Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Ah. So when you responded to my comment that many of the smartest people I know I met in the military by laughing and saying that therefore I must run in small circles, what did you mean by that comment, monte?
Hey Kat...Hey Beau :2wave:
It would depend on the military you're talking about. Historically, the US has always had a code of conduct, which preceded and which is not the law like the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is. The code of conduct is an ethical standard, a moral standard, that all members of the military are held to. Below is the current Code, but the first was written General George Washington:To play devil's advocate here: what if those laws weren't in place? What if there were no such thing as an "illegal" order? Would soldiers still have a moral obligation to disobey those orders?
Code of Conduct for Members of the United States Armed Forces
I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
II
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.
III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
IV
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
THE AIRMAN’S CREED
I AM AN AMERICAN AIRMAN.
I AM A WARRIOR.
I HAVE ANSWERED MY NATION’S CALL.
I AM AN AMERICAN AIRMAN.
MY MISSION IS TO FLY, FIGHT, AND WIN.
I AM FAITHFUL TO A PROUD HERITAGE,
A TRADITION OF HONOR,
AND A LEGACY OF VALOR.
I AM AN AMERICAN AIRMAN,
GUARDIAN OF FREEDOM AND JUSTICE,
MY NATION’S SWORD AND SHIELD,
ITS SENTRY AND AVENGER.
I DEFEND MY COUNTRY WITH MY LIFE.
I AM AN AMERICAN AIRMAN:
WINGMAN, LEADER, WARRIOR.
I WILL NEVER LEAVE AN AIRMAN BEHIND,
I WILL NEVER FALTER,
AND I WILL NOT FAIL.
In the majority of instances, orders go through many layers of command before they are given to the ones that actually carry them out. The exception are the orders given directly during a firefight or battle situation. An order that betrays the law or conventions of war or ethical standards would be corrected or withdrawn (or belayed) before it ever could be executed. I have never seen or heard of that having to happen. However, I have had an instance where the first hand type order during a firefight was respectfully disregarded by me and my team. We had to explain ourselves after of course, but when we did, the person that issued the order saw the error as well and agreed with our decision. That's because the military is made up of honorable men and women, who although are not perfect and do make mistakes, are quick to correct even their own mistakes and accept ethical reasons as a rule to not be broken.You see, I just have a real fundamental problem with the idea that laws and orders have to be followed 100%. I am of the opinion that morality transcends the law. Following the law will generally steer you in the right track morally, but sometimes that is not the case. What then?
A blatantly immoral order is not a legal order. Therefore it does not have to be followed. Although, as I said before, you have to be ready to explain yourself and your actions. And, you better make sure you're damned right, not just right.What will these military men do when they are given a direct order, a legal order, to do something blatantly immoral?
No. However, like I said, no one is perfect. In battle, emotions run high. When you're in combat, and the enemy is killing your friends, it's natural for you to want to get even, or take out your anger, hatred and fear on the enemy. In most instances, that's good, because it keeps you alert and motivated to live and survive while killing as many of the enemy as you can to achieve that (remember, killing the enemy is the goal - which some, as I've said previously in this thread, can be seen as immoral by some). However, once you have won, and the enemy has either surrendered or have been captured or have been killed, you have a moral duty to protect them if alive and treat them with respect whether they are alive or dead - sometimes that doesn't happen when individual soldiers, marines or airmen let their emotions overwhelm their ability to think and control their emotions. This is actually very, VERY, rare, even though the media makes a huge deal out of it like it's some normal event. Anyone that does not show respect for the enemy prisoner or the remains of the enemies dead always find themselves on the wrong side of a court martial, up to and including facing murder charges. That's right, a member of the military can be charged and convicted of murder, even during a battle where their job is to kill the enemy. We have a code, and murder is not part of it, not is peeing on the dead, or taking pictures of naked prisoners of war to degrade and embarrass them.Will they do it out of misplaced patriotism or a sense of duty?
There is a strong ethos of obedience to orders, but not blind obedience.Out of blind obedience to their government?
It rarely happens, because the instances of immoral or illegal orders is very rare. And when I say rare, I mean almost non-existent. But, yes. As I said, I have, only once, but it was more because the person giving the order didn't understand the actual circumstances more than they were trying to get us to do something immoral and unethical. Nonetheless, I had to "stand-to" and "lock-heels" when I returned while I explained our actions. I almost got my butt handed to me, but once it was over, we all were fine, including the CO that issued the order.Or will they disobey and risk prosecution?
I've told you above. That was the only time I even came close though. It's such a rare thing, that like I said, I've never even heard of it happening, other than the one time it happened to me. Others in here may be able to give you another example. I do know of one instance in A-Stan that I read about where an officer refused an order he thought was illegal, but he got in a lot of trouble over that, even though it had nothing to do with an order regarding the enemy. You have to be damned right, not just right. To not follow an order is insubordination at the very least, cowardice in the face of the enemy potentially, and desertion under fire at it's worst (which used to be punishable by firing squad).Better question, what would you do?
Hey Kat...
It would depend on the military you're talking about. Historically, the US has always had a code of conduct, which preceded and which is not the law like the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is. The code of conduct is an ethical standard, a moral standard, that all members of the military are held to. Below is the current Code, but the first was written General George Washington:
Also, I was under the Airman's Creed (each branch has a Creed):
Specifically to ethical conduct, here is a link to a document that, although not short, should be a good read for you to have a better idea about military ethics.
In the majority of instances, orders go through many layers of command before they are given to the ones that actually carry them out. The exception are the orders given directly during a firefight or battle situation. An order that betrays the law or conventions of war or ethical standards would be corrected or withdrawn (or belayed) before it ever could be executed. I have never seen or heard of that having to happen. However, I have had an instance where the first hand type order during a firefight was respectfully disregarded by me and my team. We had to explain ourselves after of course, but when we did, the person that issued the order saw the error as well and agreed with our decision. That's because the military is made up of honorable men and women, who although are not perfect and do make mistakes, are quick to correct even their own mistakes and accept ethical reasons as a rule to not be broken. A blatantly immoral order is not a legal order. Therefore it does not have to be followed. Although, as I said before, you have to be ready to explain yourself and your actions. And, you better make sure you're damned right, not just right. No. However, like I said, no one is perfect. In battle, emotions run high. When you're in combat, and the enemy is killing your friends, it's natural for you to want to get even, or take out your anger, hatred and fear on the enemy. In most instances, that's good, because it keeps you alert and motivated to live and survive while killing as many of the enemy as you can to achieve that (remember, killing the enemy is the goal - which some, as I've said previously in this thread, can be seen as immoral by some). However, once you have won, and the enemy has either surrendered or have been captured or have been killed, you have a moral duty to protect them if alive and treat them with respect whether they are alive or dead - sometimes that doesn't happen when individual soldiers, marines or airmen let their emotions overwhelm their ability to think and control their emotions. This is actually very, VERY, rare, even though the media makes a huge deal out of it like it's some normal event. Anyone that does not show respect for the enemy prisoner or the remains of the enemies dead always find themselves on the wrong side of a court martial, up to and including facing murder charges. That's right, a member of the military can be charged and convicted of murder, even during a battle where their job is to kill the enemy. We have a code, and murder is not part of it, not is peeing on the dead, or taking pictures of naked prisoners of war to degrade and embarrass them. There is a strong ethos of obedience to orders, but not blind obedience. It rarely happens, because the instances of immoral or illegal orders is very rare. And when I say rare, I mean almost non-existent. But, yes. As I said, I have, only once, but it was more because the person giving the order didn't understand the actual circumstances more than they were trying to get us to do something immoral and unethical. Nonetheless, I had to "stand-to" and "lock-heels" when I returned while I explained our actions. I almost got my butt handed to me, but once it was over, we all were fine, including the CO that issued the order.
I've told you above. That was the only time I even came close though. It's such a rare thing, that like I said, I've never even heard of it happening, other than the one time it happened to me. Others in here may be able to give you another example. I don now of one instance in A-Stan that I read about where an officer refused an order he thought was illegal, but he got in a lot of trouble over that, even though it had nothing to do with an order regarding the enemy. You have to be damned right, not just right. To not follow an order is insubordination at the very least, cowardice in the face of the enemy potentially, and desertion under fire at it's worst (which used to be punishable by firing squad).
The only problem I see with that is that morality is subjective.
Thanks for the well thought-out and very long reply.
Hope you have a good night! :2wave:
Any soldier who refuses should be prosecuted.
A couple of "your people" already did - they just happened to be working for charities rather than the military. What happened was that they were flown back to the US in isolation and given the best of care, including some experimental treatment and thankfully survived and recovered.I just wonder what's going to happen when some of our people come down with this thing.
A couple of "your people" already did - they just happened to be working for charities rather than the military. What happened was that they were flown back to the US in isolation and given the best of care, including some experimental treatment and thankfully survived and recovered.
Don't take it personally though, ignorance of such facts is something of a running theme of this thread.
No, it risks a different set of people. If the work being proposed for the military personnel achieves even some of what is intended, it would help limit the spread of the epidemic and thus put a whole load fewer people at risk. Of course most of those people don't have American passports, which seems to be a major underlying issue in this thread.I know all about the two doctors dude. Sending a bunch of military people into an area like that opens up the risk to a lot more people.
Seems unlikely given the nature of immunities that have been seen regarding Ebola. In general, viruses have very short life-expectancy without a viable host so with some fairly basic precautions, there should be no great risk to these personnel or those around them when they return. If it was a significant problem, it would have been realised by now given all the other people travelling to and from the area.And for those who might be immune and come back home; are they still carriers?
The ebola virus has the potential to end up in the US. Seems to me that the only thing stopping Ebola from becoming a pandemic is the fact that it incapacitates and kills so quickly. Victims don't have much of a chance to spread it around a lot before they die.Probably what would happen however I don't se why any soldier would re up and serve under this commander in Chief. The military has no business fighting a virus.
I don't get the question. How would the military be fighting Ebola?
:lol:People, seriously. This was explained days ago. 3000 military personnel are building clinics, training locals, providing supplies and such. Despite what some "think", they are not being sent to kill people fleeing quarantines or to shoot at Ebola.
Any soldier who refuses should be prosecuted.
I know all about the two doctors dude. Sending a bunch of military people into an area like that opens up the risk to a lot more people. And for those who might be immune and come back home; are they still carriers?
I don't like it.
I have also noticed that putting one's foot in one's mouth up to their knee is also common.
Flamethrowers mounted on tanks and helicopters. The heat kills the virus.I don't get the question. How would the military be fighting Ebola?
Hmm. Makes sense. I was gonna suggest flaming torches, but your way is best.Flamethrowers mounted on tanks and helicopters. The heat kills the virus.
I guess dropping off medication is not enough, we now have to send our troops to face possible death.
If you were ordered to go by the president, would you follow orders, or would you say no and face a dishonorable discharge?
What I just said in the quote you posted, that I don't consider them amongst the brightest.
Can't we just ignore it and let people die?
Ain't God a peach?WHO's "if it gets really out of hand, which it's looking like it might" scenario is 500,000 infections. With a 53-57% death rate that is.... what, 275,000 people?
If the soldiers who are in the hot zone are properly quaratened, there won't be a problem.
Any soldier who refuses should be prosecuted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?