Military Orders - - To Obey or Not to Obey?

[Bob Hubbard]

Interesting article on this.

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. "I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

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

 

[MBuzzy]

And THAT is why we all have to have training on LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict). So that you not only know what orders you can and can't follow, but what orders you can and can't issue.

 

[Archangel M]

The end of the OP puts it nicely:

So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime.

 

[Makalakumu]

What if a group of lawyers at one time say your orders are lawful and then a group of lawyers at another time declare them unlawful? Where does your personal choice come into this picture?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Basically it comes down to do what you think is the right thing to do, if you're wrong one way of the other, you have to live with the consequences.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

What if a group of lawyers at one time say your orders are lawful and then a group of lawyers at another time declare them unlawful? Where does your personal choice come into this picture?

Well I imagine that's where the military court's appeals process comes in. The article in the OP points out that the "obeying orders" defense has been involved in a lot more than just Vietnam and Nuhremberg.

Unless this was just another potshot at attorneys...

 

[MBuzzy]

Basically it comes down to do what you think is the right thing to do, if you're wrong one way of the other, you have to live with the consequences.

I disagree here. It has nothing to do with personal ethics...your feelings of right and wrong don't have much to do with obeying or disobeying orders. You are obliged to carry out the lawful orders of the officers appointed over you - without influence of ethics. Many times the orders that you are given may go against your personal opinions or ethics....but you have to do it anyway. I have done PLENTY of things that I don't think were right...but they were lawful orders and therefore must be filled out.

If you feel so strongly about something that you can't obey the order, then as you say, you have to deal with the consequence....at times, that means jail.

I think this is a concept that many civilians don't grasp (not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation of my civilian friends). People love to talk about rights and freedom and constitution, etc....that doesn't apply in the military. You have rules that are more stringent than the general populous in the military. The UCMJ is more strict and it means that you sacrifice many of your rights, at times, that means that you sacrifice the right of choice and the consequences are much worse than in the civilian world. There...if you don't do what your boss says, the worst that can happen is that you get fired. In the military, people can die. Once you've signed up, your personal choice and ethics take a backseat to your officers, senior NCO's and the UCMJ.

What if a group of lawyers at one time say your orders are lawful and then a group of lawyers at another time declare them unlawful? Where does your personal choice come into this picture?

Well, if you're acquitted the first time, then you're clear. I don't think that they can re-court martial someone. Of course, there is an appeals process. But in the Court Martial Process, your jury is a panel of military officers, so they have a pretty good understanding of what a legal order is and isn't.

Personal choice has little place in the military. When you sign up, you forfeit certain rights. If you are given a lawful order, you technically have a choice...but if you choose to NOT obey, you will be punished. Depending on the order, it could be from Article 15, to forfeiture of pay, to imprisonment. I really don't see it as a matter of choice, it is more a matter of discretion. If you are given an unlawful order, it isn't a choice, it is a DUTY to 1) let the issuing officer know 2) do not obey the order. Judgment and discretion is essential - along with knowing the rules and laws well enough to make a determination. The great thing about the military is that there is always a chain of command, so when in doubt, you have PLENTY of people to go to. You also have the JAG at your disposal to ask. There are, of course times when you don't have the time to ask....in those cases, you have to know yourself what is legal and illegal.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Military law and Civilian law are 2 separate things.