobody except the judge–even if the accused outranks the judge (which would be a rare case to begin with). In the case the accused was a superior officer to one of the MPs, the bailiff would be relieved of that chain of command in deference to keep order in court proceedings.
There is absolutely no question in my mind, that if an MP was ‘ordered’ by a defendant to ‘let me go’, that MP would find him/herself alongside that defendant in contempt of court. No disciplined Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman would dispute the fact the chain of command in a courtroom setting, regardless of the rank of the accused.
Think back to the Neuremburg trials. Notwithstanding the animosity between Americans and Nazis, enlisted MPs were watching over generals of the Third Riech. . .
Tripler
It’s a reach back in history, but it would hold true today.
I think we’re all beating the same horse here. The president of the court would be the MP’s commanding officer (BSG’s sergeant in charge of such an inquiry being wild fantasy) in this particular case (not really, but MPs, like baliffs, are detailed to the courts by an unrelated activity, be it a local MP company or a sheriff’s office).
And no good officer (like we’re to assume Adama is) would ever put a poor soldier in such a dilemna. He would take up his own differences with the court, not put some poor private in the middle.
If the MP didn’t listen to the Judge and followed the defendant’s orders, then yeah, his ass would be in a sling in the eyes of the court. The defendant (a superior of his) would love him, but the court would not.
Since this is about a fictional court and a fictional person, we’ve got to be a little careful here…
First, remember that this wasn’t a court. It was a board if inquiry. It was investigating facts; not making judgement. It wasn’t even a grand jury type of situation. There’s no real parallel in US courts or in the military.
Next, the whole thing was held under Adama’s authority. Revoke the authority, and it all collapses. One of the board members tried to say that Adama had no authority and that it was a civilian board, but that wasn’t true. Everything was done and organized by the security sergeant via Adama’s authority. None other.
In real life, lots of things would be different.
BSG is drama. Trying to apply fictional legal situations and conditions to American military tradition, regulations, and doctrine won’t make for a perfect answer. There are a lot of facets of the BSG court of inquiry that simply have no counterpart in the real world (an NCO as president of the court, authority granted by a military commander then the board claims civilian jurisdiction over said military commander, a flag officer putting a young crewman on the spot like that without offering an explanation of his take on the duties of said crewman, etc).
That being said, an MP detailed to a Court Martial would be well advised to follow the orders of the presiding officer in any case that will occur in the real world. In BSG, he’s gonna do whatever helps generate the highest ratings.
Unless I’m missing something, that doesn’t seem to hold up. American/British/Russian Soldiers acting as MP’s would have no reason to obey German Officers no matter what their rank, considering
1.) The German officers aren’t part of their chain oc command, or even in their military.
2.) The German Officers were on the opposing side in the war.
I was remembering the fact that we’re trained to salute and render respects to enemy/allied officers on any side. It’s a formality, but if I came across one in Red Square, I’d have to salute a Soviet officer.
The German Officers weren’t in any chain of command, and they were the enemy. Nevertheless, they are officers, and deserve the customs and courtesies accordingly nonetheless.
Tripler
. . . but, they are under the jurisdiction of the Neuremberg court.
Others have already said that a soldier is expected first and foremost to obey orders from within his own chain of command. But isn’t the Commander in Chief in everybody’s chain of command? If you take the guy you answer directly to, and the guy he answers to, and so on up the line, don’t you inevitably get to the C in C? So in this hypothetical situation (which strikes me as somewhat implausible, but then what do I know), the soldier is receiving conflicting orders from two people both in his chain of command, one of whom is higher than the other.
