No there couldn’t. There was no attempt to usurp or override authority. “Override” still means to abrogate or subordinate authority. A mere refusal of orders is not enough to constitute “mutiny.”
A refusal of an order by an idividual is not a mutiny. If a unit or group refuses an order then they are declaring null and void the authority over them. This is mutiny. To “usurp or override”. Seizing control and putting someone in charge is one way of having a mutiny. Getting together and declaring that the lawfull orders of those above them are null and void is another way. I have had many UCMJ classes and briefings. Feel free to quote any you have been to.
I’m not sure how much more clear it can be, “refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty”.
BTW if you are saying that you don’t think that *in this case * there won’t be a charge of mutiny I agree. However, if you are saying that just refusing an order is not enough for a charge of mutiny you are wrong for the reasons stated above.
The Cynic:
More along the lines of “time honored tradition.”
I dunno. Are you a military expert?
Not really. Remember, I’ve “been there, done that.” I not-so-fondly recall all of the crap they tried to heap on us until our tanks looked like some kind of post-apocalyptic Gypsy-wagon, simply because they tried to cover every conceivable contingeny. Of course, it was all shredded into confetti when the Iraqis started shelling us with artillery, so for the last half of several missions, we didn’t even have a spare change of underwear to our name.
We were so laden with crap that it actually became a hinderance in the performance of our duties as tank crewmen, and in one case, it actually threatened the lives of the crew when the extra NBN Protective Suits we were required to keep inside the tanks caught on fire from having hot Main Gun ejecta land on top of them.
Fortunately, the Halon Fire Suppression System did what it was supposed to do. I’m sure glad they took their time to get the M-1 design right instead of rushing it through just to satisfy the political whims of partisan pundits and armchair generals.
Having the right equipment is necessary, of course. Determining exactly what is the right equipment is tricky, because soldiers can only carry so much, and only so much fits inside the vehicles.
People with a lot more knowledge and experience that you and I study that problem constantly, just as right now they are studying the Body Armor problem.
Believe me, the Armor will do no good if it is too heavy to wear comfortably for extended periods, is too hot, etc., because it will be cutting into the soldier’s combat effectiveness.
If it wasn’t body armor you’re bitching about, it’d be something else, like first-aid kits or NBC decon kits, something. Body armor is just the most convenient “handle” for you and other anti-Bushies to grab onto.
And since other soldiers from the same unit lived through the very same mission and delivered the fuel, it appears it wasn’t so “bullshit” or “pointless.”
Well, at least something we agree on. The damned Clinton appointees should’ve started the ball rolling on Body Armor Requisitions back in '96-'98. That way, our soldiers might have them by the end of this decade.
elucidator:
Prove that the military leadership has committed the equivalent of leaving a sponge inside a person.
What I believe we have is more along the lines of a surgeon [the military] prepping to do an appendectomy, checking the x-rays and seeing a swollen appendix, cutting the patient open, removing the appendix, and then sewing the patient up. Routine operation.
A day later, the patient has a 104* temperature, heart arrhythmia, liver failure, renal shutdown, and cancer spreading like wildfire, because some other doctor [political leadership] misdiagnosed the patient and the x-ray technicians [civillian intelligence agencies] accidentally switched x-rays.
Sorry for the urban legend, I should have known that was crap. I do know that according to the UCMJ, there is no regulation prohibiting physical punishment. So apologies.
And I know how hard DIs can make it without any physical contact. Even in the Air Force they were pretty tough, but they had nothing on the instructors at the Pararescue school I went to until injury took me out… those boys were truly sadists. 
Loach - These guys are not going to be tried for mutiny; they called home. I also disagree with your interpretation of military law. For mutiny to exist, there must be planning and collaboration before the failure to follow orders. It sounds like, from the news story, that these 13 guys just stood up together and said hell no, we won’t go.
Mutiny, especially in time of war, is punishable by death, due to it’s destructive effect on higher authority in the military. This clearly was a bunch of guys who thought they could get out of a dangerous mission by playing latrine lawyers.
What remains to be seen / proven, is:
- Were the vehicles in question fully mission capable? If so, these guys are hosed from a legal standpoint. If not, then they will likely get adminstrative punishment and the officers in charge will get hosed.
- If it was so dangerous (convoy of death sounds like a press invention to me), why did a similar element from the same unit perform an identical mission later in the day without casualties? Did they have different vehicles / leadership? If they had the same vehicles or even type of vehicles, then the guys who said no are truly in for some rough military justice. And in my opinion this makes them cowards as well, of the worst sort - ready to let their buddies do something dangerous but willing to lie to save themselves.
ExTank - I ain’t touching yours with a ten foot pole, mostly cause you’re right but also cause I don’t want to piss you off
No matter how many people refuse an order, it still isn’t mutiny unless there is an attempt to abrogate authoryrt, which there wasn’t. You’re wrong, I’m right. Learn to live with it.
I’ve been following this thread with interest, but didn’t really have much to add that ExTank,Loach and some of the others have already brought up. My own experiences were from the Navy, but its not THAT much different (despite what the Army pukes have to say about it) as far as this subject is concerned.
However, I’d like to weigh in on this point. DtC is the one wrong here (as a side not making a categoric statement that I’m right and you aren’t so live with it isn’t going to win you many debates DtC…you know better than that).
An individual refusing to obey an order isn’t mutiny…a GROUP of sailors (or soldiers) who, in concert, refuse to obey a direct order (and in a war zone to boot) certain CAN be viewed (and prosecuted) as mutiny. I seriously doubt it WILL be, in this case…but thats more because of political reasons than military ones.
They compounded their fuckup (IMO) by not going through the chain of command but refusing a direct order and then going public with it. There is a right way to ‘refuse orders’…and these clowns didn’t take it. I don’t know WHY they didn’t, or what maddness made them go PUBLIC with this thing. I don’t think the non-military dopers really are getting how serious that is, and what information their public disclosure gives to the enemy. That alone COULD get them some pretty hefty jail time (though I doubt it will in this case).
:rolleyes: I HOPE this was a whoosh on your part.
-XT
Actualy, GomiBoy, 19 soldiers failed to appear at the appointed time for their duty. The only way you can get that is if, after having been briefed on the mission (probably the night before), they got together and decided they weren’t going to show up at the 7:00 AM formation.
Collusion at least, conspiracy amongst the ringleaders possibly.
Read the stinking UCMJ, refusing orders, even as a group, is not mutiny unless it is done as part of an attempt to usurp or override authority.
You people don’t know what you’re talking about.
Not sure we’ve got a disagreement here, Tank. As Dio says, my beef is with the civilian “leadership”. They make the decisions, they set the tasks. I am perfectly certain that our military could do a splendid job invading Belgium, I am equally certain that would be stupid.
By the by, have you seen the following:?
Do I hold Tommy Franks accountable? Of course not. Do I hold GeeDubya accountable. Youbetcha!
That’s a little harsh I think, considering at least some of us (me, for one) agree with you.
You may be right, although there are ways that it couldn’t be. It’s not beyond the realms of reality that these 19 guys decided individually to not show up; maybe one or more made comments such as ‘this is bullshit’ after the briefing. Doesn’t mean conspiracy or collusion.
Either way, it’s still not ‘mutiny’ unless they actively did so to usurp / override the relevant authority; if they simply didn’t want to go, that doesn’t mean they wanted to replace legal authority with their own. I do agree that this will lead to stronger punishment for the ringleaders, but in fact the actions of the ringleaders do not meet the legal definition of mutiny.
Look, I am not saying these guys aren’t going to be toast. I think they are, for breaking security, for going outside the chain of command, for cowardice (in my opinion, but probably legally defensible charges), for missing a movement, for failure to follow direct orders, and for conduct unbecoming. These guys are toast.
But this ain’t mutiny, this is a group of soldiers refusing a legal order and not doing it the right way so as to save their own asses.
As for my beef with the civilian leadership, I plan on saving that for another thread.
Nice debating technique, can I borrow that? Please clarify if you are arguing that no group refusing to obey an order are guilty of mutiny or if in your inexpert opinion that these soldiers are not guilty of it. If you are talking about this specific case then, as I said, I agree that they will not be charged with mutiny. If not I think we have different definitions of “override” and “abrogate”. My definitions are “to declare null and void” and “to abolish or annul authority:nullify”. One way to nullify the authority of those above you is to refuse their orders as a group. Thats mutiny. Always has been, always will be. Its what I quoted in the law, its what I learned in my first UCMJ class in basic training, PLDC, OCS, OBC and 15+ years of military service. Cite?
Really? Have you tried reading the WHOLE thing?
You can now remove your foot from your mouth. In future, try reading the entire text FIRST before making such statements or accusing others of not having a clue. Also, you COULD have simple gone on google and looked up actual mutiny CASES under the UCMJ (there are several dealing with soldiers/sailors accused of mutiny because they refused lawful orders)…it might have spared you some pain here.
-XT
GomiBoy: I was skimming articles about this on the net when I sort of came to the same conclusion as you: that the charges of:
are the most likely. Mutiny may be a stretch, but for political reasons instead of purely militarily legal ones. IMO, but IANA(Military)L.
I’ll just add a “damn straight” to xtisme’s post about the seriousness of going outside channels.
Big time no-no for anything less than absolute dire circumstances. And be prepared to get reamed anyway, with the “dire circumstances” justification coming MUCH later, looong after you’ve had your head handed to you in a paper sack.
Again you do not need to have a plan to replace your leaders for it to be a mutiny. Abrogating thier authority is enough.
Wasn’t setting a trap here…forgot to include this section:
You are simply wrong here DtC. These guys certainly COULD be prosecuted under the UCMJ for mutiny. I doubt they WILL be, but they COULD be.
-XT
Maybe I misread article 94, but when I read it I took it to mean that all of those factors were required for it to be mutiny; that is, refuse orders, as well as acting in concert with another, for the purpose of usurping authority.
For example, article 90 covers disobeying lawful orders, while article 91 covers insubordination / disobeying NCOs, while article 94 covers mutiny and sedition, and article 99 covers misbehaviour in front of the enemy.
If disobeying orders and mutiny were one and the same, why have separate articles in the UCMJ covering them?
I definitely agree with you. My personal opinion is to hang these guys from the nearest lamp post, but I don’t think this was mutiny…
The point you are missing is: “Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties requires collective insubordination and necessarily includes some combination of two or more persons in resisting lawful military authority.” If an individual soldier refuses to obey orders he can be prosecuted under a different statute…i.e. its not mutiny but something else. If a GROUP of sailors refuse do perform their duty or obey orders though its mutiny.
Why all the statutes? Because the UCMJ stems from earlier times (articles of war I think) and is a hodgepodge of codes and behaviors that have been codified into law. Also, different behaviors mean different things to the military mind than to the civilian mind.
Best I can do…I was just petty officer, not one of the deep thinkers (or a sea lawyer for that matter 
).
-XT
They are not the same. For mutiny you need both intent and collusion between several troops. There are separate articles because mutiny has always been considered a more serious crime.