I went to the Naval Academy to defend freedom, not to dismantle it (2 Viewers)

[mike2810]

No, I am trying to determine where you folks draw that line.

depends on the situation, doesn't it?
One could ask you the same thing. Where do you draw the line?

None of you can provide an answer to that.

imo, lawful orders should be followed.
Blindly carrying out an order that is not backed by the Constitution and law should not.

Was it unlawful for soldiers to drop the atomic bomb?

imo, no it was not.

Is it ok for the Government to tell you what you can read?

What about fire burning cities in Germany, should they have refused those orders?

imo, war has a different set of rules than when not in war.

 

[Fledermaus]

Nope it hasn't.

You are demonstrating what I call intentional ignorance.

Answers galore have been proffered.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Quote the part of that which is relevant to this discussion because I don't see any answer there.

And frankly just throwing up a link is not an answer, if you have an answer then state it.

Complete and utter failure. I did not "throw up a link", I actually quoted directly from the UCMJ itself.

Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation​

Any person subject to this chapter who-

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

That is not a "link", it is the actual text of the military law that revolves around following orders.

OK cookie, let me break it down for you a bit more. Private Schmuckatelli is told to do something by his Sergeant, but he refuses. So the Sergeant informs the Platoon Commander, and after talking up the chain of command the Battalion Commander determines to follow through with a Court Martial.

Or to make this even more fun, the Company Commander decides to follow through with UCMJ Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment. A hearing where the commander themselves are judge and jury, intended for minor infractions. However, as it is "Non-Judicial", the accused actually has the right to refuse that hearing and instead request a Court Martial.

OK, then you have the next step. In this case, it is known as an "Article 32 Investigation". Now the closest way to explain this step is it is kind of like a "Grand Jury" or "Pre-Trial Hearing". Where in this case, the very first thing that the members involved are going to determine "Is the order that Private Schmuckatelli given a lawful order". And if they determine that the order was not a lawful order, the entire process ends there. The charges and Court Martial are dismissed, game over.

I have seen a couple of Article 92 violations thrown out at that step of the process, because it was determined that the order was not lawful. Therefore, no violation of the UCMJ occurred.

You do not seem to comprehend this at all, and think that every order must be obeyed without question. That is simply not how it works. And you have myself and multiple others who actually served in the military try to explain this to you.

In fact, how about this? Go back up to post 20 that I made, and tell me what you think about each of those. I posted 6 different scenarios, asking for each if the order was Lawful, Unlawful, or Illegal. Tell me, do you even know which of the ones I posited is which? I admit there are one or two wobblers in there, but the majority are actually very clear to anybody that actually served in uniform.

Ultimately, the problem is that you do not actually understand the military, and are acting pissed because we are not giving you the answers you want.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Blindly carrying out an order that is not backed by the Constitution and law should not.

Which is something I had in mind when I made post 20. Giving several situations, seeing if she could determine what is lawful and what is not.

But here, let me give the actual answer to one of those.

A Lieutenant checking into the unit tells you to go out to their car and grab a folder they left on the seat with important paperwork. Lawful, unlawful, or illegal?

OK, this is actually one of the clear ones. And the answer is, this is an unlawful order. Somebody of higher rank (outside of a very few specific conditions) can not just order somebody to go do something like this. This falls under what is known as "Personal Servitude", and the correct response should be to politely inform the Lieutenant to go out to their car themselves and get their own damned paperwork. You are not their slave, they do things like that themselves.

Now as I also stated, for an unlawful order you may elect to go ahead and do it. That is up to you, but you can not be made to do it, nor forced to do it under threat of violating Article 92. But the person might just go ahead and do it anyways, either just to be nice or to help keep a good working relationship with them.

Now for the exception, if the individual is assigned to duties like an aid to a senior officer. If I am assigned to the duties of being an aid to the Battalion Commander, they can indeed order me to do something like that. As part of my actual job description involves actually doing such duties as required in order to facilitate them doing their job. But that still does not mean that Lieutenant Myopic can order me to do that, only the Lieutenant Colonel that I am assigned to assist.

This is the kind of thing that everybody in uniform is trained on in boot camp. And it can be tricky, but it also shows that people in the military are not just mindless robots that do whatever they are told. And those on the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum that never served simply can not comprehend.

 

[Girlpower]

Complete and utter failure. I did not "throw up a link", I actually quoted directly from the UCMJ itself.

Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation​

Any person subject to this chapter who-

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

That is not a "link", it is the actual text of the military law that revolves around following orders.

OK cookie, let me break it down for you a bit more. Private Schmuckatelli is told to do something by his Sergeant, but he refuses. So the Sergeant informs the Platoon Commander, and after talking up the chain of command the Battalion Commander determines to follow through with a Court Martial.

Or to make this even more fun, the Company Commander decides to follow through with UCMJ Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment. A hearing where the commander themselves are judge and jury, intended for minor infractions. However, as it is "Non-Judicial", the accused actually has the right to refuse that hearing and instead request a Court Martial.

OK, then you have the next step. In this case, it is known as an "Article 32 Investigation". Now the closest way to explain this step is it is kind of like a "Grand Jury" or "Pre-Trial Hearing". Where in this case, the very first thing that the members involved are going to determine "Is the order that Private Schmuckatelli given a lawful order". And if they determine that the order was not a lawful order, the entire process ends there. The charges and Court Martial are dismissed, game over.

I have seen a couple of Article 92 violations thrown out at that step of the process, because it was determined that the order was not lawful. Therefore, no violation of the UCMJ occurred.

You do not seem to comprehend this at all, and think that every order must be obeyed without question. That is simply not how it works. And you have myself and multiple others who actually served in the military try to explain this to you.

In fact, how about this? Go back up to post 20 that I made, and tell me what you think about each of those. I posted 6 different scenarios, asking for each if the order was Lawful, Unlawful, or Illegal. Tell me, do you even know which of the ones I posited is which? I admit there are one or two wobblers in there, but the majority are actually very clear to anybody that actually served in uniform.

Ultimately, the problem is that you do not actually understand the military, and are acting pissed because we are not giving you the answers you want.

The question here is what is considered a lawful order.

Your article doesn't address that whatsoever.

Did you forget what we were talking about?

 

[Girlpower]

You are demonstrating what I call intentional ignorance.

Answers galore have been proffered.

Plenty of answers but none to the actual question.

 

[Girlpower]

depends on the situation, doesn't it?
One could ask you the same thing. Where do you draw the line?

imo, lawful orders should be followed.
Blindly carrying out an order that is not backed by the Constitution and law should not.

imo, no it was not.

Is it ok for the Government to tell you what you can read?

imo, war has a different set of rules than when not in war.

So soldiers ordered to kill innocent civilians is not an unlawful order according to you?

 

[Fledermaus]

Plenty of answers but none to the actual question.

OPINION noted and rejected given that answers galore have been proffered.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Quote the part of that which is relevant to this discussion because I don't see any answer there.

And frankly just throwing up a link is not an answer, if you have an answer then state it.

It takes a hell of a lot of training to transform from a civilian to a member of the military. It doesn’t happen overnight.

In the process your thinking changes. After you finish your basic training you begin your military training as a member of the armed forces. Your specialized training reinforces your military approach to damn near everything.

When you raised your right hand and took the oath you pledged your life to the service of your country. It is a solemn promise and the military expects you to keep your pledge and they aren’t shucking and jiving about it.

With all the above in mind and more you begin to your full transition to military life. Part of that transition is trusting the system and knowing everyone around you was trained in the same system. It is critical that you rely on the professionalism of those around you. You have to know that they are doing what they were trained to do. All this takes time, training, more time, more training and sacrifice until you finally get it.

You are not going to understand here in a few words what it takes constant training to understand. You cannot have an understanding of the military unless you go through the process. You’ll just have to accept that or do what only about 7 % of Americans are willing to do, go down and sign up. Then, I will promise you, within a year you will understand.

 

[Fledermaus]

So soldiers ordered to kill innocent civilians is not an unlawful order according to you?

Where did they state that?

 

[mike2810]

So soldiers ordered to kill innocent civilians is not an unlawful order according to you?

why do you answer questions with questions?
Till you answer my questions there is no reason to proceed.


Where do you draw the line?

Is it ok for the Government to tell you what you can read?

 

[Oozlefinch]

The question here is what is considered a lawful order.

As we keep trying to tell you, this is actually a complex topic, there is no simple clear answer.

So soldiers ordered to kill innocent civilians is not an unlawful order according to you?

And this is a perfect example, in what context? Here, let me give an actual answer from my own experience.

My first duties in the military involved guarding a Naval Weapons Station. And at that time, we still had nuclear warheads on the base. And when you are talking about something like nukes, a hell of a lot of the "normal rules" go right out the freaking window.

If an order was given to just randomly start shooting people, oh hell no, that is unquestionably an illegal order. And I should actually with others relieve that individual of their position and restrain them.

But if some terrorists managed to get that nuke and load it onto a bus full of nuns and orphans? Well, that just freaking sucks. But when that order is given, I light the bus up. Even if in doing so I know I am going to kill every nun and orphan on the bus. Because absolutely nothing stands in the way of preventing somebody from getting their hands on a nuke.

To give an idea how deadly serious the military takes something like this, all the way back in 1984 I was trained on the textbook definition of "Deadly Force", as well as the 6 justifications for the use of deadly force. And even though I have not had to actually operate under those conditions since 1987, I still can recite them verbatim from memory.

Deadly force is that force which a person knows, or should reasonable know causes substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. It is only used in cases of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or can not be reasonably employed.

Now that may have had some minor changes in the past 41 years, but I can guarantee it is almost word for word what is still used to this day.

And then the six justifications.

1. Self defense
2. In defense of government property vital to national security
3. In defense of government property not vital to national security, but inherently dangerous to others
4. Prevent serious offenses against others
5. Apprehension and escape
6. Lawful order

Where you keep failing over and over again is that you can simply not comprehend that there is not clear "right or wrong" answer. You want a simple answer to a complex question, and are giving absolutely no context. But to answer this one, actually it is quite clear. Being ordered to kill innocent civilians may indeed be a lawful order, depending on the context.

Fun fact, in 1988 I was assigned to an administration unit. And one of the tasks that was given to me was to rewrite the "Security SOP" for the base I was on. Now this was actually a book that was about 120 pages long, and one of the things I noticed right away was that it was incorrect in some places, and omitted some things in others. Now of course I no longer had the Standard Operating Procedures from my first duty station, but I had read it so damned many times that while rewriting the SOP for this camp I made a lot of changes and corrections. And even my Lieutenant was surprised, as when he gave me that task he had no idea that I had spent almost 4 years directly operating under such orders as my primary duty.

That is actually the kind of "attention to detail" that the military expects of those that serve in it. To be able to digest and understand a 100 page document, then apply it to their day to day tasks.

 

[Hamish Howl]

You can't answer a question with another question.

I can. I did.

Now, would it be legal to follow that order?

 

[Hamish Howl]

And what constitutes an unlawful order?

An order that falls within the UCMJ, the Geneva and Hague conventions, and military doctrine and regulation.

 

[Girlpower]

An order that falls within the UCMJ, the Geneva and Hague conventions, and military doctrine and regulation.

And an 18 year old is supposed to know all those?

How much time do you give them to look them up after issuing them an order?

 

[Girlpower]

I can. I did.

Now, would it be legal to follow that order?

Which order?

 

[Girlpower]

As we keep trying to tell you, this is actually a complex topic, there is no simple clear answer.




And this is a perfect example, in what context? Here, let me give an actual answer from my own experience.

My first duties in the military involved guarding a Naval Weapons Station. And at that time, we still had nuclear warheads on the base. And when you are talking about something like nukes, a hell of a lot of the "normal rules" go right out the freaking window.

If an order was given to just randomly start shooting people, oh hell no, that is unquestionably an illegal order. And I should actually with others relieve that individual of their position and restrain them.

But if some terrorists managed to get that nuke and load it onto a bus full of nuns and orphans? Well, that just freaking sucks. But when that order is given, I light the bus up. Even if in doing so I know I am going to kill every nun and orphan on the bus. Because absolutely nothing stands in the way of preventing somebody from getting their hands on a nuke.

To give an idea how deadly serious the military takes something like this, all the way back in 1984 I was trained on the textbook definition of "Deadly Force", as well as the 6 justifications for the use of deadly force. And even though I have not had to actually operate under those conditions since 1987, I still can recite them verbatim from memory.

Deadly force is that force which a person knows, or should reasonable know causes substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. It is only used in cases of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or can not be reasonably employed.

Now that may have had some minor changes in the past 41 years, but I can guarantee it is almost word for word what is still used to this day.

And then the six justifications.

1. Self defense
2. In defense of government property vital to national security
3. In defense of government property not vital to national security, but inherently dangerous to others
4. Prevent serious offenses against others
5. Apprehension and escape
6. Lawful order

Where you keep failing over and over again is that you can simply not comprehend that there is not clear "right or wrong" answer. You want a simple answer to a complex question, and are giving absolutely no context. But to answer this one, actually it is quite clear. Being ordered to kill innocent civilians may indeed be a lawful order, depending on the context.

Fun fact, in 1988 I was assigned to an administration unit. And one of the tasks that was given to me was to rewrite the "Security SOP" for the base I was on. Now this was actually a book that was about 120 pages long, and one of the things I noticed right away was that it was incorrect in some places, and omitted some things in others. Now of course I no longer had the Standard Operating Procedures from my first duty station, but I had read it so damned many times that while rewriting the SOP for this camp I made a lot of changes and corrections. And even my Lieutenant was surprised, as when he gave me that task he had no idea that I had spent almost 4 years directly operating under such orders as my primary duty.

That is actually the kind of "attention to detail" that the military expects of those that serve in it. To be able to digest and understand a 100 page document, then apply it to their day to day tasks.

If there is no simple clear answer how do you expect a soldier to know if something is a legal order or not?

Are you saying they should follow them all or follow none of them?

 

[Fledermaus]

And an 18 year old is supposed to know all those?

How much time do you give them to look them up after issuing them an order?

Which order?

If there is no simple clear answer how do you expect a soldier to know if something is a legal order or not?

Are you saying they should follow them all or follow none of them?

He is saying neither.

Try reading for context instead of for response.

 

[mike2810]

How does one expect a soldier to know if the order is legal or not.
One might consider the training and education they receive would allow them to understand what a legal order is or not based on the position/job they hold in the military.

 

[Oozlefinch]

If there is no simple clear answer how do you expect a soldier to know if something is a legal order or not?

Are you saying they should follow them all or follow none of them?

Actually, there is. That is why we teach them the UCMJ and the Laws of Land Warfare.

And an 18 year old is supposed to know all those?

Yes, they are. Significant amount of time are spent to teach them exactly that.

What, do you think that 18 year olds are stupid? That we can train them the common laws so they do not become criminals, or the laws of the road so they can drive safely. Yet we are for some reason unable to learn other laws that deal with being in the military?

Got it, you apparently are one of those that thinks that those in the military are mindless brutes without the ability to learn or a lick of common sense.

And you try to evade that by asking endless questions and not actually discussing anything of merit.

 

[Girlpower]

Actually, there is. That is why we teach them the UCMJ and the Laws of Land Warfare.



Yes, they are. Significant amount of time are spent to teach them exactly that.

What, do you think that 18 year olds are stupid? That we can train them the common laws so they do not become criminals, or the laws of the road so they can drive safely. Yet we are for some reason unable to learn other laws that deal with being in the military?

Got it, you apparently are one of those that thinks that those in the military are mindless brutes without the ability to learn or a lick of common sense.

And you try to evade that by asking endless questions and not actually discussing anything of merit.

So killing innocent people would be an unlawful order correct?

 

[watsup]

You don't want the military to follow orders but to make their own decisions?

So a president orders a strike somewhere and you want the military to go, "hold on now, we aren't going to blindly follow that order we are going to have a discussion about it first to make sure it's a good order, we will get back to you Mr. President."

lol

What if the strike is clearly illegal under international norms? Should the military officers go ahead anyway? That’s not what is taught to military officers. They clearly must refuse illegal orders.

 

[watsup]

So killing innocent people would be an unlawful order correct?

Yes, like Netanyahu and the IDF have done to tens of thousands of innocent women and children in Gaza. They are clearly war criminals.

 

[Girlpower]

What if the strike is clearly illegal under international norms? Should the military officers go ahead anyway? That’s not what is taught to military officers. They clearly must refuse illegal orders.

So our military should need the approval of the international community before issuing orders?

 

[Girlpower]

Yes, like Netanyahu and the IDF have done to tens of thousands of innocent women and children in Gaza. They are clearly war criminals.

So being ordered to fire a nuclear weapon at a city would be an unlawful order according to you?