# Iraq War's Legality Not a Defense for Disobedience **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2007, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478 "2007-01-18T18:07:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/21 "2007-01-18T20:06:54Z")
RickJay, your arguments seem circular - killing somebody during a war isn’t murder because it isn’t illegal and it isn’t illegal because it isn’t murder. And you’re wrong to claim that none of the acts that were later prosecuted as “crimes against humanity” (which they certainly were) were legal under the laws of the Reich at the time they were committed. (Saddam Hussein made a similar argument in his trial by stating that Iraqi law gave the President - himself - the legal authority to do all of the things he was accused of and therefore he had broken no law.) I also find it very unlikely that even an officer in the field would be unaware of whether or not the United States was at war with Iran - it’s the kind of thing that’s going to get some prominent mention. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/22 "2007-01-18T20:11:15Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] On the other hand, I disagree with Marley’s contention that immorality and/or stupidity can raise a legal defense - members of the armed forces are obligated to follow orders, even if they appear (or actually are) immoral or stupid. [/QUOTE] Immorality isn’t a legal defense; I didn’t say it was. I was attempting to point out a flaw in even _attempting_ a legal defense on this issue. But my view is colored by my disbelief in the obligation you’re referring to. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/23 "2007-01-19T03:39:28Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] RickJay, your arguments seem circular - killing somebody during a war isn’t murder because it isn’t illegal and it isn’t illegal because it isn’t murder. [/QUOTE] Killing people as a part of normally accepted military duties isn’t illegal because it’s not murder. It’s not murder because virtually every legal code on Earth says so, and the reason they say so is, for the most part, because it’s generally a good idea that the military follow orders. Your example of German war criminals is intersting but, as has been pointed out several times now, no German soldier was prosecuted for being a soldier just because the invasions were illegal. The laws OF war (that made invading Poland illegal) apply to decision makers; laws IN war (that make it illegal to, say, shoot children) apply to everyone. If a German soldier was prosecuted for a specific war crime, that’s really no relevant to the legality of the war itself from a German point of view. Murder’s murder. The soldier in question in the OP _isn’t being given illegal orders_. “Illegal order” implies a direct order to perform an act that is, individually, illegal, and would be generally illegal irrespective of the legality of the war. Shooting children would be illegal even if your country was justified in going to war. An order to conduct normal military duties isn’t illegal. > [@](#): > > I also find it very unlikely that even an officer in the field would be unaware of whether or not the United States was at war with Iran - it’s the kind of thing that’s going to get some prominent mention. And where is it written that military personnel must always verify a state of war exists before using force? Should the soldiers at Pearl Harbor have not fired back until Congress declared war? Of course not. You’re going to have to be much more specific in terms of defining what “illegal act” you’re claiming would be taking place. For instance, striking out on one’s own and crossing into Iran without any sort of provocation, or without being in hot pursuit, would obviously be a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/24 "2007-01-19T03:47:08Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Killing people as a part of normally accepted military duties isn’t illegal because it’s not murder. It’s not murder because virtually every legal code on Earth says so, and the reason they say so is, for the most part, because it’s generally a good idea that the military follow orders. [/QUOTE] No, it’s not legally considered murder because the people who write the laws and giving the military orders have no problem at all with murder as long as they are doing the murdering. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/25 "2007-01-19T04:26:10Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] 1LT Ehren Watada has refused orders to deploy to Iraq, citing his belief that the war is illegal. He contends that the war’s illegality makes his refusal to deploy presumtively legal, based _inter alia_, on the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles. This week, the judge for the pending court-martial ruled that Watada’s defense is not viable. He found that the legality of the war is a political question, not justiciable, and that Lt. Watada may not rely on claims that the war is illegal as a defense to his refusal to deploy. I contend that this is the correct legal decision. [/QUOTE] I also think it is correct. Waging an illegal war is a war crime, merely fighting in one is not. So Bush and co. are guilty of war crimes the regular grunt in Iraq is not. This particular story isn’t getting nearly the level of publicity it should. It should be noted that this particular officer requested to fight in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I think his real objection is that the has a moral issue with Iraq not a legal issue. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/26 "2007-01-19T04:34:33Z")
[QUOTE=col\_10022] It should be noted that this particular officer requested to fight in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I think his real objection is that the has a moral issue with Iraq not a legal issue. [/QUOTE] What if the next guy wants to stay in the Army but demands to be sent to Germany? What if another refuses to be sent anywhere outside of the U.S.? The legal definition of conscientious objection in America is an objection to all war. Lt. Watada doesn’t fit that description. He is an Army officer. Therefore he must follow orders to deploy, even if he doesn’t agree with the political decisions that led to the deployment. Lt. Watada doesn’t have the right to tell the Army where he will and won’t go. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/27 "2007-01-19T05:43:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Your example of German war criminals is intersting but, as has been pointed out several times now, no German soldier was prosecuted for being a soldier just because the invasions were illegal. The laws OF war (that made invading Poland illegal) apply to decision makers; laws IN war (that make it illegal to, say, shoot children) apply to everyone. If a German soldier was prosecuted for a specific war crime, that’s really no relevant to the legality of the war itself from a German point of view. Murder’s murder. The Laws of War? No country I’m aware of, including the United States, has ever agreed that international law takes precedence over its own laws. The Germans in WWII specifically stated that as the Soviet Union never signed the Geneva Convention there were no international laws governing military conduct in their war. And German law ordered soldiers to shoot “enemies of the Reich” such as Soviet political figures and partisans whenever they were captured, regardless of whether or not they had surrendered. German soldiers did and were later prosecuted for it. > [@](#): > > And where is it written that military personnel must always verify a state of war exists before using force? Should the soldiers at Pearl Harbor have not fired back until Congress declared war? Of course not. You’re going to have to be much more specific in terms of defining what “illegal act” you’re claiming would be taking place. It would be difficult to argue you invaded a country you’re not at war with as a defensive act. To use a WWII analogy, it was like the situation where the Admiral Graf Spee entered Montevideo. The British were at war with Germany but Uruguay was a neutral country; they could not simply sail into the harbor and sink an enemy battleship. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/28 "2007-01-19T05:54:02Z")
In order to discuss this issue meaningfully, IMO, you have to ignore issues of legality. By definition, disobedience is illegal. You can pretty much bet that it was illegal of a Serbian officer, sworn to allegiance to Greater Serbia, to refuse orders to commit or condone genocide. We have no reason to regard allegiance to America as being any more worthy and noble a cause outside of our own preference to believe so. So, it follows, to a moral man nationalism is irrelevent, one’s loyalty properly belongs to those regimes which conduct themselves in a moral and consistent fashion. If one can be a patriot as well as righteous…well, that’s just about it, isn’t it? But I think a moral man if forced to choose between patriotic sentiment and morality, between a subset of humanity and humanity itself, he is obliged to choose the latter. And no regime on Earth would accept such a decision as being “legal”. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/29 "2007-01-19T06:19:19Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] …And where is it written that military personnel must always verify a state of war exists before using force? Should the soldiers at Pearl Harbor have not fired back until Congress declared war? Of course not. You’re going to have to be much more specific in terms of defining what “illegal act” you’re claiming would be taking place… [/QUOTE] There’s a difference between firing on invading forces without a Congressional approval and invading another county without Congressional approval. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/30 "2007-01-19T07:00:01Z")
> [@](#): > > In order to discuss this issue meaningfully, IMO, you have to ignore issues of legality. By definition, disobedience is illegal. You can pretty much bet that it was illegal of a Serbian officer, sworn to allegiance to Greater Serbia, to refuse orders to commit or condone genocide. We have no reason to regard allegiance to America as being any more worthy and noble a cause outside of our own preference to believe so. You see. That’s where you lose me when you post things like that. I happen to believe that the United States is a better country than Serbia, not just because I live here but on the basis of objective evidence as well. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/31 "2007-01-19T08:04:05Z")
No man ever honored his country by assisting in an ignoble act. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/32 "2007-01-19T12:46:53Z")
Am I the only one who sees this guys actions as inherently political? Or, if they weren’t at first they are now? He’s thrown the dice (or others have thrown them for him) that the war will fall to such low levels of popularity that he’ll eventually be let off the hook due to public sentiment. All those draft dodgers eventually got off the hook, after all. I agree with Bricker that, if you sign up for the service, you better damn well be ready to go where they send you. That’s the law and there’s no real way around it. There is, I also agree, a moral argument, but if one opts out of a military commitment on moral grounds one had better be prepared to say ‘It is morally wrong for me to follow these orders. I am, therefore, choosing to go to jail (or whatever punishment) rather than follow them.’ Think of it as a form of (non)civil disobedience. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/33 "2007-01-19T13:46:02Z")
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance] Am I the only one who sees this guys actions as inherently political? [/QUOTE] Nope. I think there’s a solid chance he joined the Army intending to disobey orders later. His father is a prominent Hawaiian politician who made his bones as an antiwar protester in the 1960s. The younger Watada might be looking to follow in daddy’s footsteps. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/34 "2007-01-19T13:59:39Z")
> [@](#): > > _elucidator_ > By definition, disobedience is illegal. Quite. If this guy wanted to make some protest against the war by refusing to go to Iraq, fine. Sure, refuse to go, go to jail. That’s what making a stand like this is supposed to be about: saying “I’m convinced this is a bad thing and I’m willing to take the consequences of defiance”. You can’t have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/35 "2007-01-19T14:04:07Z")
The thread title suckered me in here. I was wondering, "How the hell would anyone justify disobedience on the grounds that the war is _legal??_ ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/36 "2007-01-19T14:36:59Z")
> [@](#): > > The thread title suckered me in here. I was wondering, "How the hell would anyone justify disobedience on the grounds that the war is legal?? Well according to Moto, Lt Watada’s father is a peace activist. Maybe young Ehren joined the Army as a form of rebellion against his Dad and now he’s upset it’s gotten all respectable. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/37 "2007-01-19T21:56:57Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Expert witnesses do indeed draw conclusions, although they are generally not supposed to invade the province of the jury by testifying to facts that are at issue. [/QUOTE] I was merely responding to your implication that Ellsberg’s testimony (generally) should not be considered because he has bias. That’s a faulty implication. [QUOTE=Bricker] No. [/QUOTE] And, for me, that being the case, I agree with your contention. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/38 "2007-01-19T22:00:32Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Well according to Moto, Lt Watada’s father is a peace activist. Maybe young Ehren joined the Army as a form of rebellion against his Dad and now he’s upset it’s gotten all respectable. [/QUOTE] Maybe. Maybe he was bayoneted by his GI Joe action figure when he was a boy. Maybe he has a horror of lentils. Maybe he means what he says… ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478/39 "2007-01-19T22:36:29Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] The thread title suckered me in here. I was wondering, "How the hell would anyone justify disobedience on the grounds that the war is _legal??_ [/QUOTE] I’ll take a stab at it: “any government or system of law that permits this war is inherently flawed, immoral and unjust, and should not be obeyed.” Come to think of it, I don’t think that’s very different from what I said in my first post here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-wars-legality-not-a-defense-for-disobedience/388478.md?page=1)