"Please reach out to military members" thread wrongly closed

[sps49sd]

I thought the OP was trolling and had action taken on that basis.

The National Guard may have had different training in 1970, probably has less simply because they are not full time military, but it does not appear that anyone issued an order to shoot; it was undisciplined and undertrained (for the situation) Guardsmen and a sergeant who damn well should’ve known better. But I don’t think an order was issued to fire.

Today? If I was in charge of a detachment to keep the peace or whatever, I would ensure no rounds were chambered to reduce the chance of accidental or panic fire. Ordering anyone to fire on unarmed civilians? There would have to be a real need, not peaceful protest like KS (despite the rocks thrown).

If I was a rifleman and ordered to shoot at unarmed civilians, if they were not an imminent threat I would not fire and I would encourage everyone else to withhold fire. The Article 92 hearing would settle out however it settled out. easy to write, I know.

I do recall being taught by the USN, 15 years after Kent State and 40 years after Nuremberg, that unlawful orders are not to be followed. This was separate from stupid orders from a watch officer that would place the (nuclear powered) propulsion system in an unsafe condition, but either way we were taught not to follow orders blindly. I am confident this is just as true today.

[tavalla]

@TubaDiva

My statement: *The shootings at Kent State were an episode in our history where American military forces fired on unarmed American civilians. The shooters were not punished for what they did. (They were indicted but the charges were dismissed by a federal judge and nothing else ever happened.)

So the statement made is incorrect; American military forces HAVE fired on unarmed civilians and nothing was done about it."*

I then stated: *“So I guess it must be legal.” *

Because it did happen. And nothing was done about it.

Because “nothing was done about it” (hint: something was done, they were indicted) doesn’t make it legal. That you seem to think it does is baffling.

PS the judge who dismissed the charges against the guardsmen specifically said in his ruling that he did not intend his decision to say that the use of force against demonstrators was allowable:

It is vital that state and National Guard officials not regard this decision as authorizing or approving the use of force against demonstrators, whatever the occasion of the issue involved. Such use of force is, and was, deplorable.

Tuba, you are just flat out wrong here, on so many levels. That you’ve continued to try and defend yourself and the thread closing decision before huffing out of the thread makes it look like you know your position is indefensible but you’re just incapable of admitting it.

[x-ray_vision]

@TubaDiva

None of the members of the Ohio National Guard who fired on the protesters were ever prosecuted.

So … was it an unlawful order? Apparently not.

This might be the dumbest thing I’ve read coming from a mod/admin on this board.

This isn’t about what one judge found in one particular case. It’s like saying a cop who has been found not guilty of killing an unarmed man proves that it’s not unlawful to follow an order to kill an unarmed man. I’m stunned.

[x-ray_vision]

@engineer_comp_geek

If you want to attack the policies, that’s fine. That’s what ATMB is for. But taking it to the extreme of saying that the entire moderation staff is so evil that we are advocating shooting unarmed civilians is a little too close to an outright attack on the staff.

CarnalK did not say the moderation staff advocated doing something; he said the moderation staff said something was allowed to be done. There is a big difference between those things.

The entire moderation staff didn’t say it- TubaDiva did. TubaDiva claimed that it wasn’t illegal to shoot upon unarmed civilians yet didn’t condone it. The only mistake CarnalK made was attributing a belief one staff member has to the entire staff.

After taking a second look at CarnalK’s post, you’ll see that’s the case and should rescind the note. He never claimed you advocated shooting anyone.

[x-ray_vision]

Engineer_comp_geek, can you please respond to the above post?

[Jasmine]

Soldiers not only have the right to disobey “unlawful orders”, they an obligation to do so, otherwise they will have to deal with the consequences.

What to Know about Obeying an Unlawful Military Order

Lawful Orders

Military members failing to obey lawful orders issued by their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) outlines the crime of willful disobedience by a military member a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 covers willful disobedience of a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 conveys what constitutes the crime of disobedience of any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article).

These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. Not only should an unlawful order not be obeyed, obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders.

"I Was Only Following Orders. "

“I was only following orders,” has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II).

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound for any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the authorization order, he wrote that U.S. Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. Maritime Court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the “I was only following orders” defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution.

In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed an order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that “the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.” (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).

Probably the most famous case of the “I was only following orders” defense was the court-martial of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley’s argument of obeying the order of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Having said all that, I have to add that soldiers are aware of the Rules of Engagement and the standards our United States military personnel are expected to uphold. Their behavior is not nor ever should be governed by the whims or opinions of the general population, it should be based on their oath and the laws surrounding that oath.

Personally, I thought the O.P.'s post was overly dramatic, unnecessary, and potentially incendiary in nature. I have no objection to it being closed.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@x-ray_vision

Engineer_comp_geek, can you please respond to the above post?

“Unlike the staff here” is a dig at the entire staff, one way or another. The note stands.

It’s a note, not a warning. There are no long-term repercussions for CarnalK or anyone else in this thread.

The note instructed everyone to dial back the attacks and/or sweeping generalizations against the staff. Everyone complied. As far as I’m concerned, the note served its purpose and the matter is done with.

[x-ray_vision]

@engineer_comp_geek

“Unlike the staff here” is a dig at the entire staff, one way or another. The note stands.

What if he said “Unlike TubaDiva”, would that have been a dig? Is it a dig because the entire staff was equated with being like TubaDiva?

It’s a note, not a warning. There are no long-term repercussions for CarnalK or anyone else in this thread.

What sort of long-term repercussions have the staff here suffered due to his comment? What’s wrong with the “it’s just a note” mentality has been discussed plenty on this board. I’m sure you’ve read and/or participated in some threads about it. I can link to some posts that it explain better than I have the time for if you like. The fact that it’s important enough to “remain standing” shows it has meaning.

@CarnalK

I don’t mind the note but I didn’t remotely call anyone evil, nor did I say the staff “advocate” the shooting of unarmed civilians.

Which is true. Engineer_comp_geek, retracting your claim would be nice.

[Peter_Morris]

" I don’t agree that the military should be allowed to shoot unarmed civilians. Unlike the staff here."

There are at least three ways that statement can be parsed.

e_c_g, just to be clear, is the issue with the implication that the staff here should be shot? If so, I don’t think its any worse than calling them “jackbooted thugs” which has always been allowed.

[CarnalK]

I vote that you drop it.

[x-ray_vision]

@CarnalK

I vote that you drop it.

It’s not up to a vote and I’m not bringing this up just for your sake and I doubt others that have shown they have issues with the moderation are doing so just for your sake either.