My question is inspired by this incredibly acrimonious thread. Hopefully this question can be discussed without any of that.
Apparently, some people are of the opinion that soldiers in Iraq should disobey orders and basically not do anything but hightail it back to America. Now, while I can understand the anti-war sentiment, this seems rather unrealistic to me. If a soldier (or a group of soldiers) just said “I quit, I’m catching the next flight back to the United States,” what would happen? I think I read somewhere that, during a war, soldiers can actually be summarily executed for disobeying orders or deserting during a war. Is that accurate? If so, how likely is it?
I know people say things along the lines of “Soldiers have the right – even the duty – to disobey bad orders,” but aren’t the penalties extremely harsh for that kind of thing?
i don’t think anyone can be summarily executed (although I suspect the current Attorney General might argue otherwise). Just being in a war isn’t enough. Desertion in the face of the enemy or to avoid combat can result in the death penalty, however I think it seldom does.
I haven’t seen the precise charges, but Watada was probably charged w/ “missing Movement” Art. 87, UCMJ, and “Conduct predjudice to the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces”, Art. 134, UCMJ.
“Missing Movement”, for his refusal to go to Iraq and “Conduct predjudice…”, for speaking out publically against the policies of the President and his military superiors. I believe there’s still some doubt as to whether he will be charged w/ Art. 134.
Refusing orders, or otherwise absenting yourself, in a combat zone can lead to much more serious charges. There has only been one death sentence imposed in modern times. During WWII. Pvt. Eddie Slovik was executed, by firing squad, in 1945, after being found guilty of desertion in the face of the enemy, Execution by firing squad - Wikipedia. The execution was approved by Eisenhower and it was a controversial event for many years.
Determining what constitutes an illegal order is usually not as simple as it may sound. Many military members have tried to use that as a defense and found it didn’t work. On the otherhand there have been some notable cases where military personnel have been found guilty for carrying out illegal orders, Lt. Wm. Calley, of the My Lai massacre, being an infamous example.
Well, that’s what I originally wrote, but I changed it to “evil” and then to “bad” because 1) that’s not what people really say. They usually say “immoral orders,” you know, to cover cases like Nazi Germany, where the orders to exterminate a few races might have been technically legal but obviously immoral, and 2) I didn’t want to get anybody debating whether the current situation in Iraq was evil or illegal or not.
It is only illegal orders that a soldier does not have to, and should not, obey. It might be nice to think that a soldier would disobey evil/immoral/bad orders, but those are subjective terms. Although, how realistic it is to expect a soldier to differentiate between an illegal order and one that is legal but seems morally wrong, in the heat of the moment, I don’t know.
a woman army general said exactly the same thing in a television discussion on the subject several years ago. She said that we expect a 19 or 20 year old to differentiale between a legal and illegal order on the spur of the moment in the face of an officer a number of grades above him. An order that might be disputed in court among legal beagles.