Rather than hijack the Perfect soldier thread, I thought I’d start a new one.
So, is “I’m sorry, but I’m not intelligent enough to have seen it that way.” or “Look mate, I’m just a private; if I were as intelligent as you, I’d be a lawyer too.” a defence against prosecution for obeying orders which turn out to be dodgy?
Factual answers please.
It isn’t a question of fact, it’s a question of opinion and judgement. A jury is going to ask whether the defendant can be reasonably expected to have known he was being given an illegal order.
It might be if there are precedents.
I got your precedent right here.
Boss gave the order, the order was followed. The subordinate got busted, the boss got nothing.
Vague, sorry. My point is, no. It is not a good excuse by itself. There will be judgement of the situation involved.
Agreed, insufficient by itself. In military OR civilian court, it takes a certain high level of impairment to render you “incompetent to stand trial” or to plead the “insanity defense”. Otherwise the jury has to analyze the facts and circumstances, and ask themselves mks57’s question.
Captain M got killed in action before Me Lai was exposed. After he was killed, his name got sullied. I know of no documentary evidence such an order was ever given.
The Dumb Soldier defense will not (IMHO) fly. to allow it would be to open the flood gates.
Captain Ernest L. Medina, the company commander, was not killed in Vietnam. He was charged with murder, tried by General Court Martial at Fort Benning and found not guilty. He later resigned his commission. Here is a short biography. It is my recollection that either the battalion or brigade commander, maybe both, had been killed and that effectively prevented taking the prosecutions any farther up the chain than the company commander, Meadina.
I thought basic rules of war were taught in all basic training programs in the military?
Not that it matters a shit anyway: ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Basic military law is taught in Initial Entry training, at least in the US and, presumably, the forces of other Western democracies. Soldiers are taught to obey orders that seem reasonable and proper and to question or refuse those that don’t. If Lt. Jones tells PFC Smith to take the CD player our of Sgt. Johnson’s barracks room and put it in the trunk of Lt. Jones’ car, PFC Smith needs to take a long look at the situation. In the absence of other circumstances (Johnson is facing official punishment from Jones or the like) Smith is culpable for his actions.
Now, if Johnson were in trouble but Jones is still trying to illegally obtain Johnsons’ personal possessions, Smith would have an out.
I had been horribly misinformed. Thank you for correcting me.
It’s all part of the confusion of the fog of war… Remember that exchange in Apocolypse Now: “Who’s in charge here?” “Ain’t YOU ?!”
Good discussions of the Superior Orders defense.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/12/carter.england.defense/
http://www.unt.edu/honors/eaglefeather/2004_Issue/HensonC4.shtml
http://www.historians.org/projects/GIRoundtable/Criminals/Criminals7.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-20-following-orders_x.htm