Somebody posted a Q/A about the military a week or so ago. I found it educational and interesting. One of the posts was (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'We follow our Commander and Chief and the chain of command, period'.

It got me to thinking. At what point (if any) do you not follow that order to the letter?

Watching the History Channel is daily viewing for me.

In the interviews with German military personnel from 1939-45, they were just following orders. It tormented many of them- but they followed orders. A few said they didn't agree with it, but they would have been shot if they didn't do their duty.

Where would you draw the line on following orders? Or, is their no line? If ordered to do "X" regardless of right, wrong, personal feelings, God, Family and personal morals, do you still folow the orders to the letter?

I'm more interested in what veterans have to say about this issue, but of course all are welcome to respond. I did not serve in the armed forces, and have the upmost respect for all that have, and continue to serve.

I hope posting this thread isn't inappropriate, its just been in the forfront of my thoughts recently for some reason. Figured this would be a place where I could go to get some valued opinions.

8

8, I,ve been out for 15 years so I can't quate you the regs. In the miltary you must obey any and all lawful orders. It doesn't matter if you think they are wrong, stupid, dangerous. The question is if they are legal. IF you don't think we should be in Iraq, too bad. If you are ordered to shoot civilians in the back, you don't do it. Somewhere in the middle is where it gets tricky. Hope that helps, Bill

This is a good thread... I look forward to seeing others posts to this one??

What is or isn't a Lawful Order? Or Direct Order?

Hog

When a young man or woman takes the oath to enlist in the service, they swear to "obey the orders of the President of The United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, According to regulations and The Uniform Code of Military Justice."

In simple terms, anything they are asked to do is an order. Any task handed down by the chain of command is considered an order. If yu don't follow orders, you can be prosecuted either by court martial (judicial), or by non-judicial punishment. CO's mast, or office hours.

Some people make better followers than leaders, and they must trust the ability of the leadership to make the right decisions. If an order is given that you know is illegal, then that suboordinate has the right and THE DUTY to report that individual giving the order, and to disobey the order.

I could go on for days, but this is a good time to stop for a discussion point. Take the Abu Ghraib prison fiasco. Were those involved directed to abuse prisoners? It doesn't appear that they were, but I still feel somehow that someone in the chain of command had to know that this was happening and did nothing to stop it.

That's just one take.

Tag, you're it.

Herf, my guess is they weren't ordered to abuse them. But did the officer in charge imply or infer that making the prisoners uncomfortable or to out a dent in their self esteem? Probably.

Abu Graib, the concentration camps in WW2, being bogged down with too many prisoners when you are supposed to be at at Objective A or its your arse.

You don't refused an order, unless its an illegal order. I got that. But if you don't complete a "suggested, implied, or inferred non-order" you may be burning human waste in the desert for a month of Sundays.

This has to add to the stress of military personnel. It add stress in an office environment, and nobody is shooting at you- unless its the Post Office (sorry Seth Gekko).

My Guess is they Were being ordered to interrogate these prisoners. means and how is??? anyone's guess... but the photo's.. those were a no no and the world see's why...but do you really think that some high ranking official is going to jump on the Grenade for what came out of that place??

and what about the Col who was court marshaled last year for firing his weapon while interrogating the Iraqi who spilled his guts and the doing so saved many American and Iraqi lives??

what about the soldiers who go to their command and explain that they need a break from Action because of their stress level is about to fall off the charts and they do not want to be a risk to themselves or their brothers in arms? and then word leaks out that So and So can't take it any longer?

This is a Major issue with our men and women in uniform today... "Post Trumatic Stress Disorder" sometimes it only takes a couple days away from the action to allow one to catch up to reality.. sometimes reality is never brought back to the for front??

How true the below saying is....

The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems

is the day you have stopped leading them.

They have either lost confidence that you can help

them or concluded that you don't care.

Either case is a failure of leadership.

~ General Colin Powell ~

Hog

For an order to be legally enforceable, it must meet four criteria:

1. It must be related to military duty, morale, or welfare.

2. It must be within the issuing officer's authority.

3. It must be clear and unequivocable.

4. It must be recieved and understood.

As long as an order meets these criteria, the one receiving it must obey it, like it or not.

If the order violates the constitution (but meets all other "military" tests) must one still follow that order?

I put "military" in quotes NOT out of disrespect for our military-- it was just a question.

b. feeder, do you have an example of such an order?

BottomFeeder,

Can you be more specific concerning your statement? The reason I ask is that in combat we do not fight according to our constitution, but follow the laws of armed conflict, Geneva Convention, and UCMJ, among other general orders etc.

If you mean general stateside duties, then violating constitutional rights may make the order illegal.

Tom

Criteria Number Two is the important one in this instance......Does the issuing person have the authority to overide the US Constitution?

This is what got Clinton in so much trouble.

>BottomFeeder,

>Can you be more specific concerning your statement?

Sorry, TSmith (and rugrunner), I don't have an example.

As I said in the original post, it was just a question.

No disrespect to anyone. It was just a question, and I'm not tryin to grind an axe... I watch the History Channel, too... That's all.

a soldier does not have to follow an unlawful order. the problem is he must be willing to fight what will inevitably be the consequences of refusing to obey the order. the military doesn't like non compliance and they have a nasty way of showing it.

i was never in a combat situation so i can't know how i would react.

i was ordered once to sign a security cleearance and refused the order.

when i was called into a meeting of brass and given the a direct order, i signed it "under direct order."

they didn't like that but too bad.

i was the recipient of more then half dozen article 15's, company punishment, almost all for demonstrating my complete lack of respect for any one of rank that i thought was an ass hole. incidentally i was an e-2 so everyone else outranked me.

all my article 15's were for insubordination.

if i was at my lai, i hope i would have told whoever gave the order to shove it. i do know i would never respond to any order to kill unarmed civilians.

the reason soldiers come home with mental problems, PTSD, shell shock, whatever they called it at the time is very simple.

we are taught to respect other people and not to kill. when we are put in a position where we have to kill or be killed, even though we kill for self preservation, it is so stressful to our psyche, most people can not deal with it.

one day you are graduating high school and the next thing you know you are in a position to kill people.

how anyone can handle that is beyond my comprehension.

Rick,

A former colleague of mine wrote a book back in 97 called "On Killing." It addressed the psychology of killing on the battlefield, and how to "turn off" the switch that prevents this. It's similar to brainwashing, but it has to be done if we are to win in battle. Personally, over the years, I've learned to smile more. I would like to hope that I've been able to "turn that switch back on," but I don't think I have.

Thanks People,

Many good points. Great discussion. Able to see it from a few different perspectives help me get a better handle on it.

The On/Off switch that Adroomi speaks off has to be one of the most difficult things to handle. And Maven's point about learning respect for people and the whole 'thou shall not kill, then be put in a position where you have to kill, then get back to the civilized world again would be more than I would probably be able to handle.

...the on/off switch is exceptionally easy to control. This is why the military doesn't practice with fixed "bullseye" targets, but rather "popup" sillouette targets. You lay down, you point your rifle and when a black sillouette pops up, you pull the trigger. Enough of that will instill it as instinct in your mind. Later, on the battlefield, when a black sillouette pops up, the soldier pulls the trigger. No thoughts, no regret, no second guessing. Killing has now become a reaction......just like Pavlov's dogs.

Tough stuff to think about, but it has to be done I guess.........

Readjusting as civilians often tough for troops

http://tinyurl.com/7a2un 

Hog