NationStates Jolt Archive

For soldiers, the "following orders" excuse is clearly not accepted by the majority of courts/people.
On the other hand, if they refuse to follow orders then they can be court martialled etc.

The difference being that they are supposed to be able to accurately say whether a given order is legal or not under their country's and international law. In short, they have to read all domestic and international legislation regarding war, and decide how it applies to a given situation. Far be it from me to suggest soldiers are generally unintelligent, but surely asking your average soldier to understand and apply often complicated laws is unreasonable?

Solution: send lawyers to war.

Wars fought by lawyers, now that is terrifying.

For soldiers, the "following orders" excuse is clearly not accepted by the majority of courts/people.
On the other hand, if they refuse to follow orders then they can be court martialled etc.

The difference being that they are supposed to be able to accurately say whether a given order is legal or not under their country's and international law. In short, they have to read all domestic and international legislation regarding war, and decide how it applies to a given situation. Far be it from me to suggest soldiers are generally unintelligent, but surely asking your average soldier to understand and apply often complicated laws is unreasonable?

The standard is "would a reasonable person have believed this order to be illegal?"

In other words, it's permissable to escape court marshal by refusla to follow a LEGITIMATE order if that order was in such a way that a reasonble person would have believed it to be illegal, even if it was in fact legal.

As for who makes those arguments? That's what JAG's for.

For soldiers, the "following orders" excuse is clearly not accepted by the majority of courts/people.
On the other hand, if they refuse to follow orders then they can be court martialled etc.

The difference being that they are supposed to be able to accurately say whether a given order is legal or not under their country's and international law. In short, they have to read all domestic and international legislation regarding war, and decide how it applies to a given situation. Far be it from me to suggest soldiers are generally unintelligent, but surely asking your average soldier to understand and apply often complicated laws is unreasonable?

At the same time, it's a job in which your actions will have very dramatic and potentially destructive consequences. For the you and the country you represent. The laws regarding what soldiers can and can't do and what orders are illegal are there for a reason, and if soldiers and officers violate then, knowingly or unknowingly, without it having consequences, the laws are de facto disregarded. Non-existant.

If one is of the opinion that there should be certain regulations to what is and what isn't allowed in a war, one must abide by those regulations oneself. Nations as individual soldiers.

If the situation is such that a soldier can't be expected to know what can be demanded of him and what can't, or that he has the choice between following orders no matter what or court martial, that's a serious problem.

http://beadbugle.com/assets/images/med-sav2.jpg

Wellington held out some beads and other trinkets, but the islanders had sent their fiercest lawyers - some of whom were chanting, 'Sue him! Sue him!'

http://beadbugle.com/assets/images/med-sav2.jpg

Wellington held out some beads and other trinkets, but the islanders had sent their fiercest lawyers - some of whom were chanting, 'Sue him! Sue him!'
Lol! Nothing worse than natives with high priced lawyers.

Solution: send lawyers to war.
but won't that be cruel treatment of the enemy?

but won't that be cruel treatment of the enemy?

Heh, same old story, everybody hates lawyers.

Until they need one.

Heh, same old story, everybody hates lawyers.

Until they need one.

Often even then...

Heh, same old story, everybody hates lawyers.

Until they need one.don't hate em. Really.
There was I time where it was a viable career choice for me.

and seeing some lawyers in action... man those people can be vicious and cruel...

but won't that be cruel treatment of the enemy?
Not if they send lawyers too.

Not if they send lawyers too.

Hand to Hand Litigation!

Wars fought by lawyers, now that is terrifying.

Such weapons should be banned by the Geneva Convention and their use classified as crimes against humanity.

Besides, wars fought by lawyers is like wars fought with nukes. Even if you win, you still lose.

For soldiers, the "following orders" excuse is clearly not accepted by the majority of courts/people.
On the other hand, if they refuse to follow orders then they can be court martialled etc.

The difference being that they are supposed to be able to accurately say whether a given order is legal or not under their country's and international law. In short, they have to read all domestic and international legislation regarding war, and decide how it applies to a given situation. Far be it from me to suggest soldiers are generally unintelligent, but surely asking your average soldier to understand and apply often complicated laws is unreasonable?


In other news, civillians should also be exempt from the law. After all, how can they POSSIBLY be expected to understand the intricacies and nuance of 200 years of precedence in criminal and/or civil proceedings? Surely asking you average citizen to understand such things is unreasonable?


Right? That whole "ignorance of the law" defence that works out so well in court?


At least soldiers are REQUIRED to be taught the Geneva conventions. That gives them one heck of a leg up on civillians who are never required to study civil and/or criminal law....

In other news, civillians should also be exempt from the law. After all, how can they POSSIBLY be expected to understand the intricacies and nuance of 200 years of precedence in criminal and/or civil proceedings? Surely asking you average citizen to understand such things is unreasonable?


Right? That whole "ignorance of the law" defence that works out so well in court?


At least soldiers are REQUIRED to be taught the Geneva conventions. That gives them one heck of a leg up on civillians who are never required to study civil and/or criminal law....
As a genera rule civillians don't have the "court martial if they don't do it" thing hanging over them.

As a general rule civillians don't have the "court martial if they don't do it" thing hanging over them.
But they can claim all sorts of mitigating circumstances. The "they forced me to do it" excuse is not exactly new.

Whether it works, that's up to the court to decide.

The difference being that they are supposed to be able to accurately say whether a given order is legal or not under their country's and international law. In short, they have to read all domestic and international legislation regarding war, and decide how it applies to a given situation. Far be it from me to suggest soldiers are generally unintelligent, but surely asking your average soldier to understand and apply often complicated laws is unreasonable?

Don't kill civilians
Don't kill prisioners
Don't torture anyone

The main points don't seem too difficult to remember. (Although for some reason they seem to keep slipping people's minds lately.)

In short, they have to read all domestic and international legislation regarding war, and decide how it applies to a given situation.

You don't need to read any legislation to know you cannot use torture on prisoners or kill unarmed civilians.