5
   

A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders.

 
 
noinipo
 
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 05:54 pm
Looking at the ugly pictures coming out of Tibet, I ask myself a question. "How would I feel as a policeman or a soldier facing a protesting crowd of civilians? If I know in my heart that these crowds are innocent or even right, do I have to go and bash their heads in with my truncheon?
.
As a policeman in my hometown, do I have to beat up my friends or relatives who are protesting some meeting of big business, slicing up the pie in far away countries?
.
During the Nuremberg trial the excuse: " I was following orders" was not accepted. Surely many soldiers in Iraq must have followed bad orders because they were afraid of being punished. Sickening dilemma.
....................................
A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders.
.
The military oath taken at the time of induction reads:
.
"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"
.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
---
By November of 2002, 315 law professors had signed a statement entitled "A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent for Violence That Will Endanger the American People."
.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 16,604 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 09:58 pm
military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.


The cut and pate above apply to USA military as well.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 10:35 pm
Re: A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders.
noinipo wrote:
L
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ.


now what i'd like is a definition of lawful vs. unlawful order. also, the passage you quoted of itself merely requires obeying lawful orders; it does not require disobeying unlawful ones.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 04:04 am
Is your point that the military should disobey unlawful orders, or that police should?

And who gets to decide what unlawful is? What if one 'expert' says it's lawful, and another 'expert' says it's unlawful?

Then...what if you consider the law wrong?

And what if your boss honestly thinks it's lawful, while you only 'think' it's unlawful?

What if half the unit thinks it's lawful, the other half of the squad thinks it's unlawful? Do you argue in the middle of a warzone that it's wrong? Do you walk away, leaving your mates flanks unprotected, maybe leading to their deaths?

Some things of course, are clear cut unlawful.
noinipo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 05:56 am
During WW2 I lived in Germany. Our next door neighbour in the apartment block had three sons. They were all around 6'5" and belonged to elite military units. The youngest one came home on furlough once and told his mother that he was unhappy.
.
He told her that they had to do things that disturbed him a lot. Finally, as he was going back to his unit in Russia, he shot himself.
.
Seems to be the only way out: after disobeying an order, they shoot you or you do it yourself. Wearing a uniform and swearing an oath puts you in a bad corner.
.
btw, the invasion of Iraq was unlawful.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 03:59 pm
In international terms, law is determined by power, economics, and politics and as a side issue - a convenient set of rules to settle minor international matters.

In relation to an invasion, the use of the term 'lawful' is for use by the Major powers when it suits the major powers, and for PR purposes by both the major and lesser powers.

Of course when democratic countries subscribe to such charters, the waters become murkier due to public opinion within said democratic countries.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2008 11:08 am
noinipo wrote:

Seems to be the only way out: after disobeying an order, they shoot you or you do it yourself. Wearing a uniform and swearing an oath puts you in a bad corner.
.
btw, the invasion of Iraq was unlawful.


reminds me of the one time NFL player Pat Tillman, who volunteered to fight in Afghanistan to be with his brother there, thought the war in Iraq was illegal, and was killed by friendly fire.

the invasion of Iraq was stupid & unnecessary, regardless of legality, IMO.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2008 11:12 am
noinipo wrote:

Seems to be the only way out: after disobeying an order, they shoot you or you do it yourself. Wearing a uniform and swearing an oath puts you in a bad corner.
.
btw, the invasion of Iraq was unlawful.


reminds me of the one time NFL player Pat Tillman, who volunteered to fight in Afghanistan to be with his brother there, thought the war in Iraq was illegal, and was killed by friendly fire. (but i am NOT insinuating his death was anything but an accident.)

the invasion of Iraq was stupid & unnecessary, regardless of legality, IMO, and the campaign to round up public support for it was a disgraceful exercise in indoctrination.
0 Replies
 
johhnywalker125
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 09:24 pm
@vikorr,
Your thinking too much about the issue. Whether or not its unconstitutional or not is moreso the case. If its unconstitutional, its unlawful. There is a lot of grey area there, but in general you will not likely come across this problem. And for the other posters, he was quoting directly from the United States Code of Military Justice, so it doesn't directly apply to law enforcement
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 04:12 am
Nor does it apply to Tibet, the starting point for this rant.

People subject to the UCMJ are not required to obey an unlawful order--and non-commissioned officers and warrant officers can only give lawful orders. But officers can give direct orders, and the only response that an inferior officer, non-commissioned officer or private soldier can make, other than simply obeying the order, is to protest, demand the order in writing--and then obey the order.

Which pretty well shoots the whole goofy argument right in the ass.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 05:09 am
@noinipo,

Opinion,
u do not understand what u r saying.

The law that u quoted only shows that a soldier has a duty to obay lawful orders.
Nothing that u quoted indicates any authority
for his disregarding unlawful orders, altho u falsely imply that it does.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 05:13 am
@noinipo,
noinipo wrote:

During WW2 I lived in Germany. Our next door neighbour in the apartment block had three sons. They were all around 6'5" and belonged to elite military units. The youngest one came home on furlough once and told his mother that he was unhappy.
.
He told her that they had to do things that disturbed him a lot. Finally, as he was going back to his unit in Russia, he shot himself.
.
Seems to be the only way out: after disobeying an order, they shoot you or you do it yourself. Wearing a uniform and swearing an oath puts you in a bad corner.
.
btw, the invasion of Iraq was unlawful.
O, Really ?
What law did the invasion violate, Opinion ??





David
silveradoss
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 04:53 pm
@noinipo,
I was a Unit Administrator for a National Guard unit and as such I handled the week-end drill payroll. My Detachment commander gave me a direct order to carry some AWOL people as present and pay them for attending drill when they were AWOL. I refused. Did I disobey a direct order? Yes. Did I disobey an unlawful order? Yes. This Lt. said to me "are you refusing to obey a direct order." I informed this Lt. that the reg said that I was to obey all lawful orders and after showing him the Reg. I requested that JAG be called because I wanted a JAG officer present before we said anything else. That Lt. is no longer with the National Guard. Any questions?
noinipo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 07:51 pm
@silveradoss,
silveradoss, you did the right thing; took a lot of guts. Bravo.
0 Replies
 
DrSpook
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 01:06 am
@OmSigDAVID,
how about article 1 section 8 of the constitution for starters, which athorizes congress NOT the president to declare war. Then there is article 8 clause 2 which requires us to settle all disputes diplomaticly in the absence of and attack (and just incase your shaky here, iraq did not attack us). And then ther is article 41 and 42 of the U.N. charter that says no member state has the right to enforce any resolution with armed force unless the Security Council decides there has been a material breach of it resolution, and determines that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted; at that point the Council must specifically authorize the use of military force, which it did not.
So, david, it turns out that noinipo is correct.... Really.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 09:22 am
@DrSpook,
DrSpook wrote:
how about article 1 section 8 of the constitution for starters,
which athorizes congress NOT the president to declare war.
Congress DID approve the war; no problem there, Spooky.
U know not whereof u spook.
Additionally, it has (bipartisan) funded every nickel of both of those wars,
for years n years on end.

Note also that very few of America 's wars have been declared by Congress.
What happened is that the Commander in Chief of America 's Armed Forces
ordered them to invade. The Constitution does not say that wars
cannot be fought unless thay have been declared.






DrSpook wrote:
Then there is article 8
Of WHAT??


DrSpook wrote:
clause 2 which requires us to settle all disputes diplomaticly in the absence of and attack (and just incase your shaky here, iraq did not attack us). And then ther is article 41 and 42 of the U.N. charter that says no member state has the right to enforce any resolution with armed force unless the Security Council decides there has been a material breach of it resolution, and determines that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted; at that point the Council must specifically authorize the use of military force, which it did not.
That only has the force of a treaty. If Saddam does not like it, let him complain.
It has NO EFFECT upon America's Constitutional processes.
If the parties with whom we treated don 't like it:
thay can lump it,
but it has no effect upon America 's processes.




DrSpook wrote:
So, david, it turns out that noinipo is correct.... Really.
NOT "Really"; BALONEY!!!
panda213
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 08:47 am
@OmSigDAVID,
War was never declared. It was and still is an invasion... im not going to quote contitutional clauses or UCMJ atricles but im pretty darn sure that invasions are not legal...
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2012 10:19 am
@panda213,
panda213 wrote:
War was never declared.
So WHAT???????
Cite us to any requirement of a DECLARATION, please?????

panda213 wrote:
It was and still is an invasion...
Obviously, it was an invasion. So WHAT??

panda213 wrote:
im not going to quote contitutional clauses or UCMJ atricles but im pretty darn sure that invasions are not legal...
Well, u r pretty darn rong.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders.
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/23/2014 at 03:15:00