4 ms·

This line of thinking does not apply to the US military. If you have reason to believe an order is illegal, or even should have known, you are just as guilty of

This line of thinking does not apply to the US military. If you have reason to believe an order is illegal, or even should have known, you are just as guilty of the illegal act as the person giving an order. That being said don’t execute an illegal order hoping chain of command will qualify as a valid legal defense.

RashadSaleh 6y ago
I did mention that though but if you think it is stupid and/or immoral, the right thing to do is to still carry it out.
- shoo 6y ago
  Why? What is meant by "right thing to do"?
  - RashadSaleh 6y ago
    All human beings are equal. There is no supreme arbiter of human argument. When you need to organize with fellow human beings, you then need to give people the benefit of a doubt after achieving certain qualifications to give orders according to their own arguments and views. On the other hand, when you achieve those qualifications, others will have to give you the benefit of a doubt to give orders according to your own arguments, views and values.
    - Lukas_Skywalker 6y ago
      So you‘re saying every order ever given by any leader should have been followed, just because they were more „qualified“ than the people following. I disagree. What if a leader got his qualifications but has since gone slightly insane? Qualification alone isn‘t reason enough to blindly follow orders.
      - RashadSaleh 6y ago
        In a democracy, and if the orders don't break any laws, then yes you follow the orders, and you are not considered responsible for the outcomes. If you can't do it, you resign or ask for someone else to do it. If you are still not satisfied you can go to a protest, go to the media and express your views, and exercise your vote in the next elections. The problem of the leader that goes insane is solved with checks and balances.
lb1lf 6y ago
-While I have no first-hand knowledge of the US military (or, for that matter, any military - I was conscripted into a branch which didn't take hierarchy too seriously), just about every time the subject of immoral/illegal orders came up, consensus was that the smart (for the individual) thing to do was to acknowledge the order, then do nothing. The reasoning was that refusing an order would get you in serious trouble much faster than your claiming it was illegal would get you out of trouble - hence your best bet was to get hit with a (lesser) charge of incompetence rather than having the full weight of the army come crashing down on you for refusing.
- RashadSaleh 6y ago
  Sounds like a case of corruption. Military systems can be corrupt for the same reason that humans can be corrupt. Unfortunately, nobody found the magic wand yet, so we still have to be responsible for ourselves and make difficult choices. Reform is hard work and a lot of people might not want to make the sacrifice (and understandably so).
einpoklum 6y ago
Also, you swear your oath to defend the _constitution_, against all enemies foreign and _domestic_: https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html this comes _before_ the obligation to obey orders. Meaning that, at least in principle, a soldier is obligated to disobey unconstitutional commands, and in fact, to act to countermand them. Of course that's not what armies are like in practice, but still.
- RashadSaleh 6y ago
  I have mentioned this already folks. Nobody has the authority to break the law - not a general nor the president nor a judge nor a district attorney nor a member of parliament. A law remains the ultimate authority until it is voted out of practice.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Not having the authority, has little to do with the moral imperative to consider overriding circumstances. We all have complete authority to make personal choices as we see fit.
    - RashadSaleh 6y ago
      And your neighbour thinks the same. And by the way they have a gun. In a civil society disagreements are solved peacefully through voting and clear structures of accountability so you don't need to guess if you are responsible or not. Even the same person disagrees with themselves over time. People who vote this way this election, vote the other way the next one. You devise me a system where people are above the law according to their own judgement at the particular moment they see fit, and still not have violence. This is why you can fight your entire life for the reform you like to see happen, and still not get it. But 50 years of exchanging ballots is always better than 5 minutes of exchanging bullets.
      - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        All that strife, today, is prevented by morals and not laws. When it works anyway.

RashadSaleh 6y ago

I did mention that though but if you think it is stupid and/or immoral, the right thing to do is to still carry it out.

shoo 6y ago
Why? What is meant by "right thing to do"?
- RashadSaleh 6y ago
  All human beings are equal. There is no supreme arbiter of human argument. When you need to organize with fellow human beings, you then need to give people the benefit of a doubt after achieving certain qualifications to give orders according to their own arguments and views. On the other hand, when you achieve those qualifications, others will have to give you the benefit of a doubt to give orders according to your own arguments, views and values.
  - Lukas_Skywalker 6y ago
    So you‘re saying every order ever given by any leader should have been followed, just because they were more „qualified“ than the people following. I disagree. What if a leader got his qualifications but has since gone slightly insane? Qualification alone isn‘t reason enough to blindly follow orders.
    - RashadSaleh 6y ago
      In a democracy, and if the orders don't break any laws, then yes you follow the orders, and you are not considered responsible for the outcomes. If you can't do it, you resign or ask for someone else to do it. If you are still not satisfied you can go to a protest, go to the media and express your views, and exercise your vote in the next elections. The problem of the leader that goes insane is solved with checks and balances.

lb1lf 6y ago

-While I have no first-hand knowledge of the US military (or, for that matter, any military - I was conscripted into a branch which didn't take hierarchy too seriously), just about every time the subject of immoral/illegal orders came up, consensus was that the smart (for the individual) thing to do was to acknowledge the order, then do nothing. The reasoning was that refusing an order would get you in serious trouble much faster than your claiming it was illegal would get you out of trouble - hence your best bet was to get hit with a (lesser) charge of incompetence rather than having the full weight of the army come crashing down on you for refusing.

RashadSaleh 6y ago
Sounds like a case of corruption. Military systems can be corrupt for the same reason that humans can be corrupt. Unfortunately, nobody found the magic wand yet, so we still have to be responsible for ourselves and make difficult choices. Reform is hard work and a lot of people might not want to make the sacrifice (and understandably so).

einpoklum 6y ago

Also, you swear your oath to defend the _constitution_, against all enemies foreign and _domestic_: https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html this comes _before_ the obligation to obey orders. Meaning that, at least in principle, a soldier is obligated to disobey unconstitutional commands, and in fact, to act to countermand them. Of course that's not what armies are like in practice, but still.

RashadSaleh 6y ago
I have mentioned this already folks. Nobody has the authority to break the law - not a general nor the president nor a judge nor a district attorney nor a member of parliament. A law remains the ultimate authority until it is voted out of practice.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Not having the authority, has little to do with the moral imperative to consider overriding circumstances. We all have complete authority to make personal choices as we see fit.
  - RashadSaleh 6y ago
    And your neighbour thinks the same. And by the way they have a gun. In a civil society disagreements are solved peacefully through voting and clear structures of accountability so you don't need to guess if you are responsible or not. Even the same person disagrees with themselves over time. People who vote this way this election, vote the other way the next one. You devise me a system where people are above the law according to their own judgement at the particular moment they see fit, and still not have violence. This is why you can fight your entire life for the reform you like to see happen, and still not get it. But 50 years of exchanging ballots is always better than 5 minutes of exchanging bullets.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      All that strife, today, is prevented by morals and not laws. When it works anyway.