38 ms·
They're not just allowed to disobey illegal orders, they're morally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
by conartist6 10mo ago
They're not just allowed to disobey illegal orders, they're morally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo agoThey are legally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
- thunky 10mo agoHow are they supposed to know what's legal? Congress can't even agree if murdering civilians on boats is legal or not.
- fragmede 10mo agoIf only there was some basic training for this kind of stuff!
- thunky 10mo agoYes hopefully Congress gets the basic training they desperately need. But seriously. Should soldiers be refusing to murder civilians on boats? If the law is clear (which I think it is) and they should be refusing why aren't they? The answer of course is that they're being put in an impossible situation. Pinning the responsibility on them, because they took basic training, to interpret the law and go against the majority of the US govt at huge personal risk is just absurd. Maybe instead the government should get their head out of their ass and do something themselves beyond trying to pass the buck via a stupid tv ad.
- silverquiet 10mo agoAren't they required to obey chain-of-command? And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?
- Jtsummers 10mo agoThey're only required to obey lawful orders. An order to massacre a village would not be lawful, to pick an extreme (but historical) example. Following such an order is a crime in itself, they should disobey it.
- jzb 10mo ago"Aren't they required to obey chain-of-command?" If an order is legal, yes. Not if an order is illegal. If a superior officer orders a private to shoot unarmed civilians or commit some other war crime, the private is supposed to refuse the order. They are not protected by a "just following orders" defense. "And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?" Sure. But that does not excuse committing war crimes or otherwise knowingly following illegal orders. Most of the time, the presumption is that illegal orders will be issued infrequently and by rogue elements in the armed forces -- so disobeying may have unpleasant immediate consequences (say, get thrown in the brig) but long-term they should prevail. Right now? Well... that's the problem. But if significant numbers of the armed forces refused illegal orders, there's little that the administration can do. Which is why they've been cleaning house to kick out anybody at the top who might push back.
- ndsipa_pomu 10mo agoDoesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them not being thrown into prison for executing an illegal order?
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]