I train soldiers to defend themselves. I train soldiers to obey commands. I do not train soldiers to commit crimes. Murder is a crime. I do not want to get into a PC arguement either, but a Soldier will be more willing to engage a target than s/he will be to commit murder. I don’t care if you support the Armed Services or not, but I will thank you to not label heroes as felons.
Sgt Schwartz
What does this sentence mean?
It means that a responsible soldier will be willing to perform his lawful duties and carry out lawful orders. It also means that a responsible soldier will not be willing to commit murder.
It’s quite simplistic to say “killing is murder, regardless.” That’s simply not true. There is such a thing, after all, as self-defense. That alone negates the premise.
I meant that when we train we shoot at targets. These targets may be paper silhouettes, plastic pop-ups, or even human beings. (note, humans targets are not used for training) The principle is the same, you shoot at a target be it paper, plastic, or flesh. You do not murder people unless you want to be prosecuted by applicable laws.
Sgt Schwartz
Morally, or legally not murderers ? And by whose standards ? To use the obvious example, a German soldier who helped killed Jews because he was ordered to was morally a murderer, and was executing his duty at the same time; if Germany had won, and German law had refused to prosecute such killings as murder, he still would have been a murderer. Morally, if not legally.
It is illegal to follow an unlawful command.
Oh Christ, I should have expected you, Der Trihs. I am speaking legally. Morals may also apply. As you should know, a soldier in the United States Army is required to disregard an unlawful order. I’m not so sure about soldiers in the German Army during WWII. If you would like, I will qualify the OP with Servicemembers currently serving in combat who are acting within the capacity of their duties are not murderers. Assholes who detonate bombs where non-combatants are, OTOH, are murderers.
Sgt Schwartz
Yes it is actually.
Yes I actually did this over a much lesser issue that shooting someone. I was given an order by a Lt Jg that was unlawful and I fought him on it with the higher ups and he was the one that got smacked down.
Jim
This would imply that you believe that I would issue an unlawful command. Also, this is getting away from the OP. Soldiers may commit murder, but not all killings by soldiers are legally murder.
Sgt Schwartz
What Exit?, what was the order? I’m just curious.
10 points to Der Trihs for instantly Godwinizing the thread!
I would like to understand your point of view more clearly. This is how I would look at it.
If a soldier is ordered to go over a hill and shoot the enemy: Not murder.
If a soldier on his own decides a peaceful unarmed family in a village are actually guerillas: Murderer even if proven correct.
If a soldier obeys a command to massacre a village: Following an unlawful order and guilty but less guilty than the Officer or NCO giving the command.
Sees a figure in door-to-door combat with what looks like a weopon: Shoots an kills a kid with a broom: Tragic and sad, but not murder.
How do you feel about these 4 scenarios?
Jim
This is the only one of your scenarios I would object to, and my only problem is that there is not a varying degree of guilt. As far as I am concerned the guilt is equal, from bottom to top.
I think I’m going to call you on this one. It’s not “Godwinizing” if the analogy fits the situation. German soldiers in WWII followed orders that were lawful(in Germany) but certainly immoral. Were they murderers?
I was ordered to attend a prayer service given by a Televangelist on the Hanger Bay with a huge lit up cross on display. I refused on the basic of it violated my right to freedom of religion. He asked me where that reg was and I said in the Constitution. He did not believe me, I had to go to legal and as I was explaining the problem to a Yeoman, the Lt Cmd. in charge of legal had overheard and instructed me to go tell Lt Foster to call him ASAP. I was forced to keep the shit-eating grin off my face as I a lowly E3 watched a Lt Jg. get chewed down to the size of a mouse.
Lt Jg. Foster than informed me I was correct that it was an unlawful order but I would have to stand by in my Dress Blues in case of any electrical problems on the hanger bay. I then pissed him off further by reminding him that while wearing my Dress Blues, I could not do any electrical work unless it was an actual emergency. He finally told me to stand by in the lighting shop in inspection quality Dungaree Uniform for any work related requirements they might have. A few weeks later he got transferred to the Boatswain department, making E-Div a happy place.
Jim
Fair, but there is a good chance the soldier is a fairly ignorant and less than bright 18 year old and the person giving the orders is either an experienced senior NCO or at least a college educated 22 year Lt.
Jim
Here have some definitions of murder:
I would say that soilders acting in accordance of our laws are not murderers. They could be correctly labled as killers if you need to do so.
Situation 1: Not murder.
Situation 2: Regardless of the outcome, most Soldiers are not given the freedom to decide who to shoot. There are Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), and Rules of Engagement (ROE) that determine who is the enemy. A soldier who violates these is subject to prosecution. (Maybe murder, maybe not depending on the situation)
Situation 3: I would really have a hard time deciding who is more at fault. Destroying an entire village should strike a WTF chord in the Soldier involved, but I would not try to determine who is more at fault in that situation. That is what General Officers are for.
Situation 4: I have provided counseling to a Soldier in a similar situation. A boy was pointing an object that looked like a rifle to the driver of an Army truck. The driver tried to run the boy over and, fortunatly missed him. No charges would have been filed. More to the point of your question, if the Soldier felt threatened, he has the right to defend himself. OTOH, if he kicks in a door and begins shooting, unprovoked, he may be charged with a crime.
Sgt Schwartz
Ffft, what kind of wuss army are you training, there?
That is true. I often refer to my Soldiers as “Killers” because that is what they may be. None, I hope, will be murderers.
Sgt Schwartz
Like someone once said, Godwin’s rule doesn’t apply once they start actually building concentration camps. If the subject involves soldiers who commit murder by the orders of their superiors, which group springs instantly to mind ? The Nazis; they were the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title.
Sgt Schwartz, the problem with speaking legally and not morally in this matter, is that a government usually writes the law so that whatever evil it commits is legal by it’s own laws. Legally speaking, soldiers are generally not going to be considered murderers for carrying out their duties, even if those duties are indeed Nazi level massacres - as long as their side wins, of course. As far as I’m concerned, the legal argument over whether or not a soldier is a murderer for enganging in his duty is fairly meaningless, since in practical terms it boils down to might makes right. He’s a murderer if his side loses; not a murderer if it wins.