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.
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.
No, that’s the point. Whatever reason won’t cut it. Some reasons are illegal.
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?
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?
“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?
Why?
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?
Some people in this thread would benefit from reading this. 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.
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.
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.
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?
Or from the links I’ve already provided. A war of agression is a crime, in and of itself.
That’s because there’s no LEGAL war of aggression.
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?
No. You bear the ultimate responsibility of any actions you undertake while alive and in your right mind.
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.
Well isn’t that a pretty huge problem that needs fixing?
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
National policy != international law
[quote]
In my case, yes.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.).
Not true. And a ‘tacit’ consent still doesn’t allow a nation to violate the UN charter.
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.
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.
