5 ms·

The military, no military would function if each member went their own way and did their own thing. It's OK to not serve if you disagree with the leadership, ju

by jebblue 12y ago

The military, no military would function if each member went their own way and did their own thing. It's OK to not serve if you disagree with the leadership, just don't sign up. You can change the world by working to oust corrupt politicians, Republicans and Democrats and Libertarians. Understand though that freedom is not free, there's always someone waiting for the opportunity to take over your country and they don't care at all if you are a conscientious objector.

smacktoward 12y ago
This issue is more complicated than you make it sound. It's absolutely true that discipline and following orders are essential to the smooth functioning of a military force. However, that does not give soldiers an excuse to leave their conscience with their civilian clothes. The entire point of the Nuremberg trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials) was that "I was just following orders" is not a defense, when the orders in question are illegal or immoral. And illegal or immoral orders can be issued by American officers just the same as they were issued by German ones -- just ask the soldiers who served under Lieutenant William Calley in Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre). No nation's army has a monopoly on morality. So it's the responsibility of every soldier to balance the need for discipline with the need to ask conscientiously and with respect for human life and dignity.
- Nrsolis 12y ago
  And that's why there are things called ROEs: Rules of Engagement. A soldier just can't shoot anyone they see. There are very hard limits on who is considered a "combatant" and who is not. A big part of what gets soldiers and Marines on our side killed is ambiguity about who can be shot when they present a threat and who cannot. If you do anything outside of the ROE it can be considered a war crime: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383037/Clint-Lorance-guilty-Army-officer-gets-20-years-jail-murder-ordered-troops-open-Afghan-men.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383037/Clint-Loranc... And yes, the USG DOES put its own soldiers in jail. Sometimes for life.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes Have a read. How many soldiers ended up in jail for these? How many commanding officers?
    - Nrsolis 12y ago
      Wikipedia is your source? LOL.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        So you get to use wikipedia but I don't? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7796608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7796608
        Nrsolis 12y ago
        Not for something as clearly politicized as the topic of war crimes by a nation currently at war.
    - ratsbane 12y ago
      A great book on this subject is The Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law in War by Gary Solis (related to nrsolis?) I think it's currently used as a textbook at West Point and other places. I have a copy here. Solis is a clear advocate for rules of conduct in war and for the punishment of those who break those rules but he also does not shy away from pointing out the frequent cases when, as you note, guilty soldiers on the winning side escape punishment. E.g., here is a quote from the book concerning the trial of Ernest Medina, implicated in the My Lai massacre: The prosecution urged that Medina knew, or should have known, of the massacre, but, in addition to inciting it, he took no action either to stop it or to subsequently bring to justice those who committed crimes. “Even if he did not personally commit any crimes in My Lai, Medina clearly failed to maintain control over men under his command who were committing scores of them.”42 Despite apparently meeting the von Leeb–List standard – knew or should have known – and, for that matter, the Yamashita standard – must have known – Medina was acquitted.43 One civilian nonlawyer who viewed the trial found the case poorly prosecuted.44 Another calls it “a striking example of the extent to which a domestic . . . tribunal will devise a restricted formulation of the superior responsibility doctrine in order to avoid the prosecution of its own nationals.”45 But that ascribes a sinister motive to the court-martial that did not exist. (p.422) http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Armed-Conflict-International/dp/0521870887 http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Armed-Conflict-International/d... I hope this information is helpful.
- mpyne 12y ago
  > The entire point of the Nuremberg trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials) was that "I was just following orders" is not a defense That's precisely why the relevant articles of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice relating to "disobeying orders" explicitly requires that the orders be lawful for a crime to have been committed. U.S. servicemembers not only have the right to disobey illegal orders, they have the explicit and positive duty to disobey illegal orders. The catch is that ambiguous situations/"judgment calls" tend to break the tie in favor of an order being lawful. But beyond that the issue is not at all as complicated as you think. E.g. with Lt. Calley's company, they were clearly guilty of not only crimes, but war crimes, yet there was a concerted effort in the U.S. and in the military leadership in Vietnam to cover the incident up. The issue there wasn't about "just following orders", the issue there was that the U.S. never attempted to put the criminals on trial in the first place, and that the eventual justice process that was meted out was so watered down. Even worse the Army and U.S. leadership tried to (and did) ruin the careers and lives of the 3 who actually followed their training as soldiers to put a stop to the massacre. But you'll note that Lt. Calley was eventually court-martialed, and despite consistently claiming that he "just followed orders" was found guilty, sentenced to life, and his sentence upheld on appeal. Of course, U.S. leadership gutted that too, and effectively commuted his sentence, but "just following orders" was very much put on trial in the U.S. system and shot down again.

by jebblue 12y ago

smacktoward 12y ago

This issue is more complicated than you make it sound. It's absolutely true that discipline and following orders are essential to the smooth functioning of a military force. However, that does not give soldiers an excuse to leave their conscience with their civilian clothes. The entire point of the Nuremberg trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials) was that "I was just following orders" is not a defense, when the orders in question are illegal or immoral. And illegal or immoral orders can be issued by American officers just the same as they were issued by German ones -- just ask the soldiers who served under Lieutenant William Calley in Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre). No nation's army has a monopoly on morality. So it's the responsibility of every soldier to balance the need for discipline with the need to ask conscientiously and with respect for human life and dignity.

Nrsolis 12y ago
And that's why there are things called ROEs: Rules of Engagement. A soldier just can't shoot anyone they see. There are very hard limits on who is considered a "combatant" and who is not. A big part of what gets soldiers and Marines on our side killed is ambiguity about who can be shot when they present a threat and who cannot. If you do anything outside of the ROE it can be considered a war crime: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383037/Clint-Lorance-guilty-Army-officer-gets-20-years-jail-murder-ordered-troops-open-Afghan-men.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383037/Clint-Loranc... And yes, the USG DOES put its own soldiers in jail. Sometimes for life.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes Have a read. How many soldiers ended up in jail for these? How many commanding officers?
  - Nrsolis 12y ago
    Wikipedia is your source? LOL.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      So you get to use wikipedia but I don't? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7796608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7796608
      - Nrsolis 12y ago
        Not for something as clearly politicized as the topic of war crimes by a nation currently at war.
  - ratsbane 12y ago
    A great book on this subject is The Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law in War by Gary Solis (related to nrsolis?) I think it's currently used as a textbook at West Point and other places. I have a copy here. Solis is a clear advocate for rules of conduct in war and for the punishment of those who break those rules but he also does not shy away from pointing out the frequent cases when, as you note, guilty soldiers on the winning side escape punishment. E.g., here is a quote from the book concerning the trial of Ernest Medina, implicated in the My Lai massacre: The prosecution urged that Medina knew, or should have known, of the massacre, but, in addition to inciting it, he took no action either to stop it or to subsequently bring to justice those who committed crimes. “Even if he did not personally commit any crimes in My Lai, Medina clearly failed to maintain control over men under his command who were committing scores of them.”42 Despite apparently meeting the von Leeb–List standard – knew or should have known – and, for that matter, the Yamashita standard – must have known – Medina was acquitted.43 One civilian nonlawyer who viewed the trial found the case poorly prosecuted.44 Another calls it “a striking example of the extent to which a domestic . . . tribunal will devise a restricted formulation of the superior responsibility doctrine in order to avoid the prosecution of its own nationals.”45 But that ascribes a sinister motive to the court-martial that did not exist. (p.422) http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Armed-Conflict-International/dp/0521870887 http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Armed-Conflict-International/d... I hope this information is helpful.
mpyne 12y ago
> The entire point of the Nuremberg trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials) was that "I was just following orders" is not a defense That's precisely why the relevant articles of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice relating to "disobeying orders" explicitly requires that the orders be lawful for a crime to have been committed. U.S. servicemembers not only have the right to disobey illegal orders, they have the explicit and positive duty to disobey illegal orders. The catch is that ambiguous situations/"judgment calls" tend to break the tie in favor of an order being lawful. But beyond that the issue is not at all as complicated as you think. E.g. with Lt. Calley's company, they were clearly guilty of not only crimes, but war crimes, yet there was a concerted effort in the U.S. and in the military leadership in Vietnam to cover the incident up. The issue there wasn't about "just following orders", the issue there was that the U.S. never attempted to put the criminals on trial in the first place, and that the eventual justice process that was meted out was so watered down. Even worse the Army and U.S. leadership tried to (and did) ruin the careers and lives of the 3 who actually followed their training as soldiers to put a stop to the massacre. But you'll note that Lt. Calley was eventually court-martialed, and despite consistently claiming that he "just followed orders" was found guilty, sentenced to life, and his sentence upheld on appeal. Of course, U.S. leadership gutted that too, and effectively commuted his sentence, but "just following orders" was very much put on trial in the U.S. system and shot down again.