See closed thread here and ATMB discussion here.
If President Trump gave such an order any soldier receiving it would have a have a legal (let alone moral) obligation to refuse such an order.
Now I’ll grant an exception for a serious threat to the lives of others even if unarmed.
I would further resolve that those in the military should be encouraged to remember that legal and ethical obligation.
Open for debate.
Shooting unarmed civilians would probably be classified as a war crime. If, hypothetically, the military were mobilized, I think that it would be imperative for all Americans to reach out to any military that they know and remind them that they are not required to follow unlawful orders.
I’m wondering what a reasonable definition of “armed” might be. If the soldiers are armed with overwhelming force, and there is no physical threat to any third party, then surely it’s no less a war crime to order them to open fire on a group of civilians 50 feet away wielding crude improvised weapons. There must be surely be some kind of “fish in a barrel” factor where heavily armed military are involved. It can’t be the same criterion as (say) a regular cop facing a guy with a knife who could credibly kill him.
Define unarmed.
If the soldiers feel that their lives are being threatened via weapons possessed by said citizens even if they aren’t firearms, they should have the right to defend themselves.
What about non-citizens?
Obviously so.
But clearly I was considering the converse, that surely it’s not sufficient that a civilian be armed in order to make an order to shoot them legal. In many situations, the military will be armed with overwhelming force, and not be under any significant threat.
Do soliders have the right to defend themselves with lethal force, absent orders?
Further question - how do the Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act work together? I can’t tell if or how bringing in certain branches of the military would be legal (or not).
If there’s a peaceful protest of 100 people, and there’s one person with a gun, soldiers should not have a right to shoot anyone except that one. Whether or not they’re non-citizens: the war crime is shooting unarmed civilians, not unarmed citizens.
It may be a crime but it’s not a “war crime” when there is no war.
Look there are all sorts of specific situations we can imagine where an order to fire on unarmed civilians might not be illegal. That’s what defense lawyers are there for. But as a general rule, the OP is correct.
You can’t fire on unarmed foreigners either.
I think the “would” in the thread title should be a “should”. After the events at the Episcopal church in D.C., my guess is that any such order would be followed. IMHO we’re dangerously close to an American version of Tiananmen Square. I doubt that there are enough people in the military who care about what is actually right that would refuse such orders, again my cite being the events that have already happened at numerous protests. I see no reason that the military would behave any differently than the various police departments have been.
Blame my thread title.
Chosen though to avoid any discussion of “extrajudicial executions” of unarmed non citizens deemed to be threats.
Got it. I thought that was a weird objection, but didn’t notice the wording in the title.
Rickjay actually appears to be correct in his pedantry: after a paragraph discussing various war crimes, it states:
It looks like Crimes against humanity might be the appropriate term:
So, if the military were commanded to fire on civilian protestors in multiple places as part of a governmental policy, there’s a pretty strong case that that’s a crime against humanity.
None of the war crimes/crimes against humanity laws apply to the United States by deliberate self-exclusion. The US does not support the ICC and in fact has threatened to arrest and prosecute ICC officials who act against Americans:
Whether or not it would be a “war crime” or a “crime against humanity” and whether or not the ICC would have jurisdiction, U.S. service members are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. According to Article 118 of the UCMJ
is guilty of murder. While Article 92 makes it a crime under military law to refuse to obey a lawful order, it does have to be a lawful order.
The issue is that it’s unlikely to be anything like a direct order to “kill those unarmed people over there, even though they clearly pose no direct danger to anyone’s life or limb”. And in the event of the inevitable ambiguity and doubt, the military will have a strong bias towards obeying the orders of the legitimate President. And the Republicans have made it pretty damned clear that, short of “Round up all the Democrats and shoot them!”, they won’t do a damned thing about anything Trump does. And Trump’s “base” among the American public–not anything like a majority, but a substantial minority of the people–will accept anything short of Trump abolishing the Republic and proclaiming himself Emperor.
Depends on the scale of the fight. If it’s a full blown insurrection or civil war of course unarmed folks are going to be targeted and killed if they are vital to the opposition’s war effort. That’s how wars are won and insurrections ended. If it is a mostly peaceful group with one or two armed rabble rousers strafing with an A-10 would be vastly disproportionate.
It doesn’t matter if this is how you think the world should be this is how the world is.
dupe from timeout thingy
I disagree. Given the thinnest veneer of excuse and/or blame, and looking at the unending chain of “last straw” events we have gone through to date, I truly believe that in either case there would be no “stopping short”.
Going all Bloody Sunday like 1 Para in (London)Derry is manifestly unlawful.
Using lethal force to prevent a position from being overrun by a large mob, may not be. Depends on the circumstances.
There is no right answer, sans examination of the context.
Public spaces are not military “positions”.
Would you consider the White House grounds “public spaces”?
Leaving aside the 82nd Airborne shooting people in The Mall, what about a mob of unarmed people rushing the White House? If you were in command what would you tell your Company to do if they were charged with protecting the White House?