[DRAFT] Just Following Orders

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Recently found out that German soldiers are explicitly allowed to disobey orders for reasons of conscience, in reaction to Nazism. Pretty interesting, I thought.

TITLE:
Just Following Orders?

VALIDITY:
has military, has courts, has computers

DESCRIPTION:
A @@DEMONYM@@ communications officer was recently court-martialed and demoted for insubordination, for refusing to complete work on a piece of software that @@HE(1)@@ believed could be misused to snoop on foreign national civilians, claiming that @@@HE(1)@@ was acting according to @@HIS(1)@@ conscience. An appeal to the civilian courts in turn has over-turned the court martial decision, and demanded that @@HIS(1)@@ rank be reinstated.

OPTION 1
"Being a soldier does not stop me being a conscientious and moral human being," explains Private @@randomname@@, still defiantly wearing @@HIS@@ Lieutenant-Captain's uniform. "How many times has the excuse 'I was just following orders' been trotted out in history? I say that a soldier has both the right and responsibility to disobey any order that goes against @@HIS@@ conscience, and must not be penalised for that. We are not mindless drones!" @@HIS@@ piece said, @@HE@@ buzzes off.
OUTCOME:
pacifist soldiers go to war with a flower in the barrel of their rifles

OPTION 2
"Look, it's not like we were asking @@HIM@@ to open fire on a schoolyard full of children, @@HE@@ was simply being told to compile some code for our recon division," sighs Major @@randomsurname@@, who is watching @@surname(1)@@'s progress out of the building on the security camera screens. "We expect soldiers to disobey orders that are against national or international law, but they can't just decide on a whim to opt out of a legitimate operation. Can you imagine if a soldier in the field was expecting fire support, and his comrades held back because they were worried they might hurt an enemy soldier? Or if a bomber refused to bomb an enemy hiding in a farm because they didn't want to harm the chickens? Be reasonable!"
OUTCOME:
footsoldiers carry crib sheets on international law in their daysacks

OPTION 3
"In my opinion, commander-in-chief, we've been too lenient on this filthy insurrectionist," growls Drill Sergeant @@randomsurname@@, as @@HE@@ forms your office staff into a neat line ready for your inspection. "The chain of command must be obeyed without question, always! The civilian courts have no jurisdiction over soldiers. These are not men and women, they are SOLDIERS! It's not up to them to decide what is right or wrong, they are weapons to be deployed by their superiors and betters. If you ask me, this Private should be demoted again, then shot dead, the body burnt, and then tossed in a latrine. And if @@HE@@'s lucky, we'll do it in that order."
OUTCOME:
when soldiers are quartered they've often been hanged and drawn first

[Sacara]

I like the premise for the issue, but I think it could be presented in a more interesting fashion. Instead of it being about a soldier refusing to create software that could be used to spy on foreign civilians, I believe it would be more interesting to set it up as if the soldier was a pilot and was suppose to bomb an enemy target that had a high chance for civil casualties, and then the soldier opted-out of that.

Also, I feel like you are conflating two issues. Right away we are talking about whether soldiers can disregard orders that go against their conscience, then we flip to whether civilian courts have any jurisdiction of military affairs. Both ideas merit separate issues, imo. Having them combined muddles the draft.

[Verdant Haven]

I think Sacara is onto something - this is a dual issue: one about disregarding an unconscionable order, and one about civilian oversight of military justice. With regard to the specific details written for this, I think it fits well the question of conscience vs orders, and would take very few changes to make it squarely about that, with the military court of appeals perhaps coming to Leader for guidance on the question.

There's actually an extremely detailed and complex history of arguments about the civilian vs military courts question in many western countries, and in the US it made it to the Supreme Court just a year or two ago with a new precedent-setting decision being made that overturned some aspects of tradition and history. That could make a fantastic issue in and of itself, with a dilemma fully based on that premise.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Good points, I'll redraft and remove the civilian vs military court issue.