# London Thanks the USAF for Their Support **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 12, 2005, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150 "2005-07-12T08:22:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/281 "2005-07-21T00:10:33Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Thank you, not least for providing some coherent replies! However, I’m still concerned by the idea that once the orders reach the lower ranks, they’re to be automatically and unquestioningly deemed lawful. At which stage does the buck stop? They’re not automatically and unquestioningly deemed to be lawful. However, I am the executor of national policy, not the creator of it. If, for whatever reason, the President sends me to war, it is a lawful order. If, however, TSgt Snuffy orders me to steal a civilian vehicle or shoot without cause at people it is not a lawful order and I am obligated to refuse. The larger strategic issues are irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Separately: I can follow the argument that the orders, when received, have to be seen as lawful. Are military personnel given any advice on their rights/obligations regarding orders they would know to be wrong? (I’m thinking this would more involve orders given in the field) Yes, we are instructed on lawful/unlawful orders, with the understanding that refusal in any case will have consequences that may or may not be resolved in your favor. It takes a strong person indeed to refuse an order, as evidenced by Abu Ghraib. Refusal to go is tantamount to treason and has severe consequences. That is one order that I may not refuse, because regardless of the origin of the order it is lawful, keeping in mind that I am the executor of policy, not the creator of it. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/282 "2005-07-21T00:22:16Z")
> [@Airman Doors USAF](#): > > If, for whatever reason, the President sends me to war, it is a lawful order. No, that’s the point. _Whatever_ reason won’t cut it. Some reasons are illegal. > [@askeptic](#): > > I just want to disassociate myself from the frieghtening turn this thread has taken. Why is it frightening? If we’re engaged in an illegal war of aggression, why should we not look at the consequences? Which is more frightening, that we’re in an illegal war of aggression, or that we need to look at what our responsibilities now are? > [@askeptic](#): > > I never implied that **LT AF** was, could be, should be some kind of war criminal. Why couldn’t he be? To a degree we’re dealing with legal matters, and they’re always sticky, but what would prevent an officer who served in the illegal invasion and occupation of a foreign country from being charged? > [@askeptic](#): > > Nor do I think it is appropriate for soldiers in the field to contemplate policy questions. A soldier is not responsible for being in a place, only his actions in that place. “Invade this country which has not threatened us. Occupy their territory. And shoot at anybody who tries to expell you.” Not responsible? A dichotomy between being in a place and doing a thing in that place? What about the fact that having uniformed soldiers just ‘being in’ a nation where they are not invited is an invasion? > [@askeptic](#): > > I would not like to see soldiers question whether they sould be involved in a military action. Why? > [@askeptic](#): > > They can and should question their own actions while there. So they can not question whether or not to participate in an illegal war of agression, but once they’re there they can do, what, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/283 "2005-07-21T00:27:52Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > They’re not automatically and unquestioningly deemed to be lawful. However, I am the executor of national policy, not the creator of it. If, for whatever reason, the President sends me to war, it is a lawful order. If, however, TSgt Snuffy orders me to steal a civilian vehicle or shoot without cause at people it is not a lawful order and I am obligated to refuse. We’re talking _international_ law here. ‘The president said so’ is not necessarily any more a defence than ‘Snuffy said so’. > [@](#): > > It takes a strong person indeed to refuse an order, as evidenced by Abu Ghraib. Agreed. I’d like to think that military recruitment only selected strong people. > [@](#): > > regardless of the origin of the order it is lawful, keeping in mind that I am the executor of policy, not the creator of it. Again, we’re back to the “only obeying orders” theme. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/284 "2005-07-21T00:38:46Z")
Some people in this thread would benefit from reading [this](http://www.genevaconventions.org/). A decision to invade another country (while I may not agree with it) is not a War Crime. Failing to abide by the Geneva Convention is. Not because the geneva convention is right but because as signatories, we agreed to do it. I do not support the current war, nor do I support the current administration, in fact I loathe it. BUT there is no such thing as an ILLEGAL war of aggresion. The geneva recognizes that countries may engage in conflict but it governs how they do it not why. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/285 "2005-07-21T00:46:05Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Some people in this thread would benefit from reading [this](http://www.genevaconventions.org/). A decision to invade another country (while I may not agree with it) is not a War Crime. Invading another country for political gain (which I know I was not alone in thinking from beginning to end) is most certainly illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/286 "2005-07-21T00:51:45Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > We’re talking _international_ law here. ‘The president said so’ is not necessarily any more a defence than ‘Snuffy said so’. It is indeed because the President, as part of his duties, is the highest authority, and if he says that we have to go it is national policy. Period. > [@](#): > > Again, we’re back to the “only obeying orders” theme. See above. I cannot refuse a lawful order. he bears the ultimate responsibility of giving me that order, because if he says it is so I execute his orders. It’s just like any other job. If you work for GM, you can’t refuse to build a car because it’s ugly, but you can refuse to put in a part because it’s unsafe. I can’t refuse to go without paying very serious consequences (up to death), but I can refuse an unlawful tactical order. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/287 "2005-07-21T00:55:18Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Invading another country for political gain (which I know I was not alone in thinking from beginning to end) is most certainly illegal. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/288 "2005-07-21T00:56:24Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > It is indeed because the President, as part of his duties, is the highest authority, and if he says that we have to go it is national policy. National policy != international law > [@](#): > > I can’t refuse to go without paying very serious consequences (up to death), but I can refuse an unlawful tactical order. So where _do_ you draw the line? When are people able to refuse illegal orders (or orders of they have very real concerns of the legality)? Where do you place the line beyond which orders are to be followed, no matter what? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/289 "2005-07-21T01:00:00Z")
GM, just who exactly will enforce this “international law” of which you speak? If no one can is it really a law. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/290 "2005-07-21T01:01:03Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Cite? I already provided you with a cite. > [@askeptic](#): > > Some people in this thread would benefit from reading [this](http://www.genevaconventions.org/). Or from the links I’ve already provided. A war of agression is a crime, in and of itself. > [@askeptic](#): > > I do not support the current war, nor do I support the current administration, in fact I loathe it. BUT there is no such thing as an ILLEGAL war of aggresion. That’s because there’s no LEGAL war of aggression. > [@Airman Doors USAF](#): > > It is indeed because the President, as part of his duties, is the highest authority, and if he says that we have to go it is national policy. Period. No, not period. This is part of why this debate is getting so freaking scary. If he says you have to go, and if it’s national policy, you still may have a **moral** if not legal duty to refuse, no? > [@Airman Doors USAF](#): > > See above. I cannot refuse a lawful order. he bears the ultimate responsibility of giving me that order, because if he says it is so I execute his orders No. You bear the ultimate responsibility of any actions you undertake while alive and in your right mind. > [@Airman Doors USAF](#): > > If you work for GM, you can’t refuse to build a car because it’s ugly, Yes, you can. They may fire you, but you can still refuse it. And, it’s not a question between ‘ugly’ and ‘unsafe’. A war of aggression is illegal. > [@Airman Doors USAF](#): > > I can’t refuse to go without paying very serious consequences (up to death), Well isn’t that a pretty huge problem that needs fixing? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/291 "2005-07-21T01:03:39Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Cite? Yikes, I’ve lost my cite, and can’t find it again, so it’s obviously not widespread - I retract that statement ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/292 "2005-07-21T01:05:07Z")
[QUOTE=GorillaMan] National policy != international law [quote] In my case, yes. > [@](#): > > So where _do_ you draw the line? When are people able to refuse illegal orders (or orders of they have very real concerns of the legality)? Where do you place the line beyond which orders are to be followed, no matter what? How many times do I have to answer this question? I already told you numerous times. I can refuse to commit a war crime, but participating in a war that may later be deemed illegal is not a crime. Again, reference the Germans and Japanese. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/293 "2005-07-21T01:06:53Z")
I give up. Charge me as a war criminal if you like. I’m tired of banging my head against the wall, because it just gives me a headache and I’ll never get through. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/294 "2005-07-21T01:07:46Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > GM, just who exactly will enforce this “international law” of which you speak? If no one can is it really a law. The same absence of enforcement as for crimes in the former Yugoslavia? Yes, it’d be much easier if the US agreed to the International Criminal Court. Extrapolate at will. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/295 "2005-07-21T01:09:31Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > I already told you numerous times. I can refuse to commit a war crime, but participating in a war that may later be deemed illegal is not a crime. Again, reference the Germans and Japanese. Obviously you won’t get to see this… Did Germany or Japan have a free press (or free access to foreign media) which made it more-than-clear that the legality of any war was always in doubt? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/296 "2005-07-21T01:15:09Z")
Finn I think you are a bit confused. I think that Bush may have committed an impeachable offense by lying to the American people and manufacturing a pretext for war. I feel the war is wrong and am a member of Veterans Against the War. BUT invading Iraq is not in and of itself illegal. It was done with the consent (tacit or otherwise) of the UN. Even had that consent been witheld the war would still not be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/297 "2005-07-21T01:18:05Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > The same absence of enforcement as for crimes in the former Yugoslavia? > > Yes, it’d be much easier **if the US agreed to the International Criminal Court**. Extrapolate at will. We haven’t and I hope we never will. I would never want to see American soldiers subjected to any authority other than that of this country. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/298 "2005-07-21T01:21:49Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > The same absence of enforcement as for crimes in the former Yugoslavia? But they are not charging common soldiers, or even civilians, for participation in that complete cock-up. They are charging the political leaders and those who actually committed war crimes (massacres, rapes, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/299 "2005-07-21T01:24:54Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Yikes, I’ve lost my cite, and can’t find it again, so it’s obviously not widespread - I retract that statement No, you were right. Check [Article 2(4)](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm) of the UN Charter. Also see [articles 39 through 42.](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm) > [@Askeptic](#): > > Finn I think you are a bit confused. Likewise 🙂 > [@Askeptic](#): > > BUT invading Iraq is not in and of itself illegal. It was done with the consent (tacit or otherwise) of the UN. Not true. And a ‘tacit’ consent still doesn’t allow a nation to violate the UN charter. > [@Askeptic](#): > > Even had that consent been witheld the war would still not be illegal. How would it not have violated the UN charter? I suspect we’re speaking past each other and I’d like to clear this up, or at least find what the differences in paradigms are. ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150/300 "2005-07-21T05:51:43Z")
Finn and GorillaMan. Would either of you be willing to fight, and die or kill, if necessary, in the military of your countries? If so, good. If not, then … If so, and then we showed that your country was in error according to UN rules, you would then refuse orders of your superiors and be willing to be executed as traitors by your military? Right? Your beliefs are that strong? I am willing to post my DD-214 numbers as proof of my service to my country, you willing to prove that you served yours? If you are never going to be in the frying pan, it is VERY easy to claim the moral high ground and draw lines in the sand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/london-thanks-the-usaf-for-their-support/312150.md?page=16)