NationStates Jolt Archive

Comment: the right to disobey illegal orders under principles was established during the Nuremberg trials.. and its even an obligation.

photo\\ Lt. Ehren Watada is flanked by his father, Robert Watada, and his mother, Carolyn Ho, at Seattle's University Lutheran Church Monday.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006
With his Fort Lewis-based Stryker Brigade possibly deploying to Iraq in the coming weeks, Lt. Ehren Watada has picked up the public endorsement of a retired Army colonel and diplomat who also contends the war there is illegal.

Speaking at University Lutheran Church in Seattle, retired Col. Ann Wright said Monday night that the artillery-targeting officer has the right to disobey "illegal orders."

Under principles established during the Nuremberg trials after World War II, she noted, people have an obligation to oppose a government that is conducting a war of aggression.

"The country of Iraq did nothing to the United States of America," said Wright, who resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service in 2003 because of the war.

newmedia@seattlepi.com

He would have to prove (at his court martial) that the orders were illegal.

Doesn't sound probable to me.

It wouldn't be enough to prove that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law or international norms.

Some people imply that because the US signs a treaty it is therefore the "supreme law of the land" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI) and would somehow prevent the US, as a matter of US domestic law, from lawfully deploying force in the exercise of its authority. This is just not so. Even if one were to consider any treaty in force and valid today, a treaty is equal in dignity and normative rank to federal legislation and inferior to provisions of the Constitution itself. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible use of force, either pursuant to a congressional declaration of war or an authorized use of force by the executive (typically delegated authority by Congress, as in the present legislation pertaining to Iraq) would satisfy the requirements of US domestic law. There are several key federal court decisions and many fine scholarly articles addressing the role of treaties in the US legal system that demonstrate this point.

What DK said.

Buy the weigh: it is pretty much consistent with the oath officers take ( and men promise, I suppose. ) to obey all lawful orders.

It wouldn't be enough to prove that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law or international norms.It would have been for the German soldiers @ Nuremberg. rigth?

It would have been for the German soldiers @ Nuremberg. rigth?

He's not on trial at the Hague. He's on trial in a military court.

He's not on trial at the Hague.My question stands unanswered..
How could a german soldier prove his point?

My question stands unanswered..
How could a german soldier prove his point?
He would have been legally shot by a Wehrmacht court martial.

He would have been legally shot by a Wehrmacht court martial.
So...do we need one of those?

So...do we need one of those?

A US court martial? Yes.

A WWII era German court martial? No.

A US court martial? Yes.

A WWII era German court martial? No.
But the Germans had better uniforms.

So...do we need one of those?
No.

You fail to understand the implications of the law.

International law, for any US citizen, is superseded by the Constitution, as I mentioned in one of the first posts here.

The soldier in question is on trial at a US military court martial, which will not take international law into account unless the soldier can prove that the orders to send him to Iraq are part of a violation of US domestic law.

Since the war was approved by Congress, the odds of this are zero.

So he will be found guilty, and punished.

But the Germans had better uniforms.

True. But the US had better field equipment.

So he will be found guilty, and punished.

I note the very large difference in severity of punishments for those who disobey orders to those who conduct acts that can only be classified as criminal acts unbefitting of their uniform.

Take for example, William Calley. Of those responsible for directed wholesale slaughter of civilians, he was the only one to be convicted. And what kind of sentence was he given? 3½ years of house arrest. Which was cut short because a judge said he could go because he was "just following orders"

Nuremberg trials anyone?

Of course they never actually convicted the one he claimed had ordered him to do as he did. Which was where the Medina standard came from.

And of course in more recent events, Lynndie England. What did she get for her role in being part of a torture team? 3 years in jail.

How much time does a person who disobey deployment orders get? 10 years? 20?

Obviously, Uncle Sam doesn't give a hoot about the ideals that America was made for. Which is evident given that politicians run it. Politicians and ideals are like oil and water.

Unless the ideal is screwing everyone over.

No.

You fail to understand the implications of the law.

International law, for any US citizen, is superseded by the Constitution, as I mentioned in one of the first posts here.

The soldier in question is on trial at a US military court martial, which will not take international law into account unless the soldier can prove that the orders to send him to Iraq are part of a violation of US domestic law.

Since the war was approved by Congress, the odds of this are zero.

So he will be found guilty, and punished.Catch 22 anyone?

If he obeys orders, he'll be in violation of international law & should stand trial. If he doesn't, he'll get thrown in jail by the US Military...

Well.. Personally, I think the guy's a hero. If only everyone had that much integrity, the world would surely be a better place.

Catch 22 anyone?

If he obeys orders, he'll be in violation of international law & should stand trial. If he doesn't, he'll get thrown in jail by the US Military...

Well.. Personally, I think the guy's a hero. If only everyone had that much integrity, the world would surely be a better place.

The individual gets to choose.

Punished by your own military, or possibly jailed later by an international tribunal (they don't hang people at the Hague).

Option 2 is extremely remote, so any realistic person might construe the first part as being the only one that might happen.

Catch 22 anyone?

If he obeys orders, he'll be in violation of international law & should stand trial. If he doesn't, he'll get thrown in jail by the US Military...it was catch 22 for the German soldiers too. (DK just proved my point)

Since the war was approved by Congress, the odds of this are zero.

So if congress approves the murder of 10,000 babies, does that mean its legal?

True. But the US had better field equipment.

Actually, the germans had the most technologically advanced equipment and weaponry. The US had numbers.

it was catch 22 for the German soldiers too. (DK just proved my point)
It's because under US law, the US Constitution trumps international law. Don't act so surprised - it's always been that way.

Option 2 is extremely remote, so any realistic person might construe the first part as being the only one that might happen.You are unfortunately right. Never the less, I'd rather go to jail than be a war criminal, and I can't think of anything more praise worthy than a guy willing to be thrown in jail by the country he serves, rather than commit war crimes in it's name.

True hero material right there. The guy deserves a medal.

So if congress approves the murder of 10,000 babies, does that mean its legal?

Abortion is legal in the US.

So if congress approves the murder of 10,000 babies, does that mean its legal?

Pretty much.

So in fact, 'lawful orders' means 'do as the politicians say'. OK that's not a bad basic principle but when this is arbited by the politicians themselves you're what's known as 'fucking doomed'.

Abortion is legal in the US.

This doesnt answer the question.

Determining legality should be up to the courts. Not congress.

it was catch 22 for the German soldiers too. (DK just proved my point)I don't think anyone disputes that. Still, while commiting crimes under duress is mitigating circumstances, it isn't a carte blanché for criminal conduct.

Pretty much.

So in fact, 'lawful orders' means 'do as the politicians say'. OK that's not a bad basic principle but when this is arbited by the politicians themselves you're what's known as 'fucking doomed'.Another great reason for getting rid of governments altogether.

It's because under US law, the US Constitution trumps international law. Don't act so surprised - it's always been that way.What If other Countries decide to follow the US example.. If I was the Iranian President I would follow the US example.. and kiss the Non-Proliferation-BS goodbye.

I don't think anyone disputes that. Still, while commiting crimes under duress is mitigating circumstances, it isn't a carte blanché for criminal conduct.

The other problem is that so far, there aren't any charges against the US at the Hague over this war. None. Zero.

It's rather hard to argue that he's committing a crime by serving in Iraq.

the question is what is an Illegal Order.

an Order to go to a war that was declared on faulty intelligence...

or

an order by a superior officer that is illegal. i.e. "Go into that house and kill those civilians, even tho they pose no threat to us."

The other problem is that so far, there aren't any charges against the US at the Hague over this war. None. Zero.

It's rather hard to argue that he's committing a crime by serving in Iraq.Isn't that a bit far fetched?

If I went to the US, killed a guy, got away with it & came back home, could I honestly tell my neighbour that it isn't illegal for citizens of our country to commint murder in the US?