I can trace my family’s military history back to 1066, but it’s three generations of pacifism that I take pride in. “I was just following orders” is for cowards. If a woman or man chooses to follow a military tradition, let that person accept responsibility for all actions.
That wasn’t the complaint. But why let facts stand in the way of manufactured indignation?
The difficulty being that this is an asymmetric relation. One can choose to follow a military tradition and be subject to consequences like risk. But pacifists get the consequence of being protected even if they don’t want to be.
Quakers were just as saved from the Axis in 1944 as those who fought at Normandy. I’ll get arrested even if I assault someone who rejects the use of violence by the police. And so forth.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes it is. Even more so for those in the military following illegal or immoral orders. As proved multiple times through history, not least at the Nuremberg trials and at My Lai and Abu Ghraib.
They do. They live with them every day. Your freedoms, your very life, are protected by people who know the consequences of their actions, but there are no consequences of your actions because you don’t have to do a thing.
Don’t misunderstand me please - I am not condemning a pacifist or non-violent lifestyle. Just don’t for a minute think that those who follow a military tradition aren’t aware of the responsibilities of their actions.
Cite?
Haven’t you been told already that “I was just following orders” is not part of the US military? Don’t you know that US military personnel can be, and have been, punished both for disobeying unlawful orders and for issuing unlawful orders?
What Monty said is of course true.
So military members are only obligated to follow lawful orders. And believe me, this was drilled into our heads in boot camp repeatedly.
As for pacifism, while I respect individual pacifists, I feel I cannot apply it to my own life precisely because in certain situations it would amount to not only a suicide pact, but a genocide one.
Slight correction - US Military personnel have been punished for following illegal orders, as well as issuing them. And the ‘just following orders’ defense has been roundly dismissed in military courts as well as international courts as an excuse for illegal behavior.
I would bet a considerable amount that friend** Monty** simply mistyped.
Hence the slight correction - I’m sure it was a typo, as the rest of the sentence was completely accurate.
All right, then, legally a soldier can disobey an illegal order. How many do is more to the point, don’t you think?
No, the real point is how many do in proportion to the number of illegal orders issued, plus the number of illegal orders, which are rare.
I’m sure you must agree that a big-picture view ought to be taken.
The Laws of Armed Conflict define what is and what is not legal from a tactics and strategy point of view - for instance using poison, glass, or hollow point bullets or the intentional targeting of marked hospitals are illegal. The UCMJ defines criminal activities whilst in the military - for instance robbery or rape. Merge the two, and that gives you the list of things which it is illegal for anyone to order the military or individual soldiers to do.
It is likely impossible to find out how many soldiers have refused illegal orders, as we don’t know how many orders have been issued, much less illegal ones. It’s not like these things are always written down.
Your point being that illegal orders are seldom made, and therefore seldom obeyed? Pretty safe ground, I’m sure. And what of it? Was anyone arguing otherwise, that illegal orders are SOP?
We know, definitely, that soldiers have been prosecuted and sent to prison for following illegal orders.
We don’t know how many illegal orders have been issued, how many soldiers refused them, or even how many orders have been issued.
Honestly, I don’t give a crap whether an order is illegal. I give a crap whether an order is immoral. A soldier who follows an immoral order is acting immorally: getting an order does not remove one’s constant obligation to act ethically.
Daniel
Can’t agree with you there. That line of thinking would totally ruin command structure and get people killed.
If you’re taking the time to examine your conscience and your buddy gets blown up as a result, how are your moral needs helped?
Ruin command structure? Probably. Get people killed? I’m under the impression that the current setup gets people killed. I’m not sure that ruining command structure is going to result in more bloodshed.
The same way that your moral “needs” are helped if you don’t take the time to examine your conscience and an innocent civilian gets blown up as a result. That is, not at all. Best to examine your conscience during downtime, and make a deliberate decision to disobey immoral orders.
“Needs” is a lousy word. “Obligations” is a much better word.
Daniel
Uh huh. Personally I’m of the view that if you have to question things too much, you shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Every soldier has a conscience and morals, but they also have a job - and that job entails following orders to the best of their ability consistent with military law and regulations. Failing to do so can lead to catastrophic problems, as well as that soldier’s punishment through non-judicial means or even court-martial.
So there you go. Nobody said it would be easy - it wasn’t when I was in, and I never even saw combat. But if you want to avoid the hard issues, you could always stay on your parents’ couch and eat Doritos.
By whose definition of morality? Here’s an example that I suspect you’ll disagree with me on: Gaza. To my mind the IDF is acting in a completely moral manner here. They are retaliating against terrorist rocket attacks using controlled force in an attempt to kill the people attacking the state of Israel with rockets.
And innocent civilians are being killed.
Now, would you say the soldiers are acting morally or immorally? If you say immorally, who are you to decide? I completely disagree, whose opinion holds sway?