I would have to say you are incorrect, members of the military are charged to obey LAWFUL orders, if they know that an order in unlawful they MUST NOT obey it. “I was just following orders” is not an excuse, and you will be punished for your actions accordingly. I take offense to your accusations that the people, like myself, who join the military and help protect you are trained to be mindless, and throw out common sense, morals, and faith. I guess I’m just a ignorant pushover who sells my brain and soul for a paycheck?
Nice post Honour.
Focusing solely on the exceptions , so to speak , is bound to portray things in a negative light ; one might even argue, inordinately so. Although well thought out military objectives always aim to curtail collateral damage - particularly to civilians , one has to wonder how utopian it is to think in our imperfect world, that all such objectives could preclude such damage. I don’t suppose the need for military chaplains would be so essential in such a *perfect world * either .
But it really does appear that some days, you just can’t win :
- Follow the order , and you’re called “mindless.”
- Confirm that only *lawful *orders should be obeyed (and imply that soldiers are to use common sense , and faith [and even knowledge -
] when following orders) , and you’re basically called insane -
. . . to think all soldiers know to not obey an unlawful order is insane.
John the Baptist when asked, proposed the model :
[NAB Luke 3:14]
Soldiers also asked him, “And what is it that we should do?” He told them, “Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages.”
It is* humans
who contradict * what John the Baptist proposed - it is not the words which are contradictory . If his model were followed by everyone in the chain of command, we might be able to contemplate a modus operandi which were less problematic. That being said, I’m not so sure I would ever envy being commander in chief ; it could present some hard questions at the conclusion of one’s earthly sojourn.
As far as rights and constitutions go. It all looks good written down - doesn’t it ?
I have the right to defend myself. Well, (in addition to the fact that the argument offers nothing for the defence of a fellow citizen who might also be threatened by an unlawful agressor) what if the aggressor is too well armed, too powerful , too numerous ?
We only have to look back as far as the effects in the immediate aftermath of hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. . . to see what happens when there are no armed forces and no police to protect civilians.
i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/OptimalProtocol/Smiley_Sad.gif
What do you think , Honour ? Perhaps we should add *short-term memory loss * to the *mindless * and
insane collection ?
Anyone can pick and choose from exceptions to present the impression they desire.
What it all still boils down to is that a soldier must follow orders. Without that premise, no military force could be functional. A military force relies on the “absolute necessity” of “subordinates carrying out orders”.
The important distinction you make that members of the military are not charged to follow unlawful orders, is duly warranted. . . and fully supported by the
Geneva Conventions among other things.
Of course, if every single order were to be questioned or reflected upon, that would also impair the function and efficiency of, or even paralyze any miltary unit. Your post draws attention to this difficult area where a dichotomy exists - the area where discernment of what exactly *unlawful orders * implies.
In this country, in large part north of the 49th, some info is available on actual cases. Alhough a notice appears in this 8-page paper written by Major C.E. Thomas , entitled
R. v. Liwyj: Can a soldier be punished for disobeying an unlawful command? which states ,
“The views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone, and do not represent the opinion of the Judge Advocate General, the Canadian Forces, or the Department of National Defence” , the article presents an idea of just how complicated the thinking must become in view of the dichotomy, and would appear to settle on a definition of
manifestly unlawful orders :
Excerpt
. . . The identifying mark of a “manifestly unlawful” order must wave like a black flag above the order given, as a warning saying: “forbidden”. It is not formal unlawfulness, hidden or half-hidden, not unlawfulness that is detectable only by legal experts, that is the important issue here, but an overt and salient violation of the law, a certain and obvious unlawfulness that stems from the order itself, the criminal character of the order itself or of the acts it demands to be committed, an unlawfulness that pierces and agitates the heart, if the eye be not blind nor the heart closed or corrupt. That is the degree of “manifest” illegality required in order to annul the soldier’s duty to obey and render him criminally responsible for his actions.
. . . all of which suggests to me that not only is a career in the military incompatible with being “mindless” , it is also absolutely not for the *faint of heart * either.
i42.photobucket.com/albums/e322/patisblog/salute_smiley.gif
