To Obey or Not to Obey? (moral, choice, mission, church)

[michel]

The thread "I became ashamed of wearing the uniform " made me wonder in which circumstances a soldier is permitted to disobey orders.

From:-http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

<H2>To Obey or Not to Obey?

When one enlists in the United States Military, active duty or reserve, they take the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
National Guard enlisted members take a similar oath, except they also swear to obey the orders of the Governor of their state.
Officers, upon commission, swear to the following:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.
Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death. Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

</H2>So, how does a soldier decide what is a Lawful order ?

[FatMan]

In a technical sense, an officer can give an illegal order. It would be one that violates standards for combat, such as the Geneva Convention, or it could be an order that singles out a particular soldier to complete a task that is knowingly wrong (i.e. - ordering a squad member to fire on a friendly soldier).

While the burden is on the individual soldier to decide what is a legal and illegal order, military courts often find those carrying out illegal orders are only culpable when it is clearly apparent they were doing something wrong, and seldom of those cases apply to war-time crimes. The officer giving the order is the one who gets sacked the vast majority of the time.

[evearael]

You are supposed to obey all lawful orders, but you are not necessarily considered qualified to always determine which orders are lawful. In cases where the service member honestly doesn't know whether or not it is lawful, they can go up the chain of command for confirmation, check with the legal office set up on every base and/or get the order in writing, thus pinning the order on the one who gave it. Sometimes under fire a servicemember won't have the option of the above, so it is best to simply have a witness for the order if something doesn't sound quite right. Most of the distinctions between lawful and unlawful orders are common sense and they do brief you on the basics in Basic Training.

[Seyorni]

It's my understanding that the regulations and prohibitions outlined in the Code of Military Justice, Geneva Conventions, UN codes &al are covered in a soldier's Basic Training. Soldier's are taught that they are not required to obey an illegal order.

But a soldier that deliberated each order in light of these regulations would be an unreliable and inefficient tool. The lessons on the legality of orders are largely pro forma.
The primary purpose of military training is to break down the values and notions of propriety instilled by parents, church and society. Basic Training psychically remolds a recruit into an efficient military tool.
Soldiers trained are to follow orders immediately and unquestioningly. Disobeying an order creates a degree of psychic distress in a soldier that discourages questioning. Soldiers are taught to suppress the distress they would normally feel when committing immoral or anti-social acts by psychically shifting responsibility for the consequences of these acts to the order-giver. This makes incidents like the Baba Yar, My Lai, Sabra and Shantilla, Srebrenica inevitable and expected.

Yet the long-forgotten legal responsibility remains. The "just following orders" excuse was thrown out at Nuremburg. When an ordinary, everyday military action comes to the public attention and becomes embarrassing it is the individual soldier that is prosecuted for being what the military molded him into and intended him to be.

I think this is correct.
We are all individually responsible for every act we perform. No-one can, Christlike, take responsibility for another's action. Nobody can take another's Karma upon himself. If an aerial bomb kills an innocent civilian it is the individual who pushed the deploy button that will answer for it when he stands before God, and who, properly, should be held legally responsible.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

It's my understanding that the regulations and prohibitions outlined in the Code of Military Justice, Geneva Conventions, UN codes &al are covered in a soldier's Basic Training. Soldier's are taught that they are not required to obey an illegal order.

But a soldier that deliberated each order in light of these regulations would be an unreliable and inefficient tool. The lessons on the legality of orders are largely pro forma.
The primary purpose of military training is to break down the values and notions of propriety instilled by parents, church and society. Basic Training psychically remolds a recruit into an efficient military tool.
Soldiers trained are to follow orders immediately and unquestioningly. Disobeying an order creates a degree of psychic distress in a soldier that discourages questioning. Soldiers are taught to suppress the distress they would normally feel when committing immoral or anti-social acts by psychically shifting responsibility for the consequences of these acts to the order-giver. This makes incidents like the Baba Yar, My Lai, Sabra and Shantilla, Srebrenica inevitable and expected.

Yet the long-forgotten legal responsibility remains. The "just following orders" excuse was thrown out at Nuremburg. When an ordinary, everyday military action comes to the public attention and becomes embarrassing it is the individual soldier that is prosecuted for being what the military molded him into and intended him to be.

I think this is entirely correct.
We are all individually responsible for every act we perform. No-one can, Christlike, take responsibility for another's action. Nobody can take another's Karma upon himself. If an aerial bomb kills an innocent civilian it is the individual who pushed the deploy button that will answer for it when he stands before God, and who, properly, should be held legally responsible.

I agree; my thought was that, under pressure in the thick of battle, there would be no time to say "Err.....excuse me..but..."

[Seyorni]

Agreed. This is why I say that a soldier that actually reflects back on his training in military law when given an order is an unreliable and inefficient tool.

Military service inevitably creates a Hobson's choice.

[niceguy]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

Agreed. This is why I say that a soldier that actually reflects back on his training in military law when given an order is an unreliable and inefficient tool.

Military service inevitably creates a Hobson's choice.

Still he should do excactly that. It's a soldiers job to take the risks this will create rather then risking the life of innocent civilians by not taking the time to confirm a target for instance. Trigger happy soldiers are dangeroues and should be removed from the battlefield. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655