Very important! I feel for my brothers and sisters in arms who may have to show more courage in confronting an unlawful order than in charging a bunker. In neither case can one be certain the action is correct or what the outcome will be.
Excellent explanation of the distinction of responsibilities between the enlisted and the officer-class.
Yet despite a few anomalies & difficulties in resolution of events the military system has proven effective over time.
Is it likely that an senior officer could face a court-martial or tribunal for following an instruction (later deemed illegal) from a senior political office-bearer that results in disrepute for the nation on the world stage?
Thank you, I think this is important to remember.Especially with videos from Democrats saying troops should not follow unlawful orders. How do they know? It does indeed end up as very hard individual choice. But you mentioned shooting civilians… the attacks on the small boats supposedly carrying drugs does at least border. I think the main problem now is that you have people at the top willing to give orders that are very problematic is the main issue. That is what needs to be solved. Maybe the videos contribute to that, maybe not. But I think leaving this to the individual officers not to mention the enlisted cannot really work. And it isn’t fair.
Drone strikes in the middle east were apparently no big deal during the Obama and Biden admins.
Giving Ukraine targeting data and flight path mapping for their drones to evade Russian air defenses to attack civilian targets is also no big deal. (Yes, the Russians are attacking civilian targets, power stations, and being called bad guys for doing it)
But killing Venezuelan cartel members running boats full of cocaine or fentanyl? That’s illegal!
Civilians also have a tendency to conflate "unpopular with everyone they know" with "illegal." I deployed to Iraq twice and heard a great deal from the usual suspects about how I was going to fight an "illegal" war. Some people did go to prison, but because of their conduct, not their cause.
Conduct is also what people have been prosecuted for in other conflicts as well. Post WWII Germans and Japanese war criminals were usually imprisoned for their conduct and that of troops under their command, not for fighting for Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany (although if you were fighting on the Eastern Front, it was almost certain troops under your command were committing war crimes... just that kind of war). I'm hard pressed to think of any soldiers or military leaders who have been primarily prosecuted for the cause that they were fighting for (at least technically speaking... if we had truly been prosecuting conduct than most Soviet leadership and both our and British SAC leadership would have been up on charges as well).
On the German War of Extinction - the war to conquer the USSR - the German military High Command issued standing orders, which ordered the separation of Political Officers which were not considered POW (which led to their summary killing, as well of Jewish Soviet soldiers), Hitler ordered that any crimes committed by Wehrmacht personnel - even when considered a crime against military conduct - not to be persecuted. This war was a war of „Weltanschauung“ or worldviews with the national socialist (racist) against the „Jewish-Bolshevik“ which had to be obliterated and overcome by the master race. So, yes „that kind of war“ but then not: during WWI 1,5 mio Russian POE were taken by the Germans and 5,4% died. In WWII of 5,7mio Russian POWs more than half of them died, until February 1942 of the 3 mio than taken about two mio, most of them of hunger and exposure…
That really doesn’t help nowadays military personnel, because this example is so clear cut and simple.
Thanks, Wes. As a civilian, I am now smarter about how the military deals with orders, legal or otherwise. The officer / enlisted split was especially important to know.
If you receive an order you believe is illegal you should question the person delivering the order stating you think it's illegal and why. If that person doesn't resolve your concerns, you bring it up the chain of command, if you have time. If there's no time, you would have to either comply or roll the dice that a judge agrees that it's illegal (which might have consequences anyway).
There is a sexual abuse hotline that might be able to refer you somewhere more appropriate.
Paul, on Combat Veteran News recently related an incident in which he, as a Lieutenant in Afghanistan, refused an order by a Captain which would have involved the mistreatment of a POW that he was responsible for. After a brief exchange the Captain recognised his error and backed down.
Very important! I feel for my brothers and sisters in arms who may have to show more courage in confronting an unlawful order than in charging a bunker. In neither case can one be certain the action is correct or what the outcome will be.
As the good book says, you disobey at your peril!
(Manual for Courts- Martial, Part IV, Paragraph 14.c.(2)(a)(i) (Inference of lawfulness) )
Excellent explanation of the distinction of responsibilities between the enlisted and the officer-class.
Yet despite a few anomalies & difficulties in resolution of events the military system has proven effective over time.
Is it likely that an senior officer could face a court-martial or tribunal for following an instruction (later deemed illegal) from a senior political office-bearer that results in disrepute for the nation on the world stage?
Thank you, I think this is important to remember.Especially with videos from Democrats saying troops should not follow unlawful orders. How do they know? It does indeed end up as very hard individual choice. But you mentioned shooting civilians… the attacks on the small boats supposedly carrying drugs does at least border. I think the main problem now is that you have people at the top willing to give orders that are very problematic is the main issue. That is what needs to be solved. Maybe the videos contribute to that, maybe not. But I think leaving this to the individual officers not to mention the enlisted cannot really work. And it isn’t fair.
Drone strikes in the middle east were apparently no big deal during the Obama and Biden admins.
Giving Ukraine targeting data and flight path mapping for their drones to evade Russian air defenses to attack civilian targets is also no big deal. (Yes, the Russians are attacking civilian targets, power stations, and being called bad guys for doing it)
But killing Venezuelan cartel members running boats full of cocaine or fentanyl? That’s illegal!
We live in a fucking clown world.
Civilians also have a tendency to conflate "unpopular with everyone they know" with "illegal." I deployed to Iraq twice and heard a great deal from the usual suspects about how I was going to fight an "illegal" war. Some people did go to prison, but because of their conduct, not their cause.
Conduct is also what people have been prosecuted for in other conflicts as well. Post WWII Germans and Japanese war criminals were usually imprisoned for their conduct and that of troops under their command, not for fighting for Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany (although if you were fighting on the Eastern Front, it was almost certain troops under your command were committing war crimes... just that kind of war). I'm hard pressed to think of any soldiers or military leaders who have been primarily prosecuted for the cause that they were fighting for (at least technically speaking... if we had truly been prosecuting conduct than most Soviet leadership and both our and British SAC leadership would have been up on charges as well).
On the German War of Extinction - the war to conquer the USSR - the German military High Command issued standing orders, which ordered the separation of Political Officers which were not considered POW (which led to their summary killing, as well of Jewish Soviet soldiers), Hitler ordered that any crimes committed by Wehrmacht personnel - even when considered a crime against military conduct - not to be persecuted. This war was a war of „Weltanschauung“ or worldviews with the national socialist (racist) against the „Jewish-Bolshevik“ which had to be obliterated and overcome by the master race. So, yes „that kind of war“ but then not: during WWI 1,5 mio Russian POE were taken by the Germans and 5,4% died. In WWII of 5,7mio Russian POWs more than half of them died, until February 1942 of the 3 mio than taken about two mio, most of them of hunger and exposure…
That really doesn’t help nowadays military personnel, because this example is so clear cut and simple.
Thanks, Wes. As a civilian, I am now smarter about how the military deals with orders, legal or otherwise. The officer / enlisted split was especially important to know.
Isn’t there a hotline available for service people to call with questions about the legality of specific orders?
I'm not aware of one.
If you receive an order you believe is illegal you should question the person delivering the order stating you think it's illegal and why. If that person doesn't resolve your concerns, you bring it up the chain of command, if you have time. If there's no time, you would have to either comply or roll the dice that a judge agrees that it's illegal (which might have consequences anyway).
There is a sexual abuse hotline that might be able to refer you somewhere more appropriate.
Not a lawyer, but a veteran.
Paul, on Combat Veteran News recently related an incident in which he, as a Lieutenant in Afghanistan, refused an order by a Captain which would have involved the mistreatment of a POW that he was responsible for. After a brief exchange the Captain recognised his error and backed down.
That is of course the best solution. But the top will not back down here.