3 ms·
Doesn't it seem a bit dumb to require them to refuse unlawful orders, but also forbid them from determining for themselves what is "unlawful" so they have to re
by tbrownaw 13y ago
Doesn't it seem a bit dumb to require them to refuse unlawful orders, but also forbid them from determining for themselves what is "unlawful" so they have to rely on their superiors (who are the ones giving the orders in the first place)? Or they can be stuck with "my government says this order is lawful (and will do bad things to me if I refuse it), the people we're fighting say it's unlawful (and if they win will do bad things to me if I don't refuse it)".
- Perceval 13y agoManning didn't refuse an unlawful order. Nor did he reveal other soldiers executing unlawful orders. Manning broke the law to reveal an indiscriminate collection of State Department cables.
- tbrownaw 13y agoeh, so what if we're off-topic a bit?
- mpyne 13y agoThey are not forbidden from determining that a given order is lawful or not. However they are trained that the presumption is that a given order is lawful unless it's clearly contrary to the Constitution, law, regulation or policy. As we phrase it in the Navy, no sailor has ever been court-martialed for following a legitimate order, but the same cannot be said regarding mutiny. In short if you want to challenge an order go right ahead, but realize that your ass is going to be put on the line and even the Supreme Court will be biased on the military's side regarding it, if previous experience is any judge.