Is a soldier resonsible for his actions when ordered?

[GambleFish]

Is a soldier really responsible for his actions when he is ordered to do something? As recent developments into prison scandels and such are made, the old question really is raised again. In Vietnam, a group of men are ordered to destroy a village - and they massacre every man, woman and child inside. Then they are tried and convicted of murder. Is it their fault?

Does a soldier have to obey orders he believes are stupid, or morally wrong? If ordered to kill a civilian, can he be tried for murder? If ordered to camp in an indefensible area, or in the wide open, is he responsible for the deaths of his men if they come under attack?

Do you see what I'm trying to get at? Can a soldier not follow through with a stupid order or a bad order which conflicts with common sense and reasoning, or with morals? Doesa he have to follow through with it?

What are your thoughts?

EDIT: Spelled "reponsible" wrong in title, lol...

[Spiff]

Im not sure about the lgal issues here, best i could think of would be to apply the reasonable man test, that is, 'would a reasonable man have followed the order', if so then there is no liability to whoever was following the order.

Thats my instinct on the issue though i suspect in reality it's more complicated. Personaly if i was in the army i'd find out exactly what i can and cant do and object when necesary.

[GambleFish]

I meant should a soldier be able to make decisions in the field that counter his orders. Can he choose to disobey when he feels that it's not right.

I say that in every cirumstance a soldier has to obey orders. The whole point of a chain of command and of discipline is that people have to follow orders. When a soldier starts to make decisions based on his own beliefs, everything falls apart.

Use Katrina as an example - that guy, something Brown, decided not to report to his superiors, but rather directly to the White House. Instead of following the chain of command, which was his duty, he did what he felt was best. As a result, the disaster in New Orleans became much worse.

When a soldier disobeys an order because he thinks it will save lives, he is actually going to hurt more than he helps. when soldiers do what they feel is right, discipline and a chain of command collapses - which is going to get more people killed than he saves in that one incidence.

In most if not EVERY circumstance, no matter what, a soldier needs to obey orders. (an example of when he shouldn't is a general gone insane, who is under an order of arrest but still orders his troops. Or something like that.)

Also, not to be extreme or anything, if the military decides it can do what it wants.... the words coup d'etat come to mind.

[Rush Limbaugh]

In Vietnam, a group of men are ordered to destroy a village - and they massacre every man, woman and child inside. Then they are tried and convicted of murder. Is it their fault?

Yes it is. Thats clearly an illegal order. I nor any other Marines I knew there would do such a thing. Youve been watching too many hollywood movies.

[RZZZA]

Well, in the olden times back when people still followed codes of chivalry and honor, a servant of a king or "liege" could break his oath if his liege lord committed transgressions in fields of dignity and honor.

So theoretically, if your lord breaks his oath of honor, the people who serve him could also choose to stop serving him, walking away from their oath to him with no guilty feelings. It was usually pretty impractical though, as you would probably make a lot of enemies doing so, but hey the option was there. I could be 100% wrong about this, this is just something I heard somewhere.

Modern U.S. soldiers also take similar oaths of honor (if I'm not mistaken), but I'm not sure if in the field their duty to their superior or the code they swore to follow takes precedence. There is a strict system within the military though, technically youre not supposed to simply disobey orders as that will bring negative consequences, what youre supposed to do is go over the head of your superior and report what you think are his misdeeds. Again, people with more know how can correct me on this, as I'm not positive.

So imo, a soldier who feels that his orders conflict with personal morality can take some sort of action, although he probably cannot simply walk away from his commitment in the military like the chivalrous people in the old days...since simply running away is treason, which you'll be court marshaled for.

[Richard the Lionheart]

I meant should a soldier be able to make decisions in the field that counter his orders. Can he choose to disobey when he feels that it's not right.

I say that in every cirumstance a soldier has to obey orders. The whole point of a chain of command and of discipline is that people have to follow orders. When a soldier starts to make decisions based on his own beliefs, everything falls apart.

Use Katrina as an example - that guy, something Brown, decided not to report to his superiors, but rather directly to the White House. Instead of following the chain of command, which was his duty, he did what he felt was best. As a result, the disaster in New Orleans became much worse.

When a soldier disobeys an order because he thinks it will save lives, he is actually going to hurt more than he helps. when soldiers do what they feel is right, discipline and a chain of command collapses - which is going to get more people killed than he saves in that one incidence.

In most if not EVERY circumstance, no matter what, a soldier needs to obey orders. (an example of when he shouldn't is a general gone insane, who is under an order of arrest but still orders his troops. Or something like that.)

Also, not to be extreme or anything, if the military decides it can do what it wants.... the words coup d'etat come to mind.

In the U.S. military, soldiers must disobey and disregard unlawful orders.

i.e. If they are ordered to torture someone, they must disobey. If they are ordered to kill prisoners, they must disobey. If they are ordered to kill civilians, they must disobey.

So for another example, it is unlawful for a commander to give an order such as "Take no prisoners".

[Rush Limbaugh]

My Lai massacre or something

Its Mi Lai. Yes there is an example. These soldiers were court martialed. It wasnt part of our SOP. In fact as I said it was illegal.

[RZZZA]

Do U.S. soldiers swear an oath comparable to the old codes of chivalry, though?

For some reason I was sure they did, but now I'm not so sure now...

Marines have the Marine Corp Oath but thats not really the same thing as an oath of chivalry/honor...more like an oath of obedience.

[GambleFish]

In the U.S. military, soldiers must disobey and disregard unlawful orders.

i.e. If they are ordered to torture someone, they must disobey. If they are ordered to kill prisoners, they must disobey. If they are ordered to kill civilians, they must disobey.

So for another example, it is unlawful for a commander to give an order such as "Take no prisoners".

Well, looking back at warfare, I'd say most of it was one giant breaking of the law.

Nagasaki? Hiroshima? Bombing cities in World War 2? Bombing civilian towns in Vietnam? In Korea? Bombing Baghdad? Air strikes in Palestine?

I'd say a lot of illegal stuff was happening.

And if no soldier would do such a thing, how did it happen? Prison scandels also come to mind.

@ Rush - The soldiers were court-martialled - but was the commander?

[the_mango55]

Well, looking back at warfare, I'd say most of it was one giant breaking of the law.

Nagasaki? Hiroshima? Bombing cities in World War 2? Bombing civilian towns in Vietnam? In Korea? Bombing Baghdad? Air strikes in Palestine?

I'd say a lot of illegal stuff was happening.

And if no soldier would do such a thing, how did it happen? Prison scandels also come to mind.

@ Rush - The soldiers were court-martialled - but was the commander?

The rules were created after WW2, before then everyone was fair game, civilians as well as military. There was no side that played by our rules today, if we were to judge them by our standards, every one in that war, and most wars before, was the bad guy.

The towns in Vietnam and Korea were, as Rush said, Illegal. And the air strikes against Baghdad and Palestine are on military targets, not indescriminate carpet bombing like in WW2, sure there were civilian casualties, but sometimes that happens. It is as much the fault of the Iraqis as ours, for putting their military structure in their population centers.

[Osceola]

In the U.S. military, soldiers must disobey and disregard unlawful orders.

i.e. If they are ordered to torture someone, they must disobey. If they are ordered to kill prisoners, they must disobey. If they are ordered to kill civilians, they must disobey.

So for another example, it is unlawful for a commander to give an order such as "Take no prisoners".

Exactly what I wanted to hear.

But what is he supposed to do after saying "No, Sir."? Put the guy who ordered it under arrest? Kill him? I dont get it..

[imb39]

I don't think following orders is considered acceptable for all actions now. This was essentially established at Nurenburg... THere is currently a case going on in Britai nsurrounding this principle.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Is a soldier really responsible for his actions when he is ordered to do something? As recent developments into prison scandels and such are made, the old question really is raised again. In Vietnam, a group of men are ordered to destroy a village - and they massacre every man, woman and child inside. Then they are tried and convicted of murder. Is it their fault?

Does a soldier have to obey orders he believes are stupid, or morally wrong? If ordered to kill a civilian, can he be tried for murder? If ordered to camp in an indefensible area, or in the wide open, is he responsible for the deaths of his men if they come under attack?

Do you see what I'm trying to get at? Can a soldier not follow through with a stupid order or a bad order which conflicts with common sense and reasoning, or with morals? Doesa he have to follow through with it?

What are your thoughts?

EDIT: Spelled "reponsible" wrong in title, lol...

In the United States military, if a soldier is given an order which conflicts with the rules of engagement, human rights laws, morals, ethics, etc. then it is the soldier's duty to disobey those orders.

In short, a soldier must disregard and disobey an unlawful order.

[Osceola]

Heres something to think about though, if you refuse and are court martialled, the man responsible for ordering it could then be tried for war-crimes.. if he's evil enough to order that knid of massacre than I'm sure he's evil enough to prevent any of that. Afterall, bullets are a dime a dozen..

Then what should you do?

[GambleFish]

Heres something to think about though, if you refuse and are court martialled, the man responsible for ordering it could then be tried for war-crimes.. if he's evil enough to order that knid of massacre than I'm sure he's evil enough to prevent any of that. Afterall, bullets are a dime a dozen..

Then what should you do?

I'm not sure what you're asking....

But if a commander orders the destruction of a village (example Vietnam) and the soldier carries out the order, the fault lies with the commander - and the commander should be tried for murder, not the soldiers.

EDIT: To Rush - let me find the specific case, if I can.

My Lai massacre or something....

[Last Roman]

Is a soldier really responsible for his actions when he is ordered to do something?

if it is against the rules of war (yes, there are rules) than yes, he is responsible

[Fenris]

He is always responsible to a certain extent. Even if it's not legally, but morally, he is responsible.

[GambleFish]

He is always responsible to a certain extent. Even if it's not legally, but morally, he is responsible.

Morally, he probably is. In fact, I'd say it was certain.

Have any of you raid "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien? He says at one point in the book, after his group kills a young man on a trail, that if his daughter asked if he had ever killed anybody, he could say with complete honesty, "Of course not."

Or, with complete honesty, he could say, "Yes." The contrast between reality and morals is huge.

So there are two different questions, I guess.


EDIT: Also, think about this. After H&G said that the soldier must not obey orders that contradict with the law.

Well, looking back at warfare, I'd say most of it was one giant breaking of the law.

Nagasaki? Hiroshima? Bombing cities in World War 2? Bombing civilian towns in Vietnam? In Korea? Bombing Baghdad? Air strikes in Palestine?

I'd say a lot of illegal stuff was happening.

And if no soldier would do such a thing, how did it happen? Prison scandels also come to mind.

[Irishman]

The soldier is always the one comitting the action, and therefore is always responsible. Every person has the ability and duty to say no to a order that is unjustified or illegal. There is no reason that a soldier should not be held resonsible for his actions, but if he is acting in good faith (and with the law) he will not be court-martialed.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Rush - The soldiers were court-martialled - but was the commander?

He was the one they were after. A Lt Kalley or something like that,

Do U.S. soldiers swear an oath comparable to the old codes of chivalry, though?

They are sworn to obey the rules of war as layed down by the Geneva Conventions. It is made very clear to them.