We can agree that they refused to obey orders; that in and of itself isn’t mutiny, otherwise not obeying or disobeying any order is mutiny.
We can agree that there was no violence involved; at least, that there was no violence reported. The 19 just didn’t show up at the appointed time.
Since there are 19, and since all 19 didn’t show up for duty, we have pretty good evidence that they acted in concert. But it could be coincidental (something the military rarely believes in).
So the big qualifier is this: did they mean to usurp or override lawfull military authority. To my way of thinking, this is the part that would be impossible to accomplish without some form of violence.
They did not “dispose of” their commanding officer by killing him, wounding him, or subduing and restraining him, and then replacing him with someone else (who would, presumably, give them less dangerous missions).
As such, I am thinking that “mutiny” might not apply.
Okay…so I’ve read several acounts of this story and the one thing that everyone here apparently missed or just blew off is the fact that these guys have done this mission numerous times in the past few months. The accounts that I read weren’t that they refused to make the run out of fear BUT they refused to deliver helicopter fuel that was an endangerment for the soldiers that would be using these helicopters.
That is to me a hell of a big difference than saying they refused out of fear for their own lives.
Could they be charged with mutiny? Well, yeah I suppose they could be charged… would it stick? No way in hell. Not if the facts reveal the fuel was dangerous. BTW the run was completed by another unit ?
Yeah that’s true. One with an escort and 5 times the personel.
God forbid one of those choppers should crash because of a fuel problem.
t-keela I addressed this in the beginning of the thread. It was not up to these troops to make that determination. Sounds like they are trying to make their case seem better after the fact. As I stated earlier, fuel that is contaminated by aviation standards can still be used in tanks and other vehicles. There is a lower standard for fuel due to the low probability of a tank falling to the earth from 500 feet. They don’t know why the fuel was needed, what they were going to do with or who the fuel was ultimately going to.
Could you please link to the story(s) you are reading about this? Because I have heard BG Chambers on FOX News deny that the fuel was contaminated.
And I have NOT heard that the “second” convoy delivered fuel to an aviation unit, or that it was any different from the originally planned convoy.
Hell, I haven’t even heard it confirmed that the originally planned convoy was scheduled to deliver to an aviation unit.
Just a scared soldier calling home after they were detained (boy, they were really detained really well; they called home and raised hell :rolleyes: ) who then claimed that the fuel was contaminated.
ABC News is reporting that it was diesel fuel contaminated with some jet fuel (kerosene, presumably).
Thank goodness for preview or I would have looked right stupid… I had this nice big post all made up to defend why it was not mutiny and the discussion moved right along without me!
Loach - you are so right. It is not up to individual soldiers to make this discrimination. If it was, the military would cease to function as a fighting unit. Full stop.
T-keela - Soldiers DO NOT get to question orders based on the grounds of safety. But there exist options for soldiers to use to question orders that they think are incorrect without going outside of their chain of command - hell, it’s what First Sergeants are there for! To act as a liason between the enlisted and officer ranks in the chain of command. But in this case, it just sounds like they screwed up rather badly and now are trying desperately to cover their own assess.
And as for the quote - what is the kid’s granddad going to say, that his grandson is a coward? I would take that with a grain of sand…
I have to agree with DtC in this case, although it’s simply from reading the text of the UCMJ, not from an understanding of case histories.
XT: Note this ciritcal passage from your own cite:
Seems like the distinction that needs to be drawn is that this was one instance of disobeying an order, not a “presistent” refusal. IOW, disobey one order, and you have “disobeyed an order”. Do it repeatedly in concert with others and that may add up to mutiny.
ExTank & Loach don’t think I am supporting their insubordination although I think it’s a bit short of actual mutiny.
I was merely adding some onfo to the debate that I felt had been overlooked that could be relevant. What’s true or not true…will be dtermined later. None of us HERE know what the facts are.
I know that the military can’t allow gross insubordination to go unchecked. They might as well pack it up and come home if that’s the case.
Persistent refusal does not mean refusing more than one order, it means refusing one order persistently. If given a second chance to comply and you still will not obey then it may be mutiny.
John, I don’t think that quite covers it. I’m sure, once they failed to show, that someone (with some heft on their collar) went and found them and said something along the lines of, “Git yer asses moving NOW!”
Which they again refused to do. Because unless they were in hiding, their unit knows exactly where they are, what tent they sleep in, what mess hall they eat in, etc,.
In my mind, this is looking ever more like cowardice.
I think it may fall short here to. I am arguing the point that this case could be a mutiny not that it is. I was trying to correct the idea that violence needed to be involved for a charge of mutiny. I think that has been established. In fact if you don’t remember this is the quote that started this tangent:
I refuted that as did several others. In this specific case I believe there are probably mitigating factors which will make this a lesser charge.
Point taken, but I can’t reconcile my non-lawyerly mind to that idea that mutiny must be an attempt to usurp ALL authority, not just SOME authority. While there is clearly a grey area in this, it’s just hard to imagine that this instance would be considered mutiny since it so specific.
I won’t argue one way or another on that, except that I don’t think it’s relavent to whether or not this is mutiny.
It is a lot more complicated than did they get scared from everything I’ve read thus far. Okay this platoon of 19 reserves didn’t ALL “mutiny”. They had recently undergone fire from a previous trip in which they were refused delivery of this same fuel. The platoon leader said he wouldn’t put his guys in harms way again on this.
Four or five “soldiers” had expressed several concerns including the fact that the fuel was bad, the trucks were wore out and they had no escort and had just tried to deliver the same load and were attacked.
Rather than refusing orders…they just didn’t show up for the meeting.
There were several phone calls that followed and the families of these people started all of the crap that’s been printed these past few days. The miliatary isn’t saying much except that the unit has been ordered to stand down pending safety inspection. They are to do no more runs in the meantime. BTW this unit has recived numerous commendations in the past for the performance of theor duties. I wouldn’t call them cowards. The 343 has done thousands of runs in the past 9 months they’ve been in Iraq.
The most recent thing I saw a report stating that 4 of the insurgents would be given a general discharge (they were overdue anyway) and sent home. No further charges and the 3 or 4 others involved were to be transferred to another unit…case closed.
Nope. I’m 100% correct, I guarantee you. You have no intent to usurp authority. Just a refusal of orders. In order for a concerted refusal of orders to constitute mutiny you need a long term, persistent pattern of refusals and you must show that the intent of those refusals was to usurp authority. You do not have those elements here. You’re wrong. I know it kills you, but I’m right on this one. A charge of mutiny is a hard one to meet. It really does require an effort or intent to abrogate or remove a rightful authority. There is no such effort or intent here.
And you bravely make that judgement from security of your computer chair.
It sounds like common sense to me. These guys had run these missions before. There’s a difference between being brave and being stupid and we are in no moral position to make pronouncements about their courage.
Why not? As has been so eloquently posted earlier, I do believe it is not a requirement to be a surgeon to say that leaving a sponge in someone after surgery is bad.
Why is it so impossible to have a view that these 19 guys, who decided that instead of questioning orders legally, they would vote with their feet, in fact expressed their cowardice rather than good judgement? I doubt their motivations when they say, ‘We won’t go,’ especially because of their previous experiences under fire. If I get shot at, then get asked to do exactly the same thing as I did when I got shot at, a natural human reaction is ‘don’t do that again.’
That is the fallacy of expressing civilian views on the military world - natural human reactions, such as running away, are quite frequently exactly the wrong thing to do in a military situation.
