NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1155400

I'm quite torn on this one. I am against the war in Iraq, but I do feel that soldiers, especially officers, shouldn't expect to pick and choose their postings.

I guess he joined the army to defend Britian. Since the invasion of Iraq seems to be a deadweight loss in that it appears to actually increase the risk of British citizens dying in a terrorist attack, I suppose that one could argue that not serving is defending British citizens.

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1155400

I'm quite torn on this one. I am against the war in Iraq, but I do feel that soldiers, especially officers, shouldn't expect to pick and choose their postings.

Yeah, the same. If he didn't want to go, either resign or don't joi up in the first place. Once you're in, you can't pick and choose.

You take the Queen's shilling, you have chosen to obey the Queen's orders. This idiot should be court marshalled and shot.

He shouldn't be jailed he should be only fired. If anyone non-military doesn't do their job their employers can't sentance them to jail why should the military in a non-defensive situation.

You take the Queen's shilling, you have chosen to obey the Queen's orders. This idiot should be court marshalled and shot.
court marshalled, sure.
Shot? You have to be joking.

There's no conscientous objector clause in the British army?

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1155400

I'm quite torn on this one. I am against the war in Iraq, but I do feel that soldiers, especially officers, shouldn't expect to pick and choose their postings.
Following illegal orders leaves you liable to prosecution for war crimes. It's ridiculous that refusing to follow (possibly illegal) orders lands you in jail. Damned if you do, damned it you don't.

court marshalled, sure.
Shot? You have to be joking.

There's no conscientous objector clause in the British army?

What is the penalty for desertion or refusal to obey orders during times of war?

Technically he should be shot.

Following illegal orders leaves you liable to prosecution for war crimes. It's ridiculous that refusing to follow (possibly illegal) orders lands you in jail. Damned if you do, damned it you don't.

What war crimes would you be talking about then?

You take the Queen's shilling, you have chosen to obey the Queen's orders. This idiot should be court marshalled and shot.
I don't think they take the shilling anymore. Wouldn't be much point.

I think a jail sentence is a bit over the top. 8 months for following your conscience? That's a bit harsh, surely?

What is the penalty for desertion or refusal to obey orders during times of war?
Britain isn't at war.

What is the penalty for desertion or refusal to obey orders during times of war?

Technically he should be shot.

Shot? Where are we, 1914? Jailed and dismissed, yes. You don't shoot deserters unless they put others in explicit danger, which this man obviously didn't.

What is the penalty for desertion or refusal to obey orders during times of war?

Technically he should be shot.

Technically, Britain is not at war.

OK then, don't shoot him. Provide him with a roof over his head and three square meals a day in safety while his colleagues that he has abandoned and betrayed are risking their lives.

Great punishment that one! Perhaps we should send him on a 'fact finding mission' along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border instead.

OK then, don't shoot him. Provide him with a roof over his head and three square meals a day in safety while his colleagues that he has abandoned and betrayed are risking their lives.

Great punishment that one! Perhaps we should send him on a 'fact finding mission' along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border instead.

I don't agree with his decision, but I don't see any reason to give him harsh treatment. What do you want to do? Make an example of him? I suggest you go read Paths of Glory or watch the film, but the novel is better.

what a strange coincidence didn’t Prince Harry just graduate as an officer?

what a strange coincidence didn’t Prince Harry just graduate as an officer?

I fail to see the connection.

Hey, this is a great idea. Take away the right for officers to question thier orders. We all know that only good can come from blindly following the commands of an administration that has been proven to lie over pretty much everything. :rolleyes: [/Sarcasm]

The only reason he lost this is because a not guilty verdit would have opened up the British and American governments to a shed load of lawsuits as it would have meant they were as good as admitting the war was illegal.

Hey, this is a great idea. Take away the right for officers to question thier orders. We all know that only good can come from blindly following the commands of an administration that has been proven to lie over pretty much everything. :rolleyes: [/Sarcasm]

The only reason he lost this is because a not guilty verdit would have opened up the British and American governments to a shed load of lawsuits as it would have meant they were as good as admitting the war was illegal.

Yes, but the trial wasn't really about the War. It was about this Officer refusing to deploy to Iraq.

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1155400

I'm quite torn on this one. I am against the war in Iraq, but I do feel that soldiers, especially officers, shouldn't expect to pick and choose their postings.

Good! he deserves to be in prison.

Following illegal orders leaves you liable to prosecution for war crimes. It's ridiculous that refusing to follow (possibly illegal) orders lands you in jail. Damned if you do, damned it you don't.

The order to go to Iraq is not an illegal order Safalra. Not by a long shot.

I don't agree with his decision, but I don't see any reason to give him harsh treatment. What do you want to do? Make an example of him? I suggest you go read Paths of Glory or watch the film, but the novel is better.

Whatever is done to him has to be worse than the conditions that he would have faced if he had not refused the order, otherwise it is not a punishment but a reward. You suggest something if you think that shooting him is too harsh.

Hey, this is a great idea. Take away the right for officers to question thier orders. We all know that only good can come from blindly following the commands of an administration that has been proven to lie over pretty much everything. :rolleyes: [/Sarcasm]

The only reason he lost this is because a not guilty verdit would have opened up the British and American governments to a shed load of lawsuits as it would have meant they were as good as admitting the war was illegal.

Actually, officers can question orders when they are specifically in violation of the rules of war and their own code of conduct. Only then can they refuse to follow orders without punishment from the authorities that be.

Technically, Britain is not at war.
Technically, no one is at war. No one declared war on Iraq.

Whatever is done to him has to be worse than the conditions that he would have faced if he had not refused the order, otherwise it is not a punishment but a reward. You suggest something if you think that shooting him is too harsh.

He should be given a dishonourable discharge and some minor jail time. Say 30-60 days in prison.

What is the penalty for desertion or refusal to obey orders during times of war?

Technically he should be shot.
...not even the Army has a death penalty.

Since the 30s (I think) the British Army only had a death penalty for offences that were capital under civil law.

Since no civil offences in the UK can legally carry a death penalty...

Whatever is done to him has to be worse than the conditions that he would have faced if he had not refused the order, otherwise it is not a punishment but a reward. You suggest something if you think that shooting him is too harsh.
Certainly, I think shooting is too harsh!

He didn't put anyone in harm's way. He didn't leave in a crucial part of an operation and he could face war crimes if he went over there. He should be jailed, at the worst.

He didn't leave in a crucial part of an operation and he could face war crimes if he went over there.

What war crimes would he have been a part of?

Yes, but the trial wasn't really about the War. It was about this Officer refusing to deploy to Iraq.

Don't be daft. An admission by the court that the officer was justified in his decision would have been a tacit admission that the war itself was illegal.

OK people, what you are collectively saying is. Fine, sign up with the armed forces, take the money, the education etc. etc. but as soon as you are ordered to do something you don't want to, refuse to obey the order. Nothing worse than a dishonorable discharge (and as you are not being honorable to start with why should you give a shit about that) and a few days in prison will happen to you.

If you are not willing to be sent into a dangerous situation, you should not be paid for it. If you have signed up into the armed forces then you should obey any and all legal orders from your superiors.

If we had conscription, my view point would be different, but we don't. this idiot volunteered. Let him pay a price that reflects the level of betrayal of his colleagues that he has comitted.

Don't be daft. An admission by the court that the officer was justified in his decision would have been a tacit admission that the war itself was illegal.

Actually no it wouldn't.

Actually, officers can question orders when they are specifically in violation of the rules of war and their own code of conduct. Only then can they refuse to follow orders without punishment from the authorities that be.

And if the war itself is illegal? Surly that places this case under a violation of the rules of war?

And if the war itself is illegal? Surly that places this case under a violation of the rules of war?

Since the war is not illegal under British and American Laws due to the authorizations to use force, then no, it doesn't constitute a violation of the rules of war nor the rules and regulations that govern the military.

This soldier refused a lawful order given by those in authority and therefor, he should be punished.

Actually no it wouldn't.
So...the court martial acquiting him and saying that his reasons for not going to war (ie that it is illegal) are valid would in no way lend tacit support to those who believe the war to be illegal?

Actually no it wouldn't.

Why? The UK operates a legal systems based on precedents, if the court had said his reasons were justified then other courts would have had to take thier view into account. This would have lead to alot of cases being heard even if they were eventually found against.

So...the court martial acquiting him and saying that his reasons for not going to war (ie that it is illegal) are valid would in no way lend tacit support to those who believe the war to be illegal?

No it wouldn't actually.

OK people, what you are collectively saying is. Fine, sign up with the armed forces, take the money, the education etc. etc. but as soon as you are ordered to do something you don't want to, refuse to obey the order. Nothing worse than a dishonorable discharge (and as you are not being honorable to start with why should you give a shit about that) and a few days in prison will happen to you.

If you are not willing to be sent into a dangerous situation, you should not be paid for it. If you have signed up into the armed forces then you should obey any and all legal orders from your superiors.

If we had conscription, my view point would be different, but we don't. this idiot volunteered. Let him pay a price that reflects the level of betrayal of his colleagues that he has comitted.
What, so if I take up a civilian job and sign a contract, take the money and education etc and then decide I don't like it, I should be shot?

Disobeying orders in a way that puts someone elses life in immediate danger is one thing, but this is quite a bit different to that. It is far more similar in nature to me wanting to leave that civilian job.

Why? The UK operates a legal systems based on precedents, if the court had said his reasons were justified then other courts would have had to take thier view into account. This would have lead to alot of cases being heard even if they were eventually found against.

British courts maybe but the US Court doesn't have to use the precedent set by the Brits. However, the only thing the court would be saying that it doesn't matter if you agree with anything or not. You'll be able to object to anything and refuse even lawful orders. That is all the decision would do.

Does Britian have a JAG office?

I'm sorry, but I thought after WWII we decieded "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse for doing something... Yet if a soldier dares to disagree with an order, he gets punished? Kinda mixed signals there.

When the army follows orders blindly, you are set up for a dictatorship. Obviously if you are on the battlefield, and a senior officer yells jump, you jump else you might be dead, however, you have to have the ability to question the orders else you have serious problems.

Since the war is not illegal under British and American Laws due to the authorizations to use force, then no, it doesn't constitute a violation of the rules of war nor the rules and regulations that govern the military.

This soldier refused a lawful order given by those in authority and therefor, he should be punished.

No, but it was illegal under international law. Something which the rest of the world tends to take into account. Sorry about the Godwins but the concentration camps were legal under German law and I think we all remember what happened to the following orders defence at Nurenburg.

*Not comparing the two in terms of effect, just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning*

No it wouldn't actually.
If they accepted the war being illegal as a valid excuse, it wouldn't imply that the war was illegal, or that the legality was at the very least doubtful?

British courts maybe but the US Court doesn't have to use the precedent set by the Brits.
You do realise that this was in the UK? I mean, come on, the clue's in the thread title!

I'm sorry, but I thought after WWII we decieded "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse for doing something... Yet if a soldier dares to disagree with an order, he gets punished? Kinda mixed signals there.

When the army follows orders blindly, you are set up for a dictatorship. Obviously if you are on the battlefield, and a senior officer yells jump, you jump else you might be dead, however, you have to have the ability to question the orders else you have serious problems.

A soldier has to have a valid reason to disagree with an order first.

No, but it was illegal under international law.

This here is 100% debateable. Because it is, i'm not even going to start in on why I feel that it isn't a violation of International Law.

Something which the rest of the world tends to take into account. Sorry about the Godwins but the concentration camps were legal under German law and I think we all remember what happened to the following orders defence at Nurenburg.

Actually they were legal. And if that is all that they were then I doubt nothing would've came of them except for one minor fact and that is they were killing innocent Men, women, and children who Hitler didn't like.

Did you know that the US had concentration camps too?

*Not comparing the two in terms of effect, just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning*

yea however, I actually know the history of US and German Concentration Camp systems. The Germans exterminated 6 million jews in theirs while the US exterminated ZERO japanese.

You do realise that this was in the UK? I mean, come on, the clue's in the thread title!

READ WHAT I WROTE.

In the British Courts they will have to follow the precendents set by the British Courts.

In the US (where I am at) we follow the precendents of US COurts.

I know full well this took place in Britian.

British courts maybe but the US Court doesn't have to use the precedent set by the Brits. However, the only thing the court would be saying that it doesn't matter if you agree with anything or not. You'll be able to object to anything and refuse even lawful orders. That is all the decision would do.

Does Britian have a JAG office?

No, we use court martials, similar to JAG but not the same and carrying equal weight in the system of precedence as a regular court in the UK

Also, a US lawyer can use a British precedent in a US court if not precedent on the subject exsists in a previouse case decided by an American court.

Don't be daft. An admission by the court that the officer was justified in his decision would have been a tacit admission that the war itself was illegal.

It is my impression that the case was more about proving his refusal to obey the order, then his reasons why. Also, he is a doctor. In WW2 many who objected to the war proudly served in the Medical Corps, many winning medals.

No, we use court martials, similar to JAG but not the same and carrying equal weight in the system of precedence as a regular court in the UK

Also, a US lawyer can use a British precedent in a US court if not precedent on the subject exsists in a previouse case decided by an American court.

And it is actually far down the totum pole and most people take offense at using foreign law as American Law.

And if the war itself is illegal? Surly that places this case under a violation of the rules of war?

He is a doctor, what could he have done in Iraq that would be considered illegal?

What, so if I take up a civilian job and sign a contract, take the money and education etc and then decide I don't like it, I should be shot?

Disobeying orders in a way that puts someone elses life in immediate danger is one thing, but this is quite a bit different to that. It is far more similar in nature to me wanting to leave that civilian job.

If you take a civilian job, you are not signing a contract that states that you will obey Her Majesty. You are contracting to do a specific thing. If you break the contract, then you should be punished for doing so. The punishment should be worse for you than not having broken the contract would have been. This would normally involve fines and loss of employment opportunities.

Now in the case of the military, if this, or any other, member of the armed forces had not rescinded on his freely given promise to obey Her Majesty's orders then his life would be at risk. So now how do you make the breaking of his promise have consequences worse than not breaking his promise?

What conclusion do you draw?

It is pathetic to join the military as an officer just to 'play' at being a soldier. Being a soldier means being willing to put your life on the line when this is asked of you by your country. If you are not willing to do this then you should not take the benefits that military officer status confers. The man is a cheat, a fraud, and a liar and has endangered his colleagues by leaving them short handed. Be nice to him if you want to, I do not.

This here is 100% debateable. Because it is, i'm not even going to start in on why I feel that it isn't a violation of International Law.



Actually they were legal. And if that is all that they were then I doubt nothing would've came of them except for one minor fact and that is they were killing innocent Men, women, and children who Hitler didn't like.

Did you know that the US had concentration camps too?



yea however, I actually know the history of US and German Concentration Camp systems. The Germans exterminated 6 million jews in theirs while the US exterminated ZERO japanese.

Ok, I'll rephrase. What I meant was that the extermination of Jews and other groups but the Nazis was legal under German law at the time. Then Nurenburg found that following orders wasn't a defence.

*I also seem to remember that the US ended up paying compensation to the Japanese interred(sp?) during WW2. Could be making that up though.

Ok, I'll rephrase. What I meant was that the extermination of Jews and other groups but the Nazis was legal under German law at the time. Then Nurenburg found that following orders wasn't a defence.

You are indeed correct. However, please tell me why this guy refused to go to Iraq when he wasn't going to be killing anyone?

*I also seem to remember that the US ended up paying compensation to the Japanese interred(sp?) during WW2. Could be making that up though.

Actually, this is a fact. I'm proud of you for knowing it :)

If you take a civilian job, you are not signing a contract that states that you will obey Her Majesty. You are contracting to do a specific thing. If you break the contract, then you should be punished for doing so. The punishment should be worse for you than not having broken the contract would have been. This would normally involve fines and loss of employment opportunities.

Now in the case of the military, if this, or any other, member of the armed forces had not rescinded on his freely given promise to obey Her Majesty's orders then his life would be at risk. So now how do you make the breaking of his promise have consequences worse than not breaking his promise?

What conclusion do you draw?

It is pathetic to join the military as an officer just to 'play' at being a soldier. Being a soldier means being willing to put your life on the line when this is asked of you by your country. If you are not willing to do this then you should not take the benefits that military officer status confers. The man is a cheat, a fraud, and a liar and has endangered his colleagues by leaving them short handed. Be nice to him if you want to, I do not.

So do you think an officer, or enlisted soldier to that point, should never question orders or refuse to serve if they believe said orders to be illegal/immoral/wrong?

So do you think an officer, or enlisted soldier to that point, should never question orders or refuse to serve if they believe said orders to be illegal/immoral/wrong?

No, they should question orders if they for any reason appear to be illegal or immoral. But, in this case (mainly because it is Gulf War 2) it is really a matter of personal opinion about the war.

If you take a civilian job, you are not signing a contract that states that you will obey Her Majesty. You are contracting to do a specific thing. If you break the contract, then you should be punished for doing so. The punishment should be worse for you than not having broken the contract would have been. This would normally involve fines and loss of employment opportunities.

Now in the case of the military, if this, or any other, member of the armed forces had not rescinded on his freely given promise to obey Her Majesty's orders then his life would be at risk. So now how do you make the breaking of his promise have consequences worse than not breaking his promise?

What conclusion do you draw?

It is pathetic to join the military as an officer just to 'play' at being a soldier. Being a soldier means being willing to put your life on the line when this is asked of you by your country. If you are not willing to do this then you should not take the benefits that military officer status confers. The man is a cheat, a fraud, and a liar and has endangered his colleagues by leaving them short handed. Be nice to him if you want to, I do not.

I take it you did read thew whole article? The bit about him having already served two tours out there as well a other tours in equally dangerous areas? The Man is as far from a coward as can be, he had the courage to learn about a subject and the stand up for his beliefs at real personal cost. Do some damn research before posting.

If you take a civilian job, you are not signing a contract that states that you will obey Her Majesty. You are contracting to do a specific thing. If you break the contract, then you should be punished for doing so. The punishment should be worse for you than not having broken the contract would have been. This would normally involve fines and loss of employment opportunities.
Actually, jobs don't 'punish' you for breaking your contract, otherwise people would be stuck in the same place forever. You can give your notice and move on; it is called freedom. The idea that this freedom should be denied to somebody simply because their employer has HRH in the title is absurd.

Now in the case of the military, if this, or any other, member of the armed forces had not rescinded on his freely given promise to obey Her Majesty's orders then his life would be at risk. So now how do you make the breaking of his promise have consequences worse than not breaking his promise?

What conclusion do you draw?
I draw the conclusino that you have decided on what a termination of contract should involve and are trying to fit a warped sense of 'logic' around that.

It is pathetic to join the military as an officer just to 'play' at being a soldier. Being a soldier means being willing to put your life on the line when this is asked of you by your country. If you are not willing to do this then you should not take the benefits that military officer status confers. The man is a cheat, a fraud, and a liar and has endangered his colleagues by leaving them short handed. Be nice to him if you want to, I do not.
It is pathetic that in a 21st Century democracy we should place the idea that you cannot make decisions on your own life above the freedom of the individual. We all sign up to things only for circumstances to change, and so we are no longer bound by the original contract.

Incidently, there is no evidence whatsoever that he is either a liar, a cheat, a fraud or left any colleagues in danger. You have made this up yourself to make him out as being as bad as possible.

So do you think an officer, or enlisted soldier to that point, should never question orders or refuse to serve if they believe said orders to be illegal/immoral/wrong?

If they believe them to be illegal, then they can refuse them. If they believe them to be immoral or wrong, then they have no choice but to obey them. That is what you agree to when you enlist. If you can not do that, then do not sign up. Simple isn't it.

You are indeed correct. However, please tell me why this guy refused to go to Iraq when he wasn't going to be killing anyone?



Actually, this is a fact. I'm proud of you for knowing it :)

How many people has the Irag occupation already killed? How many will it kill in the future? Just because you're a small cog in a machine it doesn't mean you're any less responsible for the outcome.

As for the Japanese compensation, doesn't this mean that the US government admitted it was in the wrong for the Japanese concentration camps?

If they believe them to be illegal, then they can refuse them. If they believe them to be immoral or wrong, then they have no choice but to obey them. That is what you agree to when you enlist. If you can not do that, then do not sign up. Simple isn't it.

You know, just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right or moral. A soldier should never follow an order that they believe to be immoral.

If they believe them to be illegal, then they can refuse them. If they believe them to be immoral or wrong, then they have no choice but to obey them. That is what you agree to when you enlist. If you can not do that, then do not sign up. Simple isn't it.

Why can't they disobey if they think them wrong or immoral? If British soldiers are ordered to execute innocent civilians, and laws have just been passed in Britain to make it legal, then they should just pull the trigger regardless?

How many people has the Irag occupation already killed? How many will it kill in the future? Just because you're a small cog in a machine it doesn't mean you're any less responsible for the outcome.

1) To many

2) Unknown

As for the Japanese compensation, doesn't this mean that the US government admitted it was in the wrong for the Japanese concentration camps?

Yep but we didn't do any extermination.

If they believe them to be illegal, then they can refuse them. If they believe them to be immoral or wrong, then they have no choice but to obey them. That is what you agree to when you enlist. If you can not do that, then do not sign up. Simple isn't it.

Hypothetical-Bush declares martial law in the US, give military complete control over a blue state and orders them to pacify it using any means. Your CO then tells you to go kill a room full of people who are against the government. Do you do it? It's a legal order.

The line between illegal and immoral isn't that clear and it's the responsibility of an officer to question those he doesn't believe to be right.

Hypothetical-Bush declares martial law in the US, give military complete control over a blue state and orders them to pacify it using any means. Your CO then tells you to go kill a room full of people who are against the government. Do you do it? It's a legal order.

The line between illegal and immoral isn't that clear and it's the responsibility of an officer to question those he doesn't believe to be right.

ANd since your hypothetical isn't clear, neither is your "legal order" case.

Are the people armed?
Have they commmitted terrorist acts?
are they firing on the soldiers?
Etc.

If they're just sitting there in a room writing letters, then, no, it isn't a legal order.

Actually, jobs don't 'punish' you for breaking your contract, otherwise people would be stuck in the same place forever. You can give your notice and move on; it is called freedom. The idea that this freedom should be denied to somebody simply because their employer has HRH in the title is absurd.
He could have given notice and bought himself out of the remainder of his enlistment period, but instead he chose to simply refuse to do what he had contracted to do. The freedom to decide not to do what you are asked or told to do is voluntairily sacrificed when you enlist. This officer chose to sign away that freedom in return for many benefits. Now he wants the freedom back when it is time to do what he signed on to do? He, and you it appears, has no idea of what a contract is and what importance holding to contracts has for our society in general.


I draw the conclusino that you have decided on what a termination of contract should involve and are trying to fit a warped sense of 'logic' around that.
Falsely. Try again.


It is pathetic that in a 21st Century democracy we should place the idea that you cannot make decisions on your own life above the freedom of the individual. We all sign up to things only for circumstances to change, and so we are no longer bound by the original contract.
I agree with you that it is pathetic that we should still require such circumstances to exist. However they do. And given that people choose to agree to these conditions, they can not then decide that the conditions no longer apply when it suits them. If you join the military you give up, for the period in which you are a member of the armed forces, the right to make your own decisions.

Incidently, there is no evidence whatsoever that he is either a liar, a cheat, a fraud or left any colleagues in danger. You have made this up yourself to make him out as being as bad as possible.

He signed a contract and is refusing to honour it. That is lying, cheating and fraudulant. The whole basis of this requirement that military personnel obey orders is that it allows each and every member of the armed forces to trust that all of the others will be doing what they are supposed to be doing. This enables them to concentrate on their specific task, without distraction. Now if one member of any unit refuses orders, then this causes doubt in the minds of the rest and thereby endangers them.
No invention of mine. just a simple and straightforward understanding of why orders have to be obeyed in the military.

Illegal orders can be questioned as it is considered that the group as a whole would be placed at risk by following them.

It is my impression that the case was more about proving his refusal to obey the order, then his reasons why. Also, he is a doctor. In WW2 many who objected to the war proudly served in the Medical Corps, many winning medals.

No, it was the prosecutions job to prove he disobeyed orders. The defence was based on his belief that the orders were illegal. If he was found right then it would open up a whole can of worms for the British judicial system in terms of cases about the legality of the war.

As for the medals bit, he already has them for his service in other theaters of war.

ANd since your hypothetical isn't clear, neither is your "legal order" case.

Are the people armed?
Have they commmitted terrorist acts?
are they firing on the soldiers?
Etc.

If they're just sitting there in a room writing letters, then, no, it isn't a legal order.

Will elaborate. People were guilty of a peaceful protest against the declaration of martial law. Using his new powers Bush has made the execution of protesters legal. You have to bear in mind that under a martial law situation the president can do what he wants regardless of the constitution.

The line between illegal and immoral isn't that clear and it's the responsibility of an officer to question those he doesn't believe to be right.

Illegal means contrary to a specific and extant law. An illegal order may be morally god or bad, and an immoral order may be legal or illegal. They are different axes of evaluation. When you sign up to the armed services you agree to obey all legal orders, it is that simple.

You are not in a position to even question whether the order is moral or not. That is completely irrelevant to you. If you do not feel that you could obey an order that you found immoral but that was legal then do not enlist. No one is making you do anything.

Will elaborate. People were guilty of a peaceful protest against the declaration of martial law. Using his new powers Bush has made the execution of protesters legal. You have to bear in mind that under a martial law situation the president can do what he wants regardless of the constitution.

Wrong. That would be an illegal order.

Illegal means contrary to a specific and extant law. An illegal order may be morally god or bad, and an immoral order may be legal or illegal. They are different axes of evaluation. When you sign up to the armed services you agree to obey all legal orders, it is that simple.

You are not in a position to even question whether the order is moral or not. That is completely irrelevant to you. If you do not feel that you could obey an order that you found immoral but that was legal then do not enlist. No one is making you do anything.
Am I the only one who sees a contradiction between the two bolded parts?

Will elaborate. People were guilty of a peaceful protest against the declaration of martial law. Using his new powers Bush has made the execution of protesters legal. You have to bear in mind that under a martial law situation the president can do what he wants regardless of the constitution.

I am discussing the situation with respect to the UK. What it is in the USA I don't know. No one in the UK has that kind of executive power, so the situation does not arise. I would however question the ability of the POTUS to ignore the Constitution even under martial law.

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction between the two bolded parts?

If you miss out the sentence in between, then yes they are contradictory. They would be contradictory if we had conscription., but military service is voluntary.

So what don't you understand about the word voluntary.

What war crimes would he have been a part of?
Hypothetical question. We don't know if war crimes will be comitted.

But if he helped in, say, another Abu Graib prison scandal, he could be tried for war crimes. I'm not saying he's guilty, mind you. But he could just as easily be helping the CIA ferry prisonners towards torture site.

Also, a US lawyer can use a British precedent in a US court if not precedent on the subject exsists in a previouse case decided by an American court.

It's not binding though, only persuasive. I'm not even sure that a GCM ruling would be binding on civilian court in the UK either as there is no concurrent jurisdiciton. Though obviously it would be given a great deal more weight than in the US.

I'm surprised that this guy didn't just use the consciencous objector clause to get out though, and avoid all this fuss. Strikes me as a bit of a publicity seeker.

@Nadkor. There were six capital offences that a GCM could find until 1998. Mostly things to do with mutiny, or aiding the enemy I believe.

If you miss out the sentence in between, then yes they are contradictory. They would be contradictory if we had conscription., but military service is voluntary.

So what don't you understand about the word voluntary.
You said they guy could not questions orders. He must follow them. Then you say no one is forcing him to do anything. There is a contradiction.

If you said that he wasn't forced to enlist, you might have had a point. But since we don't know the specifics, he might have signed his military contract in 1992 for all we know. When a new war happens, you can see it as illegal and refuse to join. That'S the whole point of conscientous objector.

I'm surprised that this guy didn't just use the consciencous objector clause to get out though, and avoid all this fuss. Strikes me as a bit of a publicity seeker.
Or he could have tried and was denied. We don't know the specifics.

Wrong. That would be an illegal order.

How? Your serving government has made it legal and you've been ordered to do it by your CO. It would be just as legal as the war in Iraq if a little more extreme.

I am discussing the situation with respect to the UK. What it is in the USA I don't know. No one in the UK has that kind of executive power, so the situation does not arise. I would however question the ability of the POTUS to ignore the Constitution even under martial law.

There have been at least two cases in the US history where alien and sedition acts were passed. Neither of these included the execution of dissidents, only arrest. Both were during wartime and both were overturned.

Or he could have tried and was denied. We don't know the specifics.

That's possible, but I doubt it. My understanding is that the British Forces, being so small, don't want people that don't want to be there. It's probably more a function that he wanted to be noisy with his withdrawl.

How? Your serving government has made it legal and you've been ordered to do it by your CO. It would be just as legal as the war in Iraq if a little more extreme.

Thank you for showing your lack of knowledge on the subject. Such an order would be in violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ, both of which US soldiers are sworn to uphold. It has been long held by legal precedent that that takes priority over an illegal order.

Wether the conflict in Iraq is legal or not is moot. The officer was ordered to do a tour there, not massacre unarmed dissidents so your comparison is false.

Try again.

That's possible, but I doubt it. My understanding is that the British Forces, being so small, don't want people that don't want to be there. It's probably more a function that he wanted to be noisy with his withdrawl.
That's possible too. :fluffle:

It's not binding though, only persuasive. I'm not even sure that a GCM ruling would be binding on civilian court in the UK either as there is no concurrent jurisdiciton. Though obviously it would be given a great deal more weight than in the US.

I'm surprised that this guy didn't just use the consciencous objector clause to get out though, and avoid all this fuss. Strikes me as a bit of a publicity seeker.

@Nadkor. There were six capital offences that a GCM could find until 1998. Mostly things to do with mutiny, or aiding the enemy I believe.

A GCM carries no binding precedent over any court in the UK and the only civilian court that can overturn a GCM decision is the House OF Lords. The persuasive precendent set however would be more than enough the get a lot of the cases over the war in Iraq before the bench which was my point earlier. A not guilty verdits would have caused a major headache for the British legal system.

You said they guy could not questions orders. He must follow them. Then you say no one is forcing him to do anything. There is a contradiction.
I said that the guy had to follow orders. True. I did not say that no one is forcing him to do anything. Once he has enlisted, which no one forced him to do in the first place, which was an act of his choosing, then this choice entals consequences.

If you said that he wasn't forced to enlist, you might have had a point. But since we don't know the specifics, he might have signed his military contract in 1992 for all we know. When a new war happens, you can see it as illegal and refuse to join. That'S the whole point of conscientous objector. I did say he was not forced to enlist.
When you enlist in the UK, you agree, voluntarily, to obey legal orders. Is it different in Canada? You enlist for a period of time. If he enlisted in 1992, then he chose a long term contract, with the knowledge that this would likely commit him to active service. If he was not willing to run that risk, he should not have enlisted.
There is no justification for conscientious objectors in a volunteer military. If you object on religious or ethical grounds to active service you simply do not sign up. If you sign up you are stating that you have no such objections.

Thank you for showing your lack of knowledge on the subject. Such an order would be in violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ, both of which US soldiers are sworn to uphold. It has been long held by legal precedent that that takes priority over an illegal order.

Wether the conflict in Iraq is legal or not is moot. The officer was ordered to do a tour there, not massacre unarmed dissidents so your comparison is false.

Try again.

The hypothetical was meant as a thought experiment rather then a real life possiblity and I see I failed to get my point across so I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the US legal system.

As to massacring civilians, the magnitude of an illegal order is moot. The fact that it is illegal is all that matters. The officer believed it was and went to court to prove it. He lost but who is to say he won't win on appeal?

I said that the guy had to follow orders. True. I did not say that no one is forcing him to do anything. Once he has enlisted, which no one forced him to do in the first place, which was an act of his choosing, then this choice entals consequences.

I did say he was not forced to enlist.
When you enlist in the UK, you agree, voluntarily, to obey legal orders. Is it different in Canada? You enlist for a period of time. If he enlisted in 1992, then he chose a long term contract, with the knowledge that this would likely commit him to active service. If he was not willing to run that risk, he should not have enlisted.
There is no justification for conscientious objectors in a volunteer military. If you object on religious or ethical grounds to active service you simply do not sign up. If you sign up you are stating that you have no such objections.
Even if I conceded your point, that would still not warrant a death sentance.

The hypothetical was meant as a thought experiment rather then a real life possiblity and I see I failed to get my point across so I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the US legal system.

As to massacring civilians, the magnitude of an illegal order is moot. The fact that it is illegal is all that matters. The officer believed it was and went to court to prove it. He lost but who is to say he won't win on appeal?

He also Godwins the arguement by comparing the US to Nazi Germany. His "belief" seems pretty far fetched.

Even if he believes the war is "illegal" that does not make his orders to deploy illegal. Especially due to the fact that he is a Doctor and not a combat specialist and therefor not directly involved in combat operations makes his arguement even weaker.

If he's trying to argue that the war is "immoral", he should ask himself how many soldiers will die due to the lack of his presence to save lives.

He also Godwins the arguement by comparing the US to Nazi Germany. His "belief" seems pretty far fetched.

Even if he believes the war is "illegal" that does not make his orders to deploy illegal. Especially due to the fact that he is a Doctor and not a combat specialist and therefor not directly involved in combat operations makes his arguement even weaker.

If he's trying to argue that the war is "immoral", he should ask himself how many soldiers will die due to the lack of his presence to save lives.
none, really. Some other doctor will go in his stead. It's not like there is only one doctor in the army.

I guess he joined the army to defend Britian. Since the invasion of Iraq seems to be a deadweight loss in that it appears to actually increase the risk of British citizens dying in a terrorist attack, I suppose that one could argue that not serving is defending British citizens.
I am not British, but his lawyer should use that arguement. "The British military is made to protect Britian. The war in Iraq endangers her."

He also Godwins the arguement by comparing the US to Nazi Germany. His "belief" seems pretty far fetched.

Even if he believes the war is "illegal" that does not make his orders to deploy illegal. Especially due to the fact that he is a Doctor and not a combat specialist and therefor not directly involved in combat operations makes his arguement even weaker.

If he's trying to argue that the war is "immoral", he should ask himself how many soldiers will die due to the lack of his presence to save lives.

Unfortunatly "he Godwined it" isn't an argument a barrister can use in a court case ;)

An order to deploy into an illegal war is an illegal order. The British military can't order a soldier to commit a crime, and according to your post earlier, neither can the US military. If this war is found to be illegal then any soldier who took part in it could be charged. The right to question orders is there for a reason, it protects both the soldier and any peoples the soldier may be ordered to fight against.

Even if I conceded your point, that would still not warrant a death sentance.

The suggestion that he be shot was an indication of how serious his offence was in my view.

When you agree to a set of conditions in return for some consideration, and you obtain that coinsideration, to refuse to uphold the conditions you agreed to is about as wrong as you can be. It is not a crime of passion, it is not a crime of oversight or neglect. It is, when the agreement you are breaching is with your country, clear and deliberate treason. I simpy do not feel that a short prison sentence is an appropriate punishment. Perhaps exile would do though. Let us see what nation would want such a person.

Unfortunatly "he Godwined it" isn't an argument a barrister can use in a court case ;)

No, but making the comparison as part of his arguement hurts it.

An order to deploy into an illegal war is an illegal order. The British military can't order a soldier to commit a crime, and according to your post earlier, neither can the US military. If this war is found to be illegal then any soldier who took part in it could be charged. The right to question orders is there for a reason, it protects both the soldier and any peoples the soldier may be ordered to fight against.

Odds are, no nation is going to find this conflict "illegal". Even if they did, they wouldn't charge soldiers who performed regularly legal actions (such as doctoring or even performing basic anti-insurgency operations). The ones they would go after would be the ones who actually committed crimes, such as the leadership of Abu Garaib. That precedent was set by the Nuremburg Trials.

I am not British, but his lawyer should use that arguement. "The British military is made to protect Britian. The war in Iraq endangers her."

It wouldn't fly. Basically because the UK government has always been fairly clear that HM Forces are there to protect british "interests", not just the UK itself.

This guy is a disgrace to military personnel across the world from every country. You don't sign a contract that says you will die if it is the only way to follow a legal order if you don't really mean it. End of story.

This guy is a disgrace to military personnel across the world from every country. You don't sign a contract that says you will die if it is the only way to follow a legal order if you don't really mean it. End of story.

Yes you do. No one signs a contract saying they will die. Grow up

Yes you do. No one signs a contract saying they will die. Grow up

Well then i geuss i got duped into signing one. Along with my 1.3 million fellow american military personnel. Article 2 of the marine corps code of conduct states that you will never surrender while you have the ability to resist enemy forces. The enlisted oath also states that they will follow all legal orders. A bayonet charge facing sure death is a legal order.

court marshalled, sure.
Shot? You have to be joking.

There's no conscientous objector clause in the British army?
I think the point of COs is to stay out of the army. Not to avoid unpleasant duty. Otherwise, I'd have made several conscientious objections to rooms I was assigned, ships that didn't pull into port often enough ...

He shouldn't be jailed he should be only fired. If anyone non-military doesn't do their job their employers can't sentance them to jail why should the military in a non-defensive situation.
I can't speak for the British army, but I expect that the conditions are similar to what we have in the U.S. When you join the military in the U.S., you agree to be bound by the Unified Code of Military Justice. In other words, soldiers and sailors have rules and regulations to follow beyond what one would expect in civilian life. There's a thing called discipline that is essential to a military. Without it, the military would be as ineffective as a bunch of Arabs.

@Nadkor. There were six capital offences that a GCM could find until 1998. Mostly things to do with mutiny, or aiding the enemy I believe.

They were all ones that were capital offences in civil law as well, as far as I'm aware...which is pretty much what I said originally.

How is the war in Iraq illegal? Is there a law that prevents a country from stopping a genocidal dictator that commits gross human rights violations? Is there a law that says such people must be given a cookie to appease them instead of going to war? The war was perfectly just, morally and legally.

Well then i geuss i got duped into signing one. Along with my 1.3 million fellow american military personnel. Article 2 of the marine corps code of conduct states that you will never surrender while you have the ability to resist enemy forces. The enlisted oath also states that they will follow all legal orders. A bayonet charge facing sure death is a legal order.

Then thats a stupid article. I have signed two military contracts and neither told me I had to die rather than follow my consience.

You hit the nail on the head with the legal part. Thats the whole point. It was his duty to question the legality of his orders. That they were judged to be legal does not mean he was wrong for questioning them in the first place.

How is the war in Iraq illegal? Is there a law that prevents a country from stopping a genocidal dictator that commits gross human rights violations? Is there a law that says such people must be given a cookie to appease them instead of going to war? The war was perfectly just, morally and legally.

War is illegal unless sanctioned by the UN which it was not.

Morally, I have no problem with deposing evil dictators, my problem is with being lied to about why we went to war. If Tony Blair had stood up and said we were going to war to free the Iraqi people I would have applauded him. Instead he gave us some flannel about WMDs (where are they) and Iraq having the ability to destroy it's neighbours in 45 minutes.

Then thats a stupid article. I have signed two military contracts and neither told me I had to die rather than follow my consience.

You hit the nail on the head with the legal part. Thats the whole point. It was his duty to question the legality of his orders. That they were judged to be legal does not mean he was wrong for questioning them in the first place.

No but he was wrong for refusing to follow said orders. It's a gamble that he took and lost.

War is illegal unless sanctioned by the UN which it was not.

And the UN did such a good job in Rwanda, Haiti, South Africa, Serbia, etc. Saddam was obviously committing horrendous human rights violations and nobody was doing anything about it -- the UN had utter disrespect for the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions. Anyway:

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Oct/09-215033.html

Even if the war was illegal, he was just a medic. He would be saving lives, not taking them. He wouldn't be slaughtering innocent civilians or anything. If the war was illegal, he wouldn't be guilty of violating any law by serving as a medic. Maybe if he was a soldier, he would have some ground for appeal, but he's a medic. Morally and legally, he's in the wrong.

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1155400

I'm quite torn on this one. I am against the war in Iraq, but I do feel that soldiers, especially officers, shouldn't expect to pick and choose their postings.
My dad was talking to his mum a couple of days ago... thats what brings to you that this guy could be your friend or something. You know, imagine if this was your friend doing this.

And the UN did such a good job in Rwanda, Haiti, South Africa, Serbia, etc. Saddam was obviously committing horrendous human rights violations and nobody was doing anything about it -- the UN had utter disrespect for the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions. Anyway:

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Oct/09-215033.html

Even if the war was illegal, he was just a medic. He would be saving lives, not taking them. He wouldn't be slaughtering innocent civilians or anything. If the war was illegal, he wouldn't be guilty of violating any law by serving as a medic. Maybe if he was a soldier, he would have some ground for appeal, but he's a medic. Morally and legally, he's in the wrong.
Correction. US.

And secondly saving lives... of soilders, so they can go out and kill more.

No but he was wrong for refusing to follow said orders. It's a gamble that he took and lost.

Thankyou. Thats it in a nutshell. He took the gamble and lost. What annoys me is people moronically calling the man a coward and demanding he be shot.

Thankyou. Thats it in a nutshell. He took the gamble and lost. What annoys me is people moronically calling the man a coward and demanding he be shot.

I wouldn't call him a coward, just an asshole. He basically abandoned his fellow soldiers and broke his word besides spouting lots of nonsense. IMO, his US/Nazi comparison effectively destroys his entire arguement.

Jail time and the UK equivalent of a dishonorable or other than honorable discharge.

War is illegal unless sanctioned by the UN which it was not.

That's not precisely accurate.

And the UN did such a good job in Rwanda, Haiti, South Africa, Serbia, etc.

The UN didn't do anything about Serbia till after the fact.

My dad was talking to his mum a couple of days ago... thats what brings to you that this guy could be your friend or something. You know, imagine if this was your friend doing this.

If I had a friend who decided to refuse a legal order, I'd slap him and call him a coward for failing to do his duty as a member of the Armed Forces.

How is the war in Iraq illegal? Is there a law that prevents a country from stopping a genocidal dictator that commits gross human rights violations? Is there a law that says such people must be given a cookie to appease them instead of going to war? The war was perfectly just, morally and legally.

Question #1: No there isn't.

Question #2: No there isn't

If I had a friend who decided to refuse a legal order, I'd slap him and call him a coward for failing to do his duty as a member of the Armed Forces.
This guy's a coward even though he's decorated for his work in Afghanistan and has already done two tours in Iraq? Surely that is the exact antithesis of a coward.

And you're a coward for standing up for your beliefs even when you face prison?

I really wonder about you sometimes. I would say that is a very brave thing to do.

This guy's a coward even though he's decorated for his work in Afghanistan and has already done two tours in Iraq? Surely that is the exact antithesis of a coward.

Frankly, I don't care if he's decorated or not at this point in time. He signed up to do his duty and to follow all legal orders. His refusal of a legal order makes him a coward regardless if he's decorated or not.

And you're a coward for standing up for your beliefs even when you face prison?

How does this compute? If I commit a crime and faced a judge and knowing that I committed said crime, I'd do the honorable thing and confess to it and accept the consequences of said actions.

Frankly, I don't care if he's decorated or not at this point in time. He signed up to do his duty and to follow all legal orders. His refusal of a legal order makes him a coward regardless if he's decorated or not.

Right....now I know you're not serious. This man has proved on several occassions he is by no means a coward. He objected to the war on legal ground, not because he was scared.

Unless you have some unique and seriously skewed definition of "coward" which covers anybody in the forces who objects, regardless of motivation.

How does this compute? If I commit a crime and faced a judge and knowing that I committed said crime, I'd do the honorable thing and confess to it and accept the consequences of said actions.
Er...he stuck by what he believed knowing it would land him in prison. The honourable thing is to stick by your beliefs; the cowardly thing is to change your story to avoid prison (not that he could by this point, but you get the idea. Well...probably not, but anyway.)

If I had a friend who decided to refuse a legal order, I'd slap him and call him a coward for failing to do his duty as a member of the Armed Forces.

I do not agree with this officer's decision, but I will admit that it was a very brave thing to do. How many of us would stand up for our beliefs in this way? I think we all like to think we would do the same if our beliefs or morals were challenged, but I think a great number of us would merely carry on with life and bitch about it later.

They were all ones that were capital offences in civil law as well, as far as I'm aware...which is pretty much what I said originally.

I don't think so. I can't see how civil law would cover failure to supress a mutiny, or giving false air signals.

Right....now I know you're not serious. This man has proved on several occassions he is by no means a coward. He objected to the war on legal ground, not because he was scared.

The reasons are irrelevent. He disobeyed an order to go back. I don't care what anyone else says. That makes him a coward regardless of his decorations.

Unless you have some unique and seriously skewed definition of "coward" which covers anybody in the forces who objects, regardless of motivation.

Failing to follow a legal order is a good definition of a coward.

Er...he stuck by what he believed knowing it would land him in prison. The honourable thing is to stick by your beliefs; the cowardly thing is to change your story to avoid prison (not that he could by this point, but you get the idea. Well...probably not, but anyway.)

Oh I get it, however the fact remains that the order was not in anyway illegal so he had no grounds what so ever to disobey them. He did. By disobeying, that makes him a coward.

The reasons are irrelevent. He disobeyed an order to go back. I don't care what anyone else says. That makes him a coward regardless of his decorations.

Failing to follow a legal order is a good definition of a coward.

Oh I get it, however the fact remains that the order was not in anyway illegal so he had no grounds what so ever to disobey them. He did. By disobeying, that makes him a coward.

A coward would be someone who refused to stand up for their morals and beliefs, this officer stood up for his. He is no coward.

A coward would be someone who refused to stand up for their morals and beliefs, this officer stood up for his. He is no coward.

He refused orders Goderich. Legal orders no less. If it were illegal orders then I'd be backing him up all the way. However they were legal orders that he refused and in so doing, made himself a coward.

Er...he stuck by what he believed knowing it would land him in prison.

You know, I think it's OK to rape somebody. I don't care if law says that it is wrong, because I'm going to stick by my beliefs. Am I being honourable? No. The honourable thing to do is accept the law. If you choose to disobey the law, you should accept your punishment like a man instead of invoking Godwin's Second Law (the chance of a criminal making a Nazi comparison is directly proportional to his/her chance of going to prison) or crying like a baby. The fact is, there was nothing morally or legally wrong with his duty of saving wounded and dying soldiers. His refusal to obey orders is not a heroic action -- it is a cowardly one.

And secondly saving lives... of soilders, so they can go outand kill more.

The casualty rate per soldier in Iraq is very low. Chances are, the soldier will not kill any Iraqi again, and the chances of the soldier killing an innocent civilian are slim-to-nil. However, that's irrelevant. Not saving a dying soldier's life and letting him die by inaction is morally equivalent to killing that soldier. You're saying that it's OK to let soldiers who are trying to repair a country die because maybe they should not have been there in the first place? If the soldiers in Iraq are doing anything illegal, it is not up to the bitchy medic to decide -- it is up to the courts to decide. He cannot take their lives into his hands and give them a death sentence because they were fighting for a more stable and better Iraq.

He refused orders Goderich. Legal orders no less. If it were illegal orders then I'd be backing him up all the way. However they were legal orders that he refused and in so doing, made himself a coward.

Actually, it makes him insubordinate, rather than a coward per se.

Would you call someone who refused an order to surrender a coward?

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1155400
I do feel that soldiers, especially officers, shouldn't expect to (refuse to obey orders)What about Nazi soldiers/officers?
can they refuse to figth an evil war?

I don't think so. I can't see how civil law would cover failure to supress a mutiny, or giving false air signals.
Oops, I read wrong...from what I can see it was for anything that carried a capital sentence under civil law, and then also the military offence of mutiny.

Was done under the 1930 Army and Air Force Bill, and I know the amendment was proposed and campaigned for by Ernest Thurtle.

That's all I know, feel free to correct me.

Actually, it makes him insubordinate, rather than a coward per se.

Its both :D

Would you call someone who refused an order to surrender a coward?

Actually no I wouldn't call that being cowardly I don't think.

The reasons are irrelevent. He disobeyed an order to go back. I don't care what anyone else says. That makes him a coward regardless of his decorations.

Failing to follow a legal order is a good definition of a coward.

Oh I get it, however the fact remains that the order was not in anyway illegal so he had no grounds what so ever to disobey them. He did. By disobeying, that makes him a coward.

Hmm...you have a very skewed definition of "coward". In my opinion, anyway.

Here we go...Websters defines "coward" as "one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity."

Hardly a fitting description for this man.

He refused orders Goderich. Legal orders no less. If it were illegal orders then I'd be backing him up all the way. However they were legal orders that he refused and in so doing, made himself a coward.

Some of us put morals above the law.

What about Nazi soldiers/officers?
can they refuse to figth an evil war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

Some of us put morals above the law.

If I'm a soldier and I get legal orders to go, I go. That goes for all soldiers. Their opinions in the matter do not factor into this. They signed up to do the job and failing to follow orders to go somewhere because they don't agree with it makes them a coward.

As a doctor, he has the moral obligation to assist those in need. By refusing to go, he has violated the 1st rule of medicine to do no harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
I swear, Godwin's Law is the worst thing ever. There is nothing wrong with bringing up Nazi analogies in many situations.

Invoking Godwin's Law is neither big nor clever (nor funny, for that matter); don't do it kids.

Its both :D



Actually no I wouldn't call that being cowardly I don't think.

So it is possible to refuse a lawful order without being a coward?

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1155400

I'm quite torn on this one. I am against the war in Iraq, but I do feel that soldiers, especially officers, shouldn't expect to pick and choose their postings.
He chose this career path ... he knew what could be in store, he should honor his commitment.

So it is possible to refuse a lawful order without being a coward?
Only when Corny gives you permission, apparently.

If I'm a soldier and I get legal orders to go, I go. That goes for all soldiers. Their opinions in the matter do not factor into this. They signed up to do the job and failing to follow orders to go somewhere because they don't agree with it makes them a coward.

As a doctor, he has the moral obligation to assist those in need. By refusing to go, he has violated the 1st rule of medicine to do no harm.

You know, some of the worst acts imaginable have been committed because someone was just following orders.

So it is possible to refuse a lawful order without being a coward?

Yes, but in this case he was being a coward. If his CO said "go jump into that lake and swim" and the soldier said "but it's cold and I might be slightly uncomfortable," he'd be a coward. Similarly, if he refused to save the lives of his fellow soldiers, he'd be a coward. If he refused to surrender in a hopeless battle, he'd be dumb but not a coward.

If I'm a soldier and I get legal orders to go, I go. That goes for all soldiers. Their opinions in the matter do not factor into this. They signed up to do the job and failing to follow orders to go somewhere because they don't agree with it makes them a coward.

"Just following orders" didn't work for the Nazis (even when what they were doing was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany), so why should it work for anybody else?

If I'm a soldier and I get legal orders to go, I go. That goes for all soldiers. Their opinions in the matter do not factor into this.

So who decides whether or not an order is legal?

As a doctor, he has the moral obligation to assist those in need. By refusing to go, he has violated the 1st rule of medicine to do no harm.

You kid, right? The world is full of people who need treating.

I swear, Godwin's Law is the worst thing ever. There is nothing wrong with bringing up Nazi analogies in many situations.

Invoking Godwin's Law is neither big nor clever (nor funny, for that matter); don't do it kids.

Better comparisons could be made.

You know, some of the worst acts imaginable have been committed because someone was just following orders.

Those acts were going against the Geneva Conventions or international law. He's a medic, it's not like he's going to be gassing Jews or something. Or do you consider saving lives one of the worst acts imaginable? He's a medic.

You know, some of the worst acts imaginable have been committed because someone was just following orders.

And if those acts are illegal then those soldiers shouldn't have followed those orders. However, this guy is a medical doctor in the british military. He has a duty to his fellow soldiers to patch them up. He decided not to. Coward.

If I'm a soldier and I get legal orders to go, I go. That goes for all soldiers. Their opinions in the matter do not factor into this.

Yes. The last thing anyone wants is soldiers that can think. :rolleyes:

They signed up to do the job and failing to follow orders to go somewhere because they don't agree with it makes them a coward.

How many times does it need to be explained to you that you are misusing the term "coward"?

As a doctor, he has the moral obligation to assist those in need. By refusing to go, he has violated the 1st rule of medicine to do no harm.

LOL. There is some Orwellian logic. Refusing to go to war violates the Hypocratic Oath.

"Just following orders" didn't work for the Nazis (even when what they were doing was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany), so why should it work for anybody else?

I say your right if the order was illegal. In this case it wasn't.

Better comparisons could be made.
Possibly, but Godwin's Law pisses me off. Everybody thinks their so clever with their "GODWIN'S LAW!!!!111!!ONE" shit. Yes, we know, thankyou and go away. It annoys me.

And if those acts are illegal then those soldiers shouldn't have followed those orders. However, this guy is a medical doctor in the british military. He has a duty to his fellow soldiers to patch them up. He decided not to. Coward.

Your NS username begins with a C. You are a coward. And quite possibly a cow.

I say your right if the order was illegal. In this case it wasn't.

The medic says it was.

You kid, right? The world is full of people who need treating.

And if he was not treating them by inaction, he was not doing them harm. However, if he was actively refusing to treat them as part of his job, then yes, he would be violating the first rule of medicine. The world is full of people in need of defense attorneys, but does that mean that a defense attorney should go all over the world in search of a client? No. Is a defense attorney allowed to not try a case because he disagrees with the defendant? No. It's the attorney's job to try the case, whether he/she likes it or not.

So who decides whether or not an order is legal?

That should be in the British code of conduct book. if they have one. I know the UCMJ defines what a legal and an illegal order is.

You kid, right? The world is full of people who need treating.

Your right. Soldiers in Iraq is one of them. He refused orders to go there. Therefor, he is neglecting his duty and abandoning his fellow troops there. hence why I call him a coward.

I say your right if the order was illegal. In this case it wasn't.
What the concentration camp guards were doing wasn't illegal.

Anyhow, so what you're saying is that if you're given an order, you carry it out even if you think it is illegal, and then challenge it? Surely that removes the whole point of the challenge?

And if those acts are illegal then those soldiers shouldn't have followed those orders. However, this guy is a medical doctor in the british military. He has a duty to his fellow soldiers to patch them up. He decided not to. Coward.

So when do you volunteer for the Military? Or are you a coward?

The medic says it was.

But it wasn't. Saving dying people is by no means illegal. He just said it was illegal because he was a coward and he wanted to get out of going to war.

Your NS username begins with a C. You are a coward. And quite possibly a cow.

Now this has got to be the most rediculous statements in this thread.

Possibly, but Godwin's Law pisses me off. Everybody thinks their so clever with their "GODWIN'S LAW!!!!111!!ONE" shit. Yes, we know, thankyou and go away. It annoys me.

I wasn't trying to be clever, nor was I trying to annoy you.

The medic says it was.

The court said otherwise.

The order was not illegal.

But it wasn't. Saving dying people is by no means illegal. He just said it was illegal because he was a coward and he wanted to get out of going to war.
If he hadn't already been on two tours in Iraq I would tend to agree with you that he was just saying it to get out of going to war.

However, since I know he was decorated in Afghanistan, and he has done two previous tours in Iraq, I don't think I could take seriously the suggestion that he only did it because he was scared of war and he wanted to get out of going.

But it wasn't. Saving dying people is by no means illegal. He just said it was illegal because he was a coward and he wanted to get out of going to war.

He has been to war before. Please read Paths of Glory or watch the damn film.

That should be in the British code of conduct book. if they have one. I know the UCMJ defines what a legal and an illegal order is.


I assume this medic is much better versed than you or me int the British code of conduct book. And he says it's illegal.

So when do you volunteer for the Military? Or are you a coward?

If there's a draft and you run away to Canada instead of joining the military, then you're a coward. However, if by not joining the military you are not breaking any laws, you are not being a coward.

Now this has got to be the most rediculous statements in this thread.

*ridiculous.

I was demonstrating the absurd nature of your continued misuse of the word "coward". This abuse of English makes you a coward.

So when do you volunteer for the Military? Or are you a coward?
Oh, he's got a whole list of excuses ready. But not to worry, members of his family are in the military, which qualifies him to make all sorts of judgements. :p

The court said otherwise.

The order was not illegal.

And Corny would never question a court decision. Ever.

So when do you volunteer for the Military? Or are you a coward?

I would love to join and I did talk to a recruiter but because of a medical condition that I have and was medicated for, I am medically ineligible to join :(

Now this has got to be the most rediculous statements in this thread.

About as ridiculous as you calling a British Officer, with one hell of service record, a coward.

Yes, but in this case he was being a coward. If his CO said "go jump into that lake and swim" and the soldier said "but it's cold and I might be slightly uncomfortable," he'd be a coward. Similarly, if he refused to save the lives of his fellow soldiers, he'd be a coward. If he refused to surrender in a hopeless battle, he'd be dumb but not a coward.

I doubt he'd refuse to go swimming. He did, after all, get through RAF training.

And labelling people cowards for refusing orders raises the disturbing possiblity that sometimes people only follow orders because they are cowards too.

I assume this medic is much better versed than you or me int the British code of conduct book. And he says it's illegal.

Actually, that is not necessarily true. Apparently, the court that convicted this coward said it was in fact legal.

I would love to join and I did talk to a recruiter but because of a medical condition that I have and was medicated for, I am medically ineligible to join :(

Well, there are many fine NGOs that would love your help in Iraq right now.

I wasn't trying to be clever, nor was I trying to annoy you.
Oh I know, but the vast majority of people who use it are trying to be clever.

I don't think I could take seriously the suggestion that he only did it because he was scared of war and he wanted to get out of going.

Maybe he was tired of war, who knows? The point is that he not only refused to help his fellow countrymen but he disobeyed a direct order to help them. The order was by no means illegal and cannot be construed as illegal no matter how you look at it. Even if the war was illegal, what he was doing would not be illegal. And his motivation isn't relevant, although I'd tend to question why he didn't speak out against the war on his first or second tour of duty but did so now.

Actually, that is not necessarily true. Apparently, the court that convicted this coward said it was in fact legal.

I thought you said the British code of conduct book was the ultimate authority of whether a order was legal or not. Not the court.

The order was by no means illegal and cannot be construed as illegal no matter how you look at it.

In his mind it was.

And labelling people cowards for refusing orders raises the disturbing possiblity that sometimes people only follow orders because they are cowards too.

I guess some soldiers only obey orders because they are scared of the reprecussions if they refuse to follow them, yes. But those are most likely the soldiers who only joined the army because there was no other job available to them and did not want to be in the army in the first place. If you want to join the army to serve your country, you aren't likely to obey orders simply because you are scared to disobey them but rather because you want to do what's best for your country.

Maybe he was tired of war, who knows? The point is that he not only refused to help his fellow countrymen but he disobeyed a direct order to help them. The order was by no means illegal and cannot be construed as illegal no matter how you look at it. Even if the war was illegal, what he was doing would not be illegal. And his motivation isn't relevant, although I'd tend to question why he didn't speak out against the war on his first or second tour of duty but did so now.

As he said, he didn't know much about the legal side on his first two tours, and after his second he read up on it. Which led to him forming the opinion that it was illegal.

In his mind it was.

What!? He thought it was illegal so he could just refuse to serve? If I think murder is legal, can I kill someone and get away with it because "in my mind it was legal"? It doesn't matter if he thought he was a pink elephant in a hoola-hoop -- what he did was illegal.

What!? He thought it was illegal so he could just refuse to serve? If I think murder is legal, can I kill someone and get away with it because "in my mind it was legal"? It doesn't matter if he thought he was a pink elephant in a hoola-hoop -- what he did was illegal.

No doubt that it was illegal, but he made the decision based on his morals and beliefs. I have to respect him for that, and for his extensive service record.

You take the Queen's shilling, you have chosen to obey the Queen's orders. This idiot should be court marshalled and shot.

Yep that is about it. Wouldn't go as far as being shot. But a little punishment wouldn't hurt the guy...

Personally, I say "good on him."

He made up his own mind, and he faced the consequences. That is a whole lot more admirable than people doing nasty things and afterwards claiming that they simply had to follow orders.

This man is the proof that even in the military, and independent mind is possible and desirable. Not all soldiers are brainless robots.

And that's independent of whether or not you agree with his view.

As he said, he didn't know much about the legal side on his first two tours, and after his second he read up on it. Which led to him forming the opinion that it was illegal.

That sounds like an excuse he concocted to get out of serving. The legality of the war does not have any bearing on the legality of his actions -- this isn't some sort of guilt by association thing. He thought the war was illegal, fine -- he has a lot to base that conclusion on and he can think that if he wants. However, performing his duty as a medic is not illegal and he has no basis for claiming otherwise.

But a little punishment wouldn't hurt the guy...
He's going to jail...

What!? He thought it was illegal so he could just refuse to serve? If I think murder is legal, can I kill someone and get away with it because "in my mind it was legal"? It doesn't matter if he thought he was a pink elephant in a hoola-hoop -- what he did was illegal.

You are wrong. To follow an illegal order is illegal. Not following an illegal order is legal, and an honorable course of action.

I guess some soldiers only obey orders because they are scared of the reprecussions if they refuse to follow them, yes. But those are most likely the soldiers who only joined the army because there was no other job available to them and did not want to be in the army in the first place. If you want to join the army to serve your country, you aren't likely to obey orders simply because you are scared to disobey them but rather because you want to do what's best for your country.

Well yes.

And in this case, I don't think the label coward is appropriate. He's already served in iraq, and the consequences of refusing are probably worse than actually just shutting up and going for another tour. Possibly he could lose his medical licence, who knows? He has at the very least turned himself into a felon.

I agree that he hasn't got a leg to stand on legally. The UK forces are there - for the purposes of his intended deployment - at the request of the soveriegn government of Iraq (at least that's the rumor). And I can't see how an order for a medical officer to deploy could ever really be illegal per se. Neverthless, that does not make the man a coward.

As I said earlier in the thread, he probably could have gotten out of this without any punishment if he had been less noisy about it also. Which is further evidence that his actions are not motivated by cowardice.

I have to respect him for that, and for his extensive service record.

You can respect him all you want -- I personally don't think someone who refuses to save the lives of his fellow soldiers should be respected. However, he should be punished for his insubordination and receive the highest penatly because his refusal to obey legal orders may very well cost a soldier his/her life.

That sounds like an excuse he concocted to get out of serving. The legality of the war does not have any bearing on the legality of his actions -- this isn't some sort of guilt by association thing. He thought the war was illegal, fine -- he has a lot to base that conclusion on and he can think that if he wants. However, performing his duty as a medic is not illegal and he has no basis for claiming otherwise.
He was arguing on the basis that his order would support, aid, and abett an illegal act

However, he should be punished for his insubordination...
Yeah. Who can trust an adult man's judgement when the government tells us what to do, hey?

You are wrong. To follow an illegal order is illegal. Not following an illegal order is legal, and an honorable course of action.

How is saving a soldier's life illegal? Seriously, how can you even think that? He wasn't ordered to go and slaughter random Iraqis, he was ordered to attend to wounded soldiers. Refusing to save lives is illegal and definitely not honourable.

You can respect him all you want -- I personally don't think someone who refuses to save the lives of his fellow soldiers should be respected. However, he should be punished for his insubordination and receive the highest penatly because his refusal to obey legal orders may very well cost a soldier his/her life.

He has done his duty many times in the past. He is certainly not a coward, so he must have had a good reason (in his mind) for not going.

How is saving a soldier's life illegal? Seriously, how can you even think that?

Following an illegal order is illegal. Even if that order is to save someones life.

Yeah. Who can trust an adult man's judgement when the government tells us what to do, hey?

His judgement? Did he judge that soldiers should be fit to die because he doesn't agree with the war? If an adult man thought murder was right, would you use the same logic? Well, who can trust an adult man's judgement when the government tells him what to do, hey? Good thing we have laws to keep our society from regressing into a state of anarchy, which you seek to abolish with that statement.

Following an illegal order is illegal. Even if that order is to save someones life.

How is an order to save somebody's life illegal? Is there a law that says those who are wounded should not be given medical care and must die slowly and painfully? I have yet to encounter this law you speak of.

How is saving a soldier's life illegal? Seriously, how can you even think that? He wasn't ordered to go and slaughter random Iraqis, he was ordered to attend to wounded soldiers. Refusing to save lives is illegal and definitely not honourable.

So he couldn't refuse to be deployed illegally to a war zone?

Presumably he could refuse to fight illegally, correct?

Medics are not always non-combatants.

You hand your case on a precarious thread.

Did he judge that soldiers should be fit to die because he doesn't agree with the war?
Someone else would have done the job, you know. No one died because it wasn't him, but his neighbour who was there.

If an adult man thought murder was right, would you use the same logic?
Obviously his actions didn't hurt anyone. And your choice of words "insubordination" was interesting, to say the least.

Good thing we have laws to keep our society from regressing into a state of anarchy, which you seek to abolish with that statement.
Welcome to the internet, where you can find all sorts of political animals.

I found another insubordinate coward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauffenberg) who wouldn't follow orders. Good thing he got what he deserved.

His judgement? Did he judge that soldiers should be fit to die because he doesn't agree with the war?

He judged that the order given to him was illegal, and he didn't follow it. This is something that he would have been ordered to do in Basic, by the way.

He has done his duty many times in the past. He is certainly not a coward, so he must have had a good reason (in his mind) for not going.

Perhaps his actions are motivated by some feeling of moral high ground instead of cowardice, but I still consider him a coward. He probably thought he was doing the right thing, but he was completely in the wrong and failed to heed a warning to help his fellow soldiers, which leads me to label him a coward.

Actually, that is not necessarily true. Apparently, the court that convicted this coward said it was in fact legal.

I love how suddenly it is impossible for a court to be wrong.

Perhaps his actions are motivated by some feeling of moral high ground instead of cowardice, but I still consider him a coward. He probably thought he was doing the right thing, but he was completely in the wrong and failed to heed a warning to help his fellow soldiers, which leads me to label him a coward.

Then you fail to use the word "coward" in way that is meaningful.

Someone else would have done the job, you know. No one died because it wasn't him, but his neighbour who was there.

What if everyone used the same logic? What if every medic said they would not do their jobs because they don't agree with the war? Then there would be nobody left to serve as a medic.

Obviously his actions didn't hurt anyone.

Except the soldiers that would be wounded and would need medical care he should have provided.


Welcome to the internet, where you can find all sorts of political animals.

And a hippopotamus too?

Then you fail to use the word "coward" in way that is meaningful.

I don't know what logic he used to arrive at his conclusion, so I can't speculate on whether he did what he did out of cowardice or out of some feeling of moral high ground. However, his actions are consistent with what a coward would do.

How is an order to save somebody's life illegal? Is there a law that says those who are wounded should not be given medical care and must die slowly and painfully? I have yet to encounter this law you speak of.

It's illegal if given to a medic in Britain who then must aid and abet an illegal war in order to complete the order.

What if everyone used the same logic? What if every medic said they would not do their jobs because they don't agree with the war? Then there would be nobody left to serve as a medic.
You'd just have to find medics who agree with the government's stance. Oh my - a government actually having to convince someone, rather than just using brute force to get people to comply.

Except the soldiers that would be wounded and would need medical care he should have provided.
Unless you can prove to me that that actually happened, and then prove to me that he actually intended that to happen, you can't blame him.

And a hippopotamus too?
That too, yes.

I don't know what logic he used to arrive at his conclusion, so I can't speculate on whether he did what he did out of cowardice or out of some feeling of moral high ground. However, his actions are consistent with what a coward would do.

Your breathing is consistent with the actions of a monkey. therefore, you must be a monkey.

EDIT: And it has already been shown his actions are not consistent with those of a coward. A coward would have kept quiet and taken the deal for less punishment. A coward wouldn't have his service record.

I don't know what logic he used to arrive at his conclusion, so I can't speculate on whether he did what he did out of cowardice or out of some feeling of moral high ground. However, his actions are consistent with what a coward would do.

Do you even care abour his record of service?

You'd just have to find medics who agree with the government's stance. Oh my - a government actually having to convince someone, rather than just using brute force to get people to comply.

I'm sure a lot of people would think that stealing should be legal. Should the government not enforce laws against stealing and actually try to convince people that stealing is wrong? No, the government should enforce the laws. If you break the law, you get punished -- people can't just selectively follow the laws that they think are best. Let the government try to persuade people that they should pay their taxes instead of jailing those who evade them! What a wonderful society we'd live in!

Unless you can prove to me that that actually happened, and then prove to me that he actually intended that to happen, you can't blame him.

There are wounded soldiers in Iraq and medics are required to treat them. If there were no medics, a significant portion of the wounded would die. If you do not punish this medic, you are making it legal for medics to leave and not provide care for those who would otherwise die. It is very easy to blame him.

Your breathing is consistent with the actions of a monkey. therefore, you must be a monkey.

No, but you cannot discount the possibility that I am a monkey either. None of us can know his rationale, so any label that is consistent with his actions can be applied until proven otherwise.

No, but you cannot discount the possibility that I am a monkey either. None of us can know his rationale, so any label that is consistent with his actions can be applied until proven otherwise.

Guilty until proven innocent? I thought it went the other way.

I'm sure a lot of people would think that stealing should be legal.
Stealing violates someone else's property, doesn't it?

Who or what did this man violate when he followed his conscience?

If you do not punish this medic, you are making it legal for medics to leave and not provide care for those who would otherwise die.
But he is being punished. He's being punished for breaking a contract he signed.
That's fair enough, and if I recall correctly, he said from Day One that if they wanted to do that, it was fine by him.

But to start calling him a coward, to start condemning him following his own conscience rather than the government's, that's wrong, IMHO.

Guilty until proven innocent? I thought it went the other way.

No, I'm just saying you cannot discount the possibility of this being some sort of publicity stunt or the possibility of him being a coward and you shouldn't start praising him as a hero just yet.

Who or what did this man violate when he followed his conscience?

He violated another soldier's right to life. If he thinks that he is morally right in refusing to serve as a medic, then he has a very twisted conscience. If he refused to serve as a soldier, then I would understand. But as a medic? No way.

He violated another soldier's right to life.
What in hell's name are you talking about?

You're taking some sort of general extrapolation ("What if everyone did that?!") and blaming him for it. That's silly.

Not a single soldier got any different treatment in Iraq because this guy wasn't there.

Not a single soldier got any different treatment in Iraq because this guy wasn't there.

No, but you seem to be justifying his actions by saying that he followed his conscience. If everybody "followed their conscience" in that manner, that would mean that there would be no medics serving in Iraq and many more wounded soldiers would die. Obviously, since that is not a morally desirable outcome, any action that leads to that outcome is morally wrong. His following of his "conscience" is a step in that direction, and by extrapolating his actions, it is evident that it is a step in the wrong direction.

No, but you seem to be justifying his actions by saying that he followed his conscience. If everybody "followed their conscience" in that manner, that would mean that there would be no medics serving in Iraq and many more wounded soldiers would die. Obviously, since that is not a morally desirable outcome, any action that leads to that outcome is morally wrong. His following of his "conscience" is a step in that direction, and by extrapolating his actions, it is evident that it is a step in the wrong direction.

Wow. Slippery slope ad infinitum.

No, but you seem to be justifying his actions by saying that he followed his conscience. If everybody "followed their conscience" in that manner, that would mean that there would be no medics serving in Iraq and many more wounded soldiers would die. Obviously, since that is not a morally desirable outcome, any action that leads to that outcome is morally wrong. His following of his "conscience" is a step in that direction, and by extrapolating his actions, it is evident that it is a step in the wrong direction.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Actually, it makes him insubordinate, rather than a coward per se.

Would you call someone who refused an order to surrender a coward?

No, because at least under US military law, that would be an illegal order.

Wow. Slippery slope ad infinitum.

It is entirely justified. He claimed that a medic refusing to obey orders was OK because there would be other medics to take his/her place. However, if every medic did this, it would result in a negative scenario. That's like saying killing is OK because there will be plenty of other people left in the world. Obviously, if everybody killed everybody else, there would be no people left in the world. If every medic did not perform his/her duty, there would be no more medics left to treat the wounded. Obviously, then, a medic refusing to obey orders is not justified.

No, because at least under US military law, that would be an illegal order.

Are you saying that people actually serve in a military where it is illegal to surrender?

It is entirely justified. He claimed that a medic refusing to obey orders was OK because there would be other medics to take his/her place. However, if every medic did this, it would result in a negative scenario. That's like saying killing is OK because there will be plenty of other people left in the world. Obviously, if everybody killed everybody else, there would be no people left in the world. If every medic did not perform his/her duty, there would be no more medics left to treat the wounded. Obviously, then, a medic refusing to obey orders is not justified.

Wow. You are just a fallacy festival.

It is entirely justified. He claimed that a medic refusing to obey orders was OK because there would be other medics to take his/her place. However, if every medic did this, it would result in a negative scenario. That's like saying killing is OK because there will be plenty of other people left in the world. Obviously, if everybody killed everybody else, there would be no people left in the world. If every medic did not perform his/her duty, there would be no more medics left to treat the wounded. Obviously, then, a medic refusing to obey orders is not justified.

Thats kinda like saying that if everyone refused to fight then there would be no war in the first place. Obviously that would be terrible :rolleyes:

Are you saying that people actually serve in a military where it is illegal to surrender?

Yes i am. It is illegal to surrender if you still have the ability to resist enemy forces. Of course, exceptions have been made for PR stunts. One example is Jessica Lynch.

Yes i am. It is illegal to surrender if you still have the ability to resist enemy forces. Of course, exceptions have been made for PR stunts. One example is Jessica Lynch.

So The US has never surrerdered?

So The US has never surrerdered?

Not while it had the ability to resist. By the way, withdrawing/retreating and surrendering are two completely different things. In one you give yourself up to the enemy with no resistance, in the other you live to resist another day. The reason that it is illegal is so that you don't get the mass surrendering as shown by the iraqis that completely cripples your ability to fight.

Not while it had the ability to resist. By the way, withdrawing/retreating and surrendering are two completely different things. In one you give yourself up to the enemy with no resistance, in the other you live to resist another day.

Ok I'll rephrase. Has there ever been a situation where a position manned by US forces has surrendered to the enemy and been taken as prisoners of war? If there has, were these soldiers then court martialed?

Ok I'll rephrase. Has there ever been a situation where a position manned by US forces has surrendered to the enemy and been taken as prisoners of war? If there has, were these soldiers then court martialed?
If there has then they were probabley heavily outnumbered and green. But if this has occured where they had the ability to resist they would have been a court martial. I remember this one story they drilled into us at TBS, it was in WWII where this one lcpl. pinned down an entire battalion and ended up doing more to win the battle than an entire company of infantry. Basically, the us militaries philosophy is that no matter what your situation (barring that your out of ammo and surrounded by 700 enemy forces) you can still produce results for your side. Plus, the only real way that you would have to surrender in modern combat is by surrendering before the battle begins (which would be followed by a court martial). This is because if you have ever been in a firefight, you know that there is very little opportunity to sit down w/ your enemy and discuss a surrender. It is very hectic and jumping out with your hands out would almost assuredly get you killed anyway.

If there has then they were probabley heavily outnumbered and green. But if this has occured where they had the ability to resist they would have been a court martial. I remember this one story they drilled into us at TBS, it was in WWII where this one lcpl. pinned down an entire battalion and ended up doing more to win the battle than an entire company of infantry. Basically, the us militaries philosophy is that no matter what your situation (barring that your out of ammo and surrounded by 700 enemy forces) you can still produce results for your side. Plus, the only real way that you would have to surrender in modern combat is by surrendering before the battle begins (which would be followed by a court martial). This is because if you have ever been in a firefight, you know that there is very little opportunity to sit down w/ your enemy and discuss a surrender. It is very hectic and jumping out with your hands out would almost assuredly get you killed anyway.

Seems a bit like the Japanese code of honour to me. You know that never surrernder bit.

No, because at least under US military law, that would be an illegal order.

So the surrender at Bataan is all Japanese propaganda then?

Seems a bit like the Japanese code of honour to me. You know that never surrernder bit.

Nah. More like don't give up w/o a fight. I mean if we didn't have that, then we would be open to the possiblilty that we could have an entire brigade surrender like the iraqis did w/o even trying to fight. It only makes sense so have a military that is expected to fight when told to.

On May 5th 1942, the Japanese attacked Corrigedor. Lt. Gen J.M. Wainwright IV ordered a surrender on May 6th in the interest of minimizing casualties.

He was later awarded the Medal of Honor.

On May 5th 1942, the Japanese attacked Corrigedor. Lt. Gen J.M. Wainwright IV ordered a surrender on May 6th in the interest of minimizing casualties.

He was later awarded the Medal of Honor.

God I love you for knowing way more about American military history than I do. Wanted to shoot him down but couldn't be bothered doing tha research :)

Article II of the US military code of conduct:

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

It is prosecuted when one surrenders when there is no chance of a successful resistance or evasion is impossible. The instance that Lacadaemon brought up is a case of being captured, not surrendering. He had no way to made a dent in the japanese forces while taking acceptable losses for himself.

There was probabley an investigation into the matter but found that there would be public outrage that a MOH winner would be court martialed. I seriously doubt that he was awarded the MOH for his surrender but that he was awarded it for some other action.

Obviously the MOH was not for the surrender per se. The point is however, that you can surrender under certain circumstances and its perfectly legal.

More pertinant perhaps is that nearly 20,000 US servicemen were ordered
to surrender in the philipines, while many of them were still capable of offering resitance. (Though ultimately pointless it would have been).

I don't suppose that the vast majority of these cases were ever investigated. Moreover the order to surrender was perfectly "legal", though it would have been impossible for the vast majority of them to judge that at the time it was given.

IDK what i was thinking with that one post, but the one i had after that pretty much clears it all up.

Link if ur interested usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/codeofconduct2.htm

I declare victory;)

IDK what i was thinking with that one post, but the one i had after that pretty much clears it all up.

Link if ur interested usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/codeofconduct2.htm

Obviously, there is a general prohibition against just giving up. That only makes sense.

The point is however, there are situtations when as an individual, or a smaller unit, you are still able to resist, but will be ordered to do so anyway owing to the situation elsewhere. Obviously, those orders cannot be illegal, as it is impossible for an individual soldier to make those types of decision. (Though it is possible that the corp commander may face court martial for giving them).

it is impossible for an individual soldier to make those types of decision.
Uhh, no. The invididual soldier, marine, airmen or sailor is well informed and much more capable of these kinds of decisions than you might think. If a fire team was cut off from the main body of friendly forces, than it would be their duty to evade enemy forces until they could be recovered. If they just walked up and surrendered than they would be eligible for court martial.

Well, there are many fine NGOs that would love your help in Iraq right now.

I'm sure there are and when I graduate next year, I probably will join one if what I want to do doesn't pan out.

I thought you said the British code of conduct book was the ultimate authority of whether a order was legal or not. Not the court.

Apparently the court up held it.

He's going to jail...

Good.

Uhh, no. The invididual soldier, marine, airmen or sailor is well informed and much more capable of these kinds of decisions than you might think. If a fire team was cut off from the main body of friendly forces, than it would be their duty to evade enemy forces until they could be recovered. If they just walked up and surrendered than they would be eligible for court martial.

I'm not talking about a fire team that is cut off. I'm talking about a fire team that is otherwise intact but is ordered to surrender by HQ. Like happened in the phillipines.

Following an illegal order is illegal. Even if that order is to save someones life.

But to disobey a legal order is illegal. The order was legal. Therefor, him disobeying the order is one of idiocy and cowardice.

So he couldn't refuse to be deployed illegally to a war zone?

I see that no one can get it through their heads that the order was infact legal.

Presumably he could refuse to fight illegally, correct?

Medics are not always non-combatants.

You hand your case on a precarious thread.

The word is hang not hand :D

I love how suddenly it is impossible for a court to be wrong.

If they looked at the evidence, as i'm sure they did, then they are indeed right in this case. Anyone who refuses to follow a legal deployment order deserves what he/she gets.

It's illegal if given to a medic in Britain who then must aid and abet an illegal war in order to complete the order.

Now this made absolutely no sense.

What is the penalty for desertion or refusal to obey orders during times of war?

Technically he should be shot.
Obviously, the penalties need to be changed.

No, because at least under US military law, that would be an illegal order.

Issuing the order to surrender is an illegal order in the US Military? Since when?

Yes i am. It is illegal to surrender if you still have the ability to resist enemy forces. Of course, exceptions have been made for PR stunts. One example is Jessica Lynch.

Oh brother. USMC! For once, be quiet.

If they looked at the evidence, as i'm sure they did, then they are indeed right in this case. Anyone who refuses to follow a legal deployment order deserves what he/she gets.
And anyone who wimps out, such as yourself, gets to sit in comfort and pass judgment? How appropriate. :rolleyes:

If they looked at the evidence, as i'm sure they did, then they are indeed right in this case. Anyone who refuses to follow a legal deployment order deserves what he/she gets.

Ahhhh, so in a one day court martial they looked into the vast morass of information that would decide whether the war was legal or not and made a decision. God those blokes were good, I mean it took the biased Hutton inquiry weeks to decide that.

If there has then they were probabley heavily outnumbered and green.

Tell that to the people on Bataan in the Philippines. They weren't raw nor green. They were not court martialed and they were ordered to surrender by their Commanding Officer and he wasn't court martialed either.

But to disobey a legal order is illegal. The order was legal. Therefor, him disobeying the order is one of idiocy and cowardice.
it's not idiocy and cowardice. it's called believing in something (or in this case against something) and he was willing to go to jail for his beliefs. By saying that he is a coward, you are saying that people like Nelson Mandela or Ghandi were wrong for being willing to go to jail for their beliefs. Or how about the American revolution? not wanting to follow the orders the british gave the Americans was reason enough for many to take up arms against the British.

It's not idiocy and cowardice...it's believing in something. and there arent enough people like this in the world today. Maybe you should go over to Iraq and see just how well the war is going? Ask the soldiers if they want to be there.

Peace is the only way mankind can continue living on. if man does not find peace in his heart soon he will kill himself.

On May 5th 1942, the Japanese attacked Corrigedor. Lt. Gen J.M. Wainwright IV ordered a surrender on May 6th in the interest of minimizing casualties.

He was later awarded the Medal of Honor.

Wainwright. That's the Name I couldn't remember. USMC, I guess you need to retract your statements.

But to disobey a legal order is illegal. The order was legal. Therefor, him disobeying the order is one of idiocy and cowardice.
Ahhhh, the Cornman with his favourite word...."coward".

Corny excuses....

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10640300&postcount=405

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10646353&postcount=82

And anyone who wimps out gets to sit in comfort and pass judgment. How appropriate. :rolleyes:

He's going to jail so I doubt he'll be living in comfort.

Ahhhh, so in a one day court martial they looked into the vast morass of information that would decide whether the war was legal or not and made a decision. God those blokes were good, I mean it took the biased Hutton inquiry weeks to decide that.

dude/tte, I doubt they were looking into the illegality of the war. They were looking into the fact that he disobeyed a direct order to go to Iraq. The order was indeed legal and therefor, is punishing this coward.

He's going to jail so I doubt he'll be living in comfort.
Ummmm. I was kinda pointing in your direction. :p

I edited it for you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10754234&postcount=238

dude/tte, I doubt they were looking into the illegality of the war. They were looking into the fact that he disobeyed a direct order to go to Iraq. The order was indeed legal and therefor, is punishing this coward.

I'm a dude. They defence was the legality, or not, of the war in Iraq so the court would have to look into it. That an order was disobeyed is a given as the guys not in Iraq.

it's not idiocy and cowardice. it's called believing in something (or in this case against something) and he was willing to go to jail for his beliefs.

By disobeying a direct order. That's a sign of a coward.

By saying that he is a coward, you are saying that people like Nelson Mandela or Ghandi were wrong for being willing to go to jail for their beliefs.

Now we are getting into a totally different field and one I suggest you do not cross for I respect Ghandi in the highest.

Or how about the American revolution? not wanting to follow the orders the british gave the Americans was reason enough for many to take up arms against the British.

Again, this is a different field that goes along with Mandela and Ghandi as it is more political. Soldiers were Court Martialed for refusing orders and were not scared at all. Heck, General Lee was court martialed after he retreated from Clinton's Army thus allowing Clinton's Army to escape to New York City at Monmouth during the end of the Philadelphia Campaign in 1778. Do you want to get into the politics of how the Revolutionary War came about?

It's not idiocy and cowardice...it's believing in something. and there arent enough people like this in the world today. Maybe you should go over to Iraq and see just how well the war is going? Ask the soldiers if they want to be there.

I already know the answer to this for my father did go over there and he was proud to be doing his part in assisting the rebuilding efforts of Iraq.

Peace is the only way mankind can continue living on. if man does not find peace in his heart soon he will kill himself.

Well I doubt the last part but I can agree with the 1st part.

Ummmm. I was kinda pointing in your direction. :p

I edited it for you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10754234&postcount=238

CH, for once, be quiet. I wish I could join but even my recruiter wouldn't take me because of medical reasons.

CH, for once, be quiet.
Perhaps you should heed your own advice? Do you get off on calling people cowards, when you yourself have come up with a multitude of reasons for not joining the ranks of those in Iraq?

I wish I could join but even my recruiter wouldn't take me because of medical reasons.
And before that it was another excuse, and before that another, etc...