Why is "I was just following orders" not a valid defense? Aren't soldiers required to be subordinate to their superiors?
yes but you have a greater duty to humanity to not do things like machine gun hundreds of villagers into a mass grave
or cart off civilians to death camps
not not torture that family to death because their missing son might be a viet cong
It's a source of friction.
On one hand, soldiers are taught to obey orders and you can get into pretty serious shit if you don't.
On the other, you don't want to be a piece of shit, but you'll be court martialled if you don't follow orders.
Honestly, I think it should be a valid defense if it can be corroborated.
The logic is that you're not supposed to follow orders that you think are morally wrong.
That argument falls a bit flat when you realize that in the kind of situations where "I was following orders" comes into play, generally if you refuse you will get shot. Or your sister and mother will get shot. And your dog will be raped.
Because when "just following orders" entails gunning down innocents, people with morals will disobey them.
Look what happened with the My Lai Massacre, if it hadn't been for several helicopter pilots many more civilians if not servicemen would've been gunned down. It is only just to not follow unjust rules.
My grandfather who was in the SS likes to say "I was just following orders" with a huge grin.
>disobeying orders fucks you over in the long run by preventing you from going to skill schools and earning promotions while making you look like a complete untrustworthy shitbag to everyone
So it's either prison/execution or complete social ostracization.
I too enjoy posting on /K/.
Hey! Why don't we post our arsenals with shots of the serial numbers and the total numbers of ammunition we currently posses?
That'll be really good "banter"! haha!
I was just following orders. Those women and children were potential VC.
>not not torture that family to death
that dude got off with just house arrest
meanwhile those pilots that stopped the killing were called traitors by congress and it wasn't until relatively recently that they were recognized.
>Or your sister and mother will get shot. And your dog will be raped.
Because there are certain actions known as war crimes.
Just because an officer tells you to do something, does not mean the army condones it.
Despite what you might think of soldiers being drones they do have a choice.
That choice is "Will I get in more trouble for murdering children or for refusing to do so."
no you hippie edgelord
there are rules to war.
Things like not using mustard gas.
No more land mines.
Not using child soldiers.
There are many treaties and agreements between civilized nations.
Yeah we still so shitty things like drone strikes on civilian targets, but I expect that will eventually change.
Its based on experience. Some things are too chaotic, too indiscriminate.
The goal of war is not to kill as many people as possible.
>Why is "I was just following orders" not a valid defense? Aren't soldiers required to be subordinate to their superiors?
Questions like these is why they only want youngsters joining the military.
But was he the only doge that matters? Genoa a shit.
I'm with >>25617699
its a bit paradoxical
"following orders" implies youre just a drone with no volition of ones own, which soldiers pretty much are. Their lives are pretty much someone else's means to an end, but somehow people seem to want to hold people responsible for something that really isn't their responsibility in any "traditional" sense of how a soldier acts.
Apparently they want to have a man to be re-socialized to the extent of not even having control how they brush their own teeth, but they want him to be as accountable as a superior officer
If those orders are unlawful, for example, they violate the constitution, then you're obligated to disobey.
It's also a matter of not being a gigantic shitbag. You don't want the hearts and minds you're trying to win splattered all over the wall of Ahmed's hut.
Following orders isn't a legally valid defense in the sense that it's a general legal principle. If your CO orders you to gun down an orphanage on an otherwise quiet day, no legal authority in the world is going to say that was OK because you were ordered to do it.
However, in specific circumstances, the claim that you were following orders can be used to demonstrate that an individual did not have criminal intent. The lack of criminal intent could be enough to invalidate a criminal charge (for crimes which require mens rea), or at the least would be a basis to be lenient in sentencing.
For example, suppose you're a JTAC and your CO orders you to flatten a building. Oops, that structure turns out to be an orphanage full of kids. Because you were ordered to do so, it's much easier to argue that you didn't have any criminal malice when you murdered all those kids. You can also claim that you shouldn't bear any responsibility, because it wasn't your decision to make.
Criminal Justice-fag here.
The "I was just following orders" defense, aka "The Nuremburg" defense after it's intense usage during the Nuremburg war trials, is not a valid defense because you are supposed to be able to think "Hey, shooting unarmed civs isn't right" and should stop such action. If this thread is up in the morning I'll find the right section of one of the 50 law books here and quote it.
They are sworn to follow all legal orders, but they are taught to recognize what constitutes a legal order, and what to do if a superior gives an illegal one. You're under no obligation to follow illegal orders, and you will be punished for following one.
It is perfectly viable. Articles are rather thoroughly policed and poorly cited/not cited at all statements are throughly marked.
There has always been a difference between killing a person and murdering someone. The distinction is important to have and make, particularly in regards to morals.
What do you hope to achieve by this?
There are many valid reasons and situations that would make the killing of another person justifialbe, and Many of them have been clearly outlined.
We live in a fuck up world of people who don't inherently want the best for you, so just as an example, do you not believe in the chance of self preservation in the face of life being lost?
you avoid situations that lead to killing people, if you know of a causality, then youre liable to respond to it, by avoiding it when possible, not for your morality to sway with the wind (otherwise, why fucking bother), its your fault if you kill someone, justifiable may as well be permissible, to which you probably would want to get rid of murder in your sense of morality since its only based upon self preservation apparently
>you avoid situations that lead to killing people,
Trouble is not always so kind as to avoid you, and try as one might a dangerous situation is not always avoidable. No, I would never want to kill someone, but self preservation should always be a priority, unless you choose to give yourself for something else.
>its your fault if you kill someone, justifiable may as well be permissible, to which you probably would want to get rid of murder in your sense of morality since its only based upon self preservation apparently
The fault us irrelevant. This is why a distinction between kill ing and murder must be, and is made. You have a right to defend yourself, wet her or not you choose to exercise it isn't my choice, but the results of a successful defense are not considered murder, due to the lack of malicious intent.
Because there is such a thing as an unlawful order, but in practice the idea of a low level enlisted or officer defying a direct order from a superior is unlikely given the dynamics in play. The legal system hasn't caught up to what we know about the human psyche though.
>doesnt change the fact you murdered someone
It wouldn't have been murder, and in many instances a court of law wouldn't say so either, provided the firearm or weapon in question is legal to poses and that the setting is appropriate.
Murder and killing another person are not the same thing, even in a court of law.
Legally... he who wins puts on the trials.
Your options to avoid both ire of superiors and not get warcrime punished are:
1 - Don't lose
2 - Lose, but don't be around when the victors recreate society their way
While true in war it is okay to disobey "unlawful orders", so long as your nation will actually realize it.
At the end of the day it comes down to, "can you explain your way out of this and get away with it"?
If the order was to drop bombs on a civilian building but everyone in the field generally realized that it is a necessary tactic to defeat the enemy, how does "following orders" factor in? That is, as opposed to being ordered to shoot civilians just for fun or spite, causing collateral damage in the course of attacking a valid military target.
And? Am I supposed to feel particularly awful that I defended myself? Sure, it is a shame someone died, but that would practically have become a necessary or inevitable casualty.
I was taught that violence was the last of all resorts. That it should be avoided at all costs. However that once it was embarked on it should be such a dramatic affair that no man, woman, or beast would ever want to gaze upon your violence again.
>And? Am I supposed to feel particularly awful that I defended myself? Sure, it is a shame someone died, but that would practically have become a necessary or inevitable casualty.
you only care about killing someone if its not your priority to do so in self preservation, what am I making up?
If it's me dying or the other guy dying, I'll always choose to have the other guy dying instead of me, and I'm fine with that. If there's any reasonable solution to the situation that doesn't result in the other guy or me dying then I'd be happy to take that option.
For my case it's not that I don't want to kill someone, it's that I would rather kill someone else than have myself die.
And this has factual or legal basis in?
Frankly, I care not for your own beliefs. You may push them as you please, but don't expect others to perceive you to be on the moral high ground.
It is nice you were taught what you view to be good morals, but I don't share them with you.
You think the laws of rich men enforced but armed brutes have the high ground?
Buddy I hate to break it to you but we're not that far from the Feudal period.
I don;'t care if you're John Q Public or Jesus of Nazareth. If you come against me and mine you're my enemy.
That doesn't mean I don't know the rules of modern society and don't strive to exist by them.
>you only care about killing someone if its not your priority to do so in self preservation, what am I making up?
Reading is a necessary skill in this day and age anon.
Secondly, I care, and I do not want to kill anyone. This sentiment however would not stay my hand should I ever feel the need to defend myself with deadly force.
I'll not forgo defending myself. To do so would be asinine.