Keep in mind, though, that when you and you squad are holed up and cut off in the jungle, and your squad leader says to do something that all the other guys think is suicide, well… let’s just say I didn’t hear anything, did you guys? No? It was real loud out there, sir, couldn’t hear a damn thing.
There are times and places in this world where laws seem an awful lot like suggestions, and courts are something you have to deal with when you get home.
It’s not as much of a “catch-all” as people, mostly civilians, get the impression it is. A Commanding Officer can’t just throw that article around and prosecute someone for the fun of it. It must be for one of the acts listed as a violation of that article. Those acts will be listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial.
In Heinlein’s book Space Cadet, one of the cadets is given an order by his training officer to eat his pie with a fork instead of with his hands. The cadet had just read through the rulebook, and decided to sass the officer by asking him to put that order in writing. The officer complied, then immediately put another order in writing for the cadet to report to the commander of the base to discuss the legality and appropriateness of such orders.
Point being, they can make things more annoying for you than you can for them.
nvm
IIRC, the Cadet in question was rifling through the rulebook and asked another Cadet, the (ostensibly) smartest of the three protagonists of the story, if there were anything in said book that permitted such an order by a superior Cadet. The (ostensibly) smartest Cadet then advised the first one to ask the superior to put that order in writing. The superior Cadet put two orders in writing: one, eat pie with a fork, and two, report to the superior Cadet’s quarters later in the evening for further instruction. That instruction included the rationale behind the superior’s orders and also advice to be relayed to the (ostensibly) smartest Cadet.
My favorite part of the story was when the [del]Three Amigos[/del] three protagonists were on liberty either on the Moon or the space station and one of them got drunk rather rapidly (off of possibly just one drink) and an officer who saw the three told one of them, “Tell Cadet Jarmon to quiet down before I have to go over there and ask his name.” The line just cracks me up.
Yes, you’re required to follow all lawful, yet stupid, orders.
Well, TBH, I don’t think I would consider pulling it in theater.
On base, though, if I got an order to subject someone to a code red, might be a different story.
Keep in mind that Gitmo was being used as a prison in 1992 as well (for Haitians and Cubans).
I followed hundreds of stupid orders over 24 years of service. Hell I even had to give a few stupid orders myself. One of the best ways to get rid of a poor officer or senior enlisted is to do exactly what they tell you to do. Nothing less and nothing more. Of course you don’t take such action if it could cause death or injury. Usually I’d try to discuss it with my superior. BTW: I’m not talking about during the heat of battle. I’m talking about the normal day-to-day stuff.
As far as being ordered on a suicide mission, there is a concept of the unlimited liability clause in the military. You can be ordered to die. It’s one of the things that separates the military from most other occupations.
Is there any distinction between having to follow orders that have a high risk of death for any given individual and an order that has a certainty of death for a specific individual.
“We have 20 minutes to clear this minefield. We know there are 20 mines in the field. You 20, start running back and forth until the field is clear.” Or in the starkest example presumably an officer couldn’t say “we need a body to distract their cadaver dog while we plant explosives on this bridge. Corporal Jones, shoot yourself in the head.”
So is there a point in the spectrum from “risk of death” to “likelihood of death” to “certainty of death” where an order is no longer lawful?
I’m pretty sure there’s nothing wrong with such an order, although, again, there’s no way the soldier is going to follow it and there’s no way any of the rest of the squad is going to tolerate that. Mutinies are illegal, of course, but when it’s between you and five other guys, there are a lot of secrets that can be kept.
Similar to your bridge example, a pissed off Drill Sergeant once ordered me to eat my own head. Damned if I didn’t try. I have no idea how they say this stuff with a straight face.
Is there some limitation on this principle? Suppose a squad is out in the middle of the forest and the officer in charge thinks that their objective is north and the kill-death-minefield is south, and everyone else in the squad thinks the objective is south and the kill-death-minefield is north, and the officer orders them to go north, and they all go south instead. If they ended up being right, but the officer still decided to press charges, would he have a legal leg to stand on?
Sure. They disobeyed an order. End of story. Now, would that officer press charges? That’s the real question. Chances are his superiors will hear of it and sit the guy down for a reality-check.
ETA: probaby the senior E or whoever it is below that officer will get the heat, but I believe they could all be (theoretically) subject to that violation.
So, I just rented this because, as you say it’s been on cable and I saw a snippet at work. One of the things that rings false for me is Jessups cover-up, specifically because he’s in a hell of a lot of trouble. If he’d said ‘I issued the order to halt code reds, but it seems we still have a ways to go, I’ll get right on it,’ it would have looked bad, but it wouldn’t have been that big a deal. But as it was, he’s up for, off the top of my head:
Conduct unbecoming
Suborning perjury (doctor/Kendrik)
Commiting perjury
Falsifying the flight logs
Falsifying the transfer orders
Unlawful order resulting in a marines death
False imprisonment (he knew they weren’t murderers)
I’m way too rusty on the UCMJ to say which of those are actually chargeable, but he’s absofuckinlutely toast.
I don’t see how you can get Jessup on false imprisonment. The criminal investigation would have been done by NCIS and the JAG prosecutors, not Jessup.
Fair to say, but weren’t they taken into custody within hours of the death? I sort of assumed that he’d orchestrated that, maybe tough to prove though.
IIRC, Dawson was a Lance Corporal (E-3) and Downey was a PFC (E-2). They were not Corporals (E-4), although again IIRC I think the dialog referred to Dawson as a Corporal, and to “Private Downey”. But their chevrons were LCpl and PFC.
The military code of conduct is not the same as civilian laws and regulations. There’s a common say in the military, “We’re here to defend democracy not to practice it.” Sometime disobeying a direct order in the military can get you executed depending on the conditions and circumstances. In the movie, “A Few Good Men,” carrying out a Code Red is a very dedicated and sometime sacred process. The code that Marines practice and believe in very seriously is a measurement of a Marines ability to follow orders without question. The part, “without question” is what has cost thousands of Marines their lives but at the same time is what make the United States what it is. I know that may be a little difficult for some of you to understand or accept. Having said all of that, if a Marine had refused to carry out a direct order like Code Red unknowing the outcome and making that decision on a personal level would have some fairly serious consequences for the Marine.
Semper Fi
For that matter, is there some sort of—well, I suppose “leeway” isn’t the best term, but what if the order is pointless, and/or literally insane?
Like, “Hmmm…I wonder how deep this enormous chasm is. Smith, jump over the side and scream until you hit the bottom.” Or “Now, before we leave for this mission, I order half of you to commit suicide. Princess Celestia will be pleased by this sacrifice, and reincarnate you as an army of centaurs just as the rest of us enter combat. But first, a song…”?
Or is those just the kind of thing where it’s technically lawful, but no one’s going to actually bother filing charges for a court martial?
Fitting in with the movie and hypotheticals here, a key plot point of the (sometimes harrowing) movie The Thin Red Line is when a lower officer, in the heat of battle, refuses to command his men to walk up a hill into a machine gun nest.
He has some soldiers around him witness and mark down the time and he clearly says “Because of such and such, I refuse to carry or the order of so-and-so.” His commanding officer pulls him and his team off the hill, saying “I’ll deal with you later.”
