Following Orders and Genocide

[Autumn Wind]

If you've ever been in the military, they tend to drum into your head the difference between unlawful orders, i.e. shooting civilians, and lawful orders, i.e., the day-to-day shit people actually do in the military.

If your NCO tells you to falsify a signature on an official document= unlawful. Taking that gaudy earring out of your ear= lawful.

Sure, there are circumstances during war that result in catch-22 conundrums. they are, however, so frighteningly rare that they become media sensations when they happen.

For the average soldier, the ROE will be laid out and explained in exacting detail long before they ever set foot in country. If you abide by the ROF/ROE, you're essentially safe from prosecution under the LOW.

[Carnivorous Flying Lunchboxes]

If national law is in conflict with international conventions of law, always follow international conventions.

What if your country has not signed the international treaty?

Then prepare to to have your national sovereignty violated.

[Madredia]

What if your country has not signed the international treaty?

Then prepare to to have your national sovereignty violated.

My point is that as a soldier, the law is not always clear versus your CO's orders. Thats why soldiers sometimes are ordered to do something, such as inciting a revolution in a nation, to "secure national resources" and you end up with a squadron of boys sent off to do something they cringe at the thought of. In that situation I would leave the military.

[Saiwania]

You can technically carry out unethical/illegal orders provided that your side actually wins. I can guarantee that if Russia, China, or any other nation as powerful, committed war crimes on the battlefield- the international community would not be able to prosecute or hold any leverage. All that would happen is a strongly worded protest from the UN and other countries so inclined but without military retaliation, the question becomes "yes- I am slaughtering them, now- what are you going to do about it?"

[Wisconsin9]

Then prepare to to have your national sovereignty violated.

My point is that as a soldier, the law is not always clear versus your CO's orders. Thats why soldiers sometimes are ordered to do something, such as inciting a revolution in a nation, to "secure national resources" and you end up with a squadron of boys sent off to do something they cringe at the thought of. In that situation I would leave the military.

According to the Rome Statute, if a soldier doesn't know an order is unlawful and it isn't obviously unlawful, superior orders can be grounds for relief of criminal responsibility.

[Lemanrussland]

No, you shouldn't.

Let this guy be your role model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.

[Nazi Flower Power]

The purpose of this thread is very simple. To discuss whether as a soldier, you should follow the commands and instructions of your commanding officers, regardless of your moral objections to them. Does your conviction about moral righteousness matter at all in war, or should you execute orders with extreme prejudice without regard for your moral convictions. What do you think?

You're the one that has to live with the consequences of your actions -- whether it's a sense of guilt, punishment for insubordination, or prosecution for war crimes. Take all that into consideration and make a decision on a case by case basis.

As a Nazi, though, I would like to point out that protesting your orders in the Third Reich would usually get you transferred to a less genocidal line of work. You couldn't necessarily get out of the war effort, but you could get out of participating in the worst atrocities. Most of the "just following orders" stuff came from people that never had the nerve to express any misgivings to their commanding officers and didn't really make any effort to avoid committing war crimes because they didn't expect to be held accountable.

[Kemalist]

Yes, I would follow the commands as long as they are lawful.

[Madredia]

Yes, I would follow the commands as long as they are lawful.

Do you mean by international law, or by the laws of your nation?

[Zweite Alaje]

As someone who will soon be in the military, I would sooner kill myself than follow and order to commit genicide. There is no honor to be found in it.

[Ifreann]

The purpose of this thread is very simple. To discuss whether as a soldier, you should follow the commands and instructions of your commanding officers, regardless of your moral objections to them. Does your conviction about moral righteousness matter at all in war, or should you execute orders with extreme prejudice without regard for your moral convictions. What do you think?

It depends on what your moral objections to the orders are.

---

As someone who will soon be in the military, I would sooner kill myself than follow and order to commit genicide. There is no honor to be found in it.

Are you joining the military in the 1400s? Because modern armed forces don't give much of a shit about honour as far as I can tell.

[Rio Cana]

With technology advancing, chances are most modern militaries will have some type of robotic soldier who would be programmed to do the dirty things. And the best thing about them is when they are questioned to see who gave the order they self-destruct.

[Zweite Alaje]

The purpose of this thread is very simple. To discuss whether as a soldier, you should follow the commands and instructions of your commanding officers, regardless of your moral objections to them. Does your conviction about moral righteousness matter at all in war, or should you execute orders with extreme prejudice without regard for your moral convictions. What do you think?

It depends on what your moral objections to the orders are.

---

As someone who will soon be in the military, I would sooner kill myself than follow and order to commit genicide. There is no honor to be found in it.

Are you joining the military in the 1400s? Because modern armed forces don't give much of a shit about honour as far as I can tell.

I didn't say they did. I'm speaking of my personal and family honor, I wouldn't dare tarnish my name with such filth.

[Nadkor]

If national law is in conflict with international conventions of law, always follow international conventions.

What if your country has not signed the international treaty?

There are many parts of international law, including some of the laws of war, that have become recognised as jus cogens customary international law (also known as peremptory norms) - that is to say that they are applicable to a state regardless of whether a specific treaty on the matter has been signed by that state and from which no derogation is ever permitted in law.

Genocide is one such peremptory norm. Even if a country has not signed any of the relevant international conventions it is still prohibited in law from carrying out genocide, and any soldier who follows orders and is part of carrying out a genocide will be undertaking an unlawful act.

[Ifreann]

It depends on what your moral objections to the orders are.

---

Are you joining the military in the 1400s? Because modern armed forces don't give much of a shit about honour as far as I can tell.

I didn't say they did. I'm speaking of my personal and family honor, I wouldn't dare tarnish my name with such filth.

And this is why it depends on your moral objections.

[Madredia]

What if your country has not signed the international treaty?

There are many parts of international law, including some of the laws of war, that have become recognised as jus cogens customary international law (also known as peremptory norms) - that is to say that they are applicable to a state regardless of whether a specific treaty on the matter has been signed by that state and from which no derogation is ever permitted in law.

Genocide is one such peremptory norm. Even if a country has not signed any of the relevant international conventions it is still prohibited in law from carrying out genocide, and any soldier who follows orders and is part of carrying out a genocide will be undertaking an unlawful act.

Oh hey Nadkor. My point is that what if your nation is openly in opposition to the international community and any of their laws or norms? A soldier of such a state would not have any reason to believe that his actions are unlawful, if the military is the law in his nation. However, I as a soldier was required to do something such as execute everyone boycotting something, I would refuse on moral grounds and suffer the consequences. After all, they are my consequences to bare.

[Kemalist]

Yes, I would follow the commands as long as they are lawful.

Do you mean by international law, or by the laws of your nation?

Both.

[Zweite Alaje]

I didn't say they did. I'm speaking of my personal and family honor, I wouldn't dare tarnish my name with such filth.

And this is why it depends on your moral objections.

For me the honor of my nation and family comes before anyone's orders. I would happily submit to imprisonment if it means I maintain my, and by extension, my family's honor.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't think Privates, Corporals or really anyone lower than Captain (or lieutenant or sergeant.) should be held accountable for following an order.
It's not their job to know all the facts.

A captain can scream at you
"SHOOT THEM!"
and gesture to a crowd of civilians.

If you then turn around and say it's an illegal order, what you've done is give the enemy time to throw off their cloaks and start shooting.
It isn't your job to question orders. It isn't your job to form orders. It's your job to follow them.

If your job IS to create orders, then you'd better make the right ones. It's your job to know the totality of the situation. If you give an illegal order, it's on you. You should have known it was illegal.

In addition, there is acceptable collateral. You do not know the totality of the situation. What looks like senseless slaughter to you may in fact be a vital part of the strategy and acceptable collateral.
"I refuse to bomb that hospital."
But you don't realize that the rubble is needed to prevent a convoy of tanks from using that road, they are on their way to destroy the fuck out of a city.

I think this is already accepted by the military, by the way.
Just following orders actually is a defence for persons below a certain rank.

[Zweite Alaje]

I don't think Privates, Corporals or really anyone lower than Captain (or lieutenant or sergeant.) should be held accountable for following an order.
It's not their job to know all the facts.

A captain can scream at you
"SHOOT THEM!"
and gesture to a crowd of civilians.

If you then turn around and say it's an illegal order, what you've done is give the enemy time to throw off their cloaks and start shooting.
It isn't your job to question orders. It isn't your job to form orders. It's your job to follow them.

If your job IS to create orders, then you'd better make the right ones. It's your job to know the totality of the situation. If you give an illegal order, it's on you. You should have known it was illegal.

Officer or not, one's honor is theirs alone.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't think Privates, Corporals or really anyone lower than Captain (or lieutenant or sergeant.) should be held accountable for following an order.
It's not their job to know all the facts.

A captain can scream at you
"SHOOT THEM!"
and gesture to a crowd of civilians.

If you then turn around and say it's an illegal order, what you've done is give the enemy time to throw off their cloaks and start shooting.
It isn't your job to question orders. It isn't your job to form orders. It's your job to follow them.

If your job IS to create orders, then you'd better make the right ones. It's your job to know the totality of the situation. If you give an illegal order, it's on you. You should have known it was illegal.

Officer or not, one's honor is theirs alone.

Useless statement given what I said in the post.

[Battenburgia]

or should you execute orders with extreme prejudice

"with extreme prejudice"

why do the military have to use such stupid terminology, they sound like little boys playing with their water pistols

[GrandKirche]

I think if you're in a situation where you're being ordered to do something morally wrong you should try and get out of it without deserting. If that fails, run.

That said, if you have to wait your time a little before deserting, that's not as morally reprehensible as if you stay and then at the end of the war go "I was only obeying orders"

[Yes Im Biop]

A soldier can disobey a immoral order (Shoot that unarmed hostage, shit like that) And have the CO Brought up on charges.
U.S. Military does it at any rate.

[Yes Im Biop]

I don't think Privates, Corporals or really anyone lower than Captain (or lieutenant or sergeant.) should be held accountable for following an order.
It's not their job to know all the facts.

A captain can scream at you
"SHOOT THEM!"
and gesture to a crowd of civilians.

If you then turn around and say it's an illegal order, what you've done is give the enemy time to throw off their cloaks and start shooting.
It isn't your job to question orders. It isn't your job to form orders. It's your job to follow them.

If your job IS to create orders, then you'd better make the right ones. It's your job to know the totality of the situation. If you give an illegal order, it's on you. You should have known it was illegal.

In addition, there is acceptable collateral. You do not know the totality of the situation. What looks like senseless slaughter to you may in fact be a vital part of the strategy and acceptable collateral.
"I refuse to bomb that hospital."
But you don't realize that the rubble is needed to prevent a convoy of tanks from using that road, they are on their way to destroy the fuck out of a city.

I think this is already accepted by the military, by the way.
Just following orders actually is a defence for persons below a certain rank.

If you have enough High EX to drop a hospitle you have 40x times the amount you need to wreck that tank column's day.