snell@utzoo.UUCP (Richard Snell) (03/14/86)
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes <6512@utzoo.UUCP> >And as for soldiers' obligation to weigh the soundness of the campaign, >Nuremberg and later such courts established very clearly that it *is* >the soldiers' obligation to weigh the *legality* of their orders. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry If events such as the `Judgement at Nuremberg' established anything, it is that regardless of the *legality* of orders from a superior one is obliged to consider and accept responsibility for the *morality* of ones actions. The impied corollary is the following bottom line: ya gotta do the right thing, cause the moral `buck' stops with you. -- Name: Richard Snell Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!snell
ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst) (03/17/86)
>>And as for soldiers' obligation to weigh the soundness of the campaign, >>Nuremberg and later such courts established very clearly that it *is* >>the soldiers' obligation to weigh the *legality* of their orders. >>-- >> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >> {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry > >If events such as the `Judgement at Nuremberg' established anything, it >is that regardless of the *legality* of orders from a superior >one is obliged to consider and accept responsibility for the *morality* >of ones actions. The impied corollary is the following bottom line: >ya gotta do the right thing, cause the moral `buck' stops with you. > Everybody that goes through military basic training is taught that if you are given an order by a superior that you think is illegal or otherwise "questionable", you OBEY the order and complain later.
jrrt@mtuxo.UUCP (r.mitchell) (03/18/86)
Everybody that goes through military basic training is taught that
if you are given an order by a superior that you think is illegal
or otherwise "questionable", you OBEY the order and
complain later.
Bull. As a Navy officer (currently in the Reserves) who is involved
in some areas of recruit training, I know you are wrong. Basic Training
includes lectures on the Code of Conduct, with some emphasis placed
on obeying "the lawful orders of the officers placed over {the
sailor}." Included in that lecture is a discussion of what
"lawful" means, and examples are given of unlawful orders that do
not have to be obeyed, regardless of who issued them. Also,
the lecture includes training on how to respond to the unlawful
order, both at the time and when one wishes to complain to the
order-giver's superior.
Also, for the record, midshipmen get hours of leadership training
that includes all the above stuff, so it's not just the enlisted
personnel who are the focus of "the moral buck stops with the
individual."
Rob Mitchell
{allegra,ihnp4}!mtuxo!jrrthenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/21/86)
> Everybody that goes through military basic training is taught that if > you are given an order by a superior that you think is illegal or > otherwise "questionable", you OBEY the order and complain later. Quite true. What they don't tell you, however, is that this can get you hanged for war crimes if you take it too literally. The training is based on the -- reasonable, sensible -- view that the superior probably knows the situation better than you do, and delay can be disastrous. There remains, however, a class of orders for which obedience is a violation of both national and international law. (Note that treaties, e.g. the Geneva Convention, which are ratified by the Senate have the force of law in the United States.) -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
james@alberta.UUCP (James Borynec) (03/26/86)
In article <6529@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Everybody that goes through military basic training is taught that if >> you are given an order by a superior that you think is illegal or >> otherwise "questionable", you OBEY the order and complain later. > >Quite true. What they don't tell you, however, is that this can get you >hanged for war crimes if you take it too literally. The training is based > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry If I was a soldier given an illegal order in the middle of a war, a war crimes trial would seem pretty abstract when compared to the alternate scenario: a) receive illegal order from my officer. b) I state that the order is illegal, and will not be obeyed. c) The rest of the squad hesitates, knowing that it really is illegal. d) Officer pulls out pistol, and shoots me. e) the rest of the squad obeys his orders. Sure, the officer may be hanged twice, once for the war crime, and once for shooting me, but it doesn't help me all that much! j.borynec james@alberta
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/27/86)
> > Everybody that goes through military basic training is taught that if > > you are given an order by a superior that you think is illegal or > > otherwise "questionable", you OBEY the order and complain later. > > Quite true. What they don't tell you, however, is that this can get you > hanged for war crimes if you take it too literally. The training is based > on the -- reasonable, sensible -- view that the superior probably knows > the situation better than you do, and delay can be disastrous. There > remains, however, a class of orders for which obedience is a violation of > both national and international law. (Note that treaties, e.g. the Geneva > Convention, which are ratified by the Senate have the force of law in the > United States.) > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry And if your country isn't a party to a treaty that prohibits the war crimes in question, that's no problem, right? I really wish we could all get off this obsession with "legality" and start to worry about whether the actions are *moral* or not.