"I was only following orders"

Former Member

It was the excuse of war criminals during the Nuremberg trials, and seems to be making a reappearance today as the 1st war criminal accused of abusing Iraqi POWs is facing a court martial. Pity the other scum who order these soldiers to commit these war crimes are not put in front of the International Criminal Court. No wonder the rogue regime did not want to sign up to the treaty when they knew what soldiers would get ordered to do!

here's a good article:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4909251/

Nazis accused of war crimes said it at Nuremberg — “I was only following orders.” Soldiers like Lt. William Calley accused of atrocities at My Lai in Vietnam tried it, too.

And now, lawyers for some of the Army reservists charged with abusing prisoners in Iraq say they’re innocent for the same reason. According to Gary Myers, “He did attempt to find out if what he was doing was correct, and he was told that it was.”

Former Member

In the armed forces, you're supposed to follow all of your superior officer's orders. A unit probably couldn't function otherwise; it's called the chain of command.

Indrid Cold

If you follow orders blindly, you're no more than a tool. If a person agrees to that, (s)he (unwillingly, I hope) degrades him/herself to a much lower level. The great thing about being human is having a mind to tell you when you should do what you're told and when not to.

Former Member

hmm in the army you're taught to follow orders only and only talk to those below you, and those above you when asked

Former Member

Originally posted by Zalbor
If you follow orders blindly, you're no more than a tool. If a person agrees to that, (s)he (unwillingly, I hope) degrades him/herself to a much lower level. The great thing about being human is having a mind to tell you when you should do what you're told and when not to.

Yeah but in the army you're supposed to follow orders... I mean there could have been a sort of peer pressure there too... like the guy coulda got beat up or something.

Former Member

Originally posted by MoonRat
Yeah but in the army you're supposed to follow orders... I mean there could have been a sort of peer pressure there too... like the guy coulda got beat up or something.

It still doesn't matter. One must have the decency to know what is right. But maybe they thought that following those orders were right...

Former Member

Originally posted by the sole liber
In the armed forces, you're supposed to follow all of your superior officer's orders. A unit probably couldn't function otherwise; it's called the chain of command.

Actually, from what I have been told, a soldier can refuse to follow an illegal order. Some time ago, an Australian pilot refused to follow an order from a US commander to bomb a civilian target in Iraq, that pilot was not punished as the order was not legitimate.

Former Member

Originally posted by MoonRat
Yeah but in the army you're supposed to follow orders... I mean there could have been a sort of peer pressure there too... like the guy coulda got beat up or something.

It should be every soldiers responsibility when asked to carry out illegal orders to firstly refuse them, and secondly report them to a senior officer. The situation however is somewhat confused when it seems senior commanders have issued the orders, and a soldier cannot report the offences.

In these circumstances, a soldier can withdraw himself or herself from duty as a military conscientious objector.

Former Member

Once enlisted in the armed services and especially once assigned to active duty in a theatre of combat, there is no "conscientious objector" option for a soldier. I do agree that mechanisms must exist for refusing to obey an illegal order, however as matters stand, precedent demonstrates that even when orders are patently illegal the military will work overtime to ensure any evidence of said illegality is withheld from consideration...

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/July2001/Anthrax-IntellectualHonesty.htm

Here youll find an excellent editorial on the issue of human rights violations by US military personnel and the typical military response to such matters...

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0405a.asp

Excerpt:

Of course, it’s still impossible to know exactly which officers were involved in the wrongdoing at the Abu Ghraib prison because the Pentagon is being cautious and circumspect about revealing their names. What we do know is that military officials have so far decided to court-martial only six soldiers and — surprise, surprise — all of them are enlisted personnel (that is, no officers), and — again, surprise, surprise — all of them are Reserve, rather than regular Army, troops!

The brigadier general in charge of the prison, Janis Karpinski, hasn’t been court-martialed. Instead, U.S. military officials have simply "admonished" Karpinski and suspended her from commanding the prison. Karpinski is saying that she’s innocent anyway because the real people in charge of the sex abuse, rape, and torture in that part of the prison were personnel from U.S. Military Intelligence, who, she says, wouldn’t permit either Karpinski or the Red Cross to visit that section of the prison; there’s also evidence of CIA involvement in the wrongdoing as well as participation by paid mercenaries. As previously noted, there is no evidence so far that the government is proceeding criminally against these individuals, much less releasing their identities.

It’s hard to see how Karpinski gets off the hook, though, given that she was the military commander in overall charge of the prison, with the power and responsibility to command and control all parts of the prison. It’s easy to understand, however, why the Pentagon wouldn’t want to get her upset with a court-martial, especially given that she can name names and give details, which she did anyway over the weekend in an interview with the New York Times.

In fact, while Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, ordered a study into the scandal a few months ago, he nonetheless has to be somewhat concerned over the possibility that the U.S. government’s Yamashita doctrine will be applied to him. You’ll recall that Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita was the Japanese general in charge of the Philippines during World War II and was executed after a U.S. military tribunal found him guilty of war crimes. What were his war crimes? None, except for the fact that the men under his command committed war crimes after allied bombing prevented Yamashita from stopping them from committing such war crimes. In the other words, the Yamashita doctrine, as set forth by the U.S. military, is that a military commander is criminally responsible for the war crimes committed by his men, even if he hasn’t ordered, authorized, or condoned such acts. Sanchez is obviously in a much worse position than Yamashita, given that he had total control over Iraq and his men and the Abu Ghraib prison at the time the sex crimes and torture were being committed.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
Once enlisted in the armed services and especially once assigned to active duty in a theatre of combat, there is no "conscientious objector" option for a soldier. I do agree that mechanisms must exist for refusing to obey an illegal order, however as matters stand, precedent demonstrates that even when orders are patently illegal the military will work overtime to ensure any evidence of said illegality is withheld from consideration...

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/July2001/Anthrax-IntellectualHonesty.htm

Here youll find an excellent editorial on the issue of human rights violations by US military personnel and the typical military response to such matters...

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0405a.asp

Clandestine, thanks for the article. I wanted to double check before replying, and here are the facts on conscientious objection in the military, from http://girights.objector.org/gettingout/conscientious-objection.html#38276

Consider applying for a conscientious objector discharge if you are distressed handling weapons, have doubts about the missions you are required to support, or do not believe that you want to take part in war.

Members of the military who develop a "firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms,"1 based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, are entitled to discharge from the military or transfer to non-combatant status. A conscientious objector must meet three criteria:

you must object to participation in war in any form;
you must base your objection on "religious training and belief" (which can include moral or ethical training and belief) that "crystallized" after you entered the military; and
you must demonstrate that your position is "sincere and deeply held."
An applicant for conscientious objector (CO) status must submit a written application and be interviewed by a chaplain, military psychiatrist, and investigating officer. The written application must describe:

The nature of the applicant's beliefs about participation in war.
How those beliefs changed or developed since entering the military.
When and why the applicant's beliefs prevented him or her from continuing to serve in the military.
How the applicant's daily lifestyle has changed as a result of his or her beliefs.
While the concept of objecting to war is fairly simple, the legal criteria that a military conscientious objector must meet are more complicated. To be a conscientious objector, you must have a firm, fixed, and sincere objection to personally taking part in war, not merely to the idea of war. And you must object, not merely dislike or be saddened by war.

Deciding whether you object to participation in war in any form is the primary moral question to consider. You are likely new to the concept of objection to war; most servicemembers do not even know that a discharge for conscientious objection exists.
.......
It is entirely your choice whether to request discharge (1-0) or transfer to non-combatant status (1-A-0). The military is prohibited from offering 1-A-0 status "as a compromise."

A CO discharge is Honorable unless, using standard discharge regulatory criteria, a General (under Honorable Conditions) characterization is warranted. COs are eligible for any veterans' benefits to which their characterization and length of service entitles them.

During the processing for CO status, a CO applicant is asked to sign a form stating that he or she may lose benefits as a "conscientious objector who refuse to perform military duty (or refuses to wear the uniform) or otherwise to comply with lawful orders of competent military authority." Simply put, applicants who violate military law and face disciplinary action may lose benefits. Signing this statement has no effect on eligibility for benefits.

Former Member

I would be willing to bet that in actuality, regardless of those provisions, soldiers refusing to carry out their duties once in a theatre of combat would be more likely shot dead by their commanding officer rather than given "conscientious objector" status and transferred or shipped home.

Former Member

There have been numerous cases now of Israeli soldiers, officers and pilots refusing to serve in Palestine or to go out in 'revenge' sorties, arguing that it amounts to little more than the murdering of civilians.

These people have been in most cases chucked into jail and can expect to be kicked out of the army in disgrace when they're allowed out of their cells.

All the more credit to them for doing what they believe it's right despite the punishment that it usually attracts.