Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are military personnel are supposed to always evaluate whether before following them? Especially, to make sure they are lawful and they then only carry them out?
Say in the clear cut example the U.S. President orders military seize control of U.S. Supreme Court and summarily execute all members so he can appoint new ones. I would assume most U.S. military personnel would realize that carrying out the order would be unlawful. So would be required by U.S. law to always disobey such obvious illegal orders?
Another more cloudly example, say an Air Force bomber pilot was asked to bomb a dangerous U.S. target. Which unknown to the pilot only happens to be an outspoken university campus student protest the U.S. president wanted silenced. Is the pilot required to investigate the target in order to evaluate whether the order is illegal and must not be followed?
I was in the U.S. Army from 1998 to 2006. Back in 2003 we went through specific training regarding lawful and unlawful orders. It was made very clear to us that we would be held accountable if orders were given that were clearly unlawful and we carried out those orders. It was kind of cheesy, but we even had to do a role playing scenario where unlawful orders were given to us and we had to respond appropriately. Most of the scenarios had to do with killing "potentially dangerous" civilians. The Army clearly let us know that if we did something wrong, even if commanded by a higher authority, that we would be held accountable.
Are military personnel are supposed to always evaluate whether before following them? Especially, to make sure they are lawful and they then only carry them out?
Say in the clear cut example the U.S. President orders military seize control of U.S. Supreme Court and summarily execute all members so he can appoint new ones. I would assume most U.S. military personnel would realize that carrying out the order would be unlawful. So would be required by U.S. law to always disobey such obvious illegal orders?
Another more cloudly example, say an Air Force bomber pilot was asked to bomb a dangerous U.S. target. Which unknown to the pilot only happens to be an outspoken university campus student protest the U.S. president wanted silenced. Is the pilot required to investigate the target in order to evaluate whether the order is illegal and must not be followed?
A pilot on a combat mission is somehow supposed to start investigating his target? I'm going with "No". Especially if the weapon employed is a standoff weapon such as JASSM or JDAM. Depending on conditions, he may never even see the target.
A navy pilot was interviewed after 911. He was asked this very question. His response encapsulated the Pinnacle reason we have Military. It Spares no life, foreign or domestic. He was asked if given the order to shoot down a domestic plane that was captured by a terrorist, would he do it. He responded with the referenced above about domestic or foreign.
If the chief commander gives a direct order, the government paid staff member is to do first and not answer questions later. There does that help?
The Geneva by laws do have some regulations in wartime and combat. But let's face it, those humane rules rarely get called to the carpet. Guantanamo Bay is a good example .
A navy pilot was interviewed after 911. He was asked this very question. His response encapsulated the Pinnacle reason we have Military. It Spares no life, foreign or domestic. He was asked if given the order to shoot down a domestic plane that was captured by a terrorist, would he do it. He responded with the referenced above about domestic or foreign.
If the chief commander gives a direct order, the government paid staff member is to do first and not answer questions later. There does that help?
The Geneva by laws do have some regulations in wartime and combat. But let's face it, those humane rules rarely get called to the carpet. Guantanamo Bay is a good example .
Which has nothing to do with lawful vs unlawful orders. You really have no clue.
An order in the military is generally presumed to be lawful and valid. If something does not seem OK, however, further investigation is warranted. The example in the OP with the Supreme Court would be a clear case of an order that is clearly not valid or legal.
Look at this way...how do you think the soldiers in Afghanistan feel when they are asked to stand guard over the poppy fields, (that will be made into Heroin and make its way to US cities)?
I bet they have asked themselves whats going on a few times!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
