Iran paying Taliban to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan

A buddy of mine has been in the Marines and now the Army for over 20 years. He's been deployed in combat situations 15 times. He says he loves to be deployed because of the pay. He gets hazard pay plus free room & board and medical care, and generally there isn't much to spend his paycheck on over there. He half jokes about guys coming back buying cars outright for cash, from all the money they saved.

I am quite thankful in recent days as he was scheduled to be deployed, likely to Afghanistan, in August. He showed up and there were enough guys at his position (Master Sargent) and skills/duties ahead of him that he didn't have to go. It's going to be great having him around here, and knowing that he's safe.

 

Of course he doesn't nor would he. The guy's a sweetheart of a person, and the ideal ambassador of good will from the USA to anyone where he's stationed. Hell of a sense of humor, and a big heart. And the USA invents smart weapons to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. If we wanted to wipe out Iraq, we could have (nukes).

 

It's part of a soldier's duty to refuse a direct order that would be an international crime.

In a similar light... A few years back, a military plane crashed into a gondola thingy in Italy, and the Italians put our soldiers on trial.

 

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

 

In this case, Maris, you're not correct in your interpretations.
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how New's order was illegal. No one from President Clinton down, then back up through the Army Court of Appeals thinks he has a case.
There's a reason that there's mandatory training on Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement and Lawful Orders before each deployment. I can understand how these topics difficult to understand if they don't conform to one's bias that military members are uneducated killers of women and children. But nevertheless, it's true.

 

You're incorrect in a couple of places. First, it IS a duty to refuse illegal orders. You better be sure they're illegal, though. Just b/c you don't want to do something unpleasant or something you don't feel like doing doesn't mean you can refuse it. Charging a hill to your almost certain death is a legal order. Breaking down a door into a nest of insurgents will likely get you injured. Still a lawful order. Cleaning the bathroom is unpleasant. Still a legal order. Saying "F&$K it, I quit" gets you thrown in the brig. This woman thought she could get out of something unpleasant by making up stories about why she didn't want to go. She wasn't, and was separated from the Navy. Her final fitness report says it pretty well:

Additionally, from your link:

One moral to the story (even going on the assumption that it's unbiased and 100% true): if you let an insurgent hide in your house, that's a dangerous move for you.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "breaking international laws on a daily basis".

Have you ever actually talked to a soldier, Maris? Asked a sailor a question about their training and deployment? Asked them if they're told to blindly kill? Asked them if they feel good about "collateral damage"? Or how they're willing to accomplish their mission of protecting people from bad guys at the risk of their own lives?

 

Don't include me. Everything I know about combat is second-hand. But when I ask the questions like "how did you handle knowing that the little kid asking for candy could be strapped with explosives?", or "when you call in artillery during an ambush, how worried are you about 'collateral damage'?", there's a difference between what they're talking about, and the murderers I've talked to in prisons. A large difference.
What was your father's response to your assertion that soldiers just kill where they're told to and can't question unlawful orders? Or that his army broke international laws on an everyday basis?

 

If an officer ordered subordinates to line up a bunch of civilians and shoot them, firing squad style, I am sure that the soldiers would refuse and deal with the "consequences."

And that is your assertion, MARIS61, that soldiers would do something along the lines of obeying such an order. It's a downright insult and terribly wrong thinking.