Iran paying Taliban to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan

[MARIS61]

Read further:

However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

Take the case of Michael New. In 1995, Spec-4 Michael New was serving with the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd infantry Division of the U.S. Army at Schweinfurt, Germany. When assigned as part of a multi-national peacekeeping mission about to be deployed to Macedonia, Spec-4 New and the other soldiers in his unit were ordered to wear United Nations (U.N.) Helmets and arm bands. New refused the order, contending that it was an illegal order. New's superiors disagreed. Ultimately, so did the court-martial panel. New was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction, as did the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces.


In fact, if it can be shown that one or more of the soldiers influenced others to disobey, they may find the crime of Mutiny, under Article 94 added to the list of charges. Mutiny carries the death penalty, even in "peace time."

 

[Natebishop3]

Read further:

However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

Take the case of Michael New. In 1995, Spec-4 Michael New was serving with the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd infantry Division of the U.S. Army at Schweinfurt, Germany. When assigned as part of a multi-national peacekeeping mission about to be deployed to Macedonia, Spec-4 New and the other soldiers in his unit were ordered to wear United Nations (U.N.) Helmets and arm bands. New refused the order, contending that it was an illegal order. New's superiors disagreed. Ultimately, so did the court-martial panel. New was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction, as did the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces.


In fact, if it can be shown that one or more of the soldiers influenced others to disobey, they may find the crime of Mutiny, under Article 94 added to the list of charges. Mutiny carries the death penalty, even in "peace time."

Troll on, good sir, troll on....

 

[BrianFromWA]

In this case, Maris, you're not correct in your interpretations.
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how New's order was illegal. No one from President Clinton down, then back up through the Army Court of Appeals thinks he has a case.
There's a reason that there's mandatory training on Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement and Lawful Orders before each deployment. I can understand how these topics difficult to understand if they don't conform to one's bias that military members are uneducated killers of women and children. But nevertheless, it's true.

 

[MARIS61]

In this case, Maris, you're not correct in your interpretations.
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how New's order was illegal. No one from President Clinton down, then back up through the Army Court of Appeals thinks he has a case.
There's a reason that there's mandatory training on Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement and Lawful Orders before each deployment. I can understand how these topics difficult to understand if they don't conform to one's bias that military members are uneducated killers of women and children. But nevertheless, it's true.

How am I wrong?

Also, I didn't say soldiers were uneducated nor do I believe that to be generally true.

I said we pay them to kill whomever they are told to kill, and that's a fact. In my lifetime, that has often included women and children.

Many armies around the world include women and children as soldiers, and we have frequently slaughtered women and children civilians by the tens of thousands in Iraq over the last 20 years. In most cases these were ordered attacks, and no charges were filed against those who obeyed. They were paid by you and I to kill these people. They took the money. They killed the women and children.

Which part, if any, do you think I am mistaken about?



Number of women and children killed in Iraq air raids 'disproportionately high'

The report also found that 46 per cent of the victims of US air strikes whose gender could be determined were female and 39 per cent were children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...n-Iraq-air-raids-disproportionately-high.html

 

[BrianFromWA]

You're incorrect in a couple of places. First, it IS a duty to refuse illegal orders. You better be sure they're illegal, though. Just b/c you don't want to do something unpleasant or something you don't feel like doing doesn't mean you can refuse it. Charging a hill to your almost certain death is a legal order. Breaking down a door into a nest of insurgents will likely get you injured. Still a lawful order. Cleaning the bathroom is unpleasant. Still a legal order. Saying "F&$K it, I quit" gets you thrown in the brig. This woman thought she could get out of something unpleasant by making up stories about why she didn't want to go. She wasn't, and was separated from the Navy. Her final fitness report says it pretty well:

Lt. Weiner effectively put her personal desires above the needs of the Navy team and the nation. ... Lt. Weiner is most strongly recommended for separation from the Navy

Additionally, from your link:

Only 4 per cent of the Iraqi deaths included in the study, or 2,363 (ed: out of over 90,000 minimum deaths), were a result of US air strikes, which frequently targeted suspected insurgents hiding in houses. But 46 per cent of the victims whose gender could be determined were female and 39 per cent were children.

The authors caution that those percentages may be inflated "because the media may tend to specifically identify female and young victims more readily than male adults among the dead."

One moral to the story (even going on the assumption that it's unbiased and 100% true): if you let an insurgent hide in your house, that's a dangerous move for you.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "breaking international laws on a daily basis".

Have you ever actually talked to a soldier, Maris? Asked a sailor a question about their training and deployment? Asked them if they're told to blindly kill? Asked them if they feel good about "collateral damage"? Or how they're willing to accomplish their mission of protecting people from bad guys at the risk of their own lives?

 

[MARIS61]

Have you ever actually talked to a soldier, Maris? Asked a sailor a question about their training and deployment? Asked them if they're told to blindly kill? Asked them if they feel good about "collateral damage"? Or how they're willing to accomplish their mission of protecting people from bad guys at the risk of their own lives?

More times than I can count, from WWll (my father), Korea (my uncle), Vietnam (several friends and probably close to a hundred other vets), and a dozen or so from the 2 Iraq invasions and Afghanistan. I also have a close friend who was permanently disabled in a beating by a mob when he was an MP in Germany.

And, of course, you.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Don't include me. Everything I know about combat is second-hand. But when I ask the questions like "how did you handle knowing that the little kid asking for candy could be strapped with explosives?", or "when you call in artillery during an ambush, how worried are you about 'collateral damage'?", there's a difference between what they're talking about, and the murderers I've talked to in prisons. A large difference.
What was your father's response to your assertion that soldiers just kill where they're told to and can't question unlawful orders? Or that his army broke international laws on an everyday basis?

 

[MARIS61]

Don't include me. Everything I know about combat is second-hand. But when I ask the questions like "how did you handle knowing that the little kid asking for candy could be strapped with explosives?", or "when you call in artillery during an ambush, how worried are you about 'collateral damage'?", there's a difference between what they're talking about, and the murderers I've talked to in prisons. A large difference.
What was your father's response to your assertion that soldiers just kill where they're told to and can't question unlawful orders? Or that his army broke international laws on an everyday basis?

That is not my assertion. You are misconstruing my view.

And "lawful" isn't a particularly important distinction for me. Many, many laws are inadequate, vague or flat out immoral.

I let my conscience and The Golden Rule guide my life for the most part, and that by itself ruled out any possibility of military service for me.

Other people are more comfortable being told what to do and how to act. Most feel less personally responsible for their actions when they are following orders.

 

[Denny Crane]

If an officer ordered subordinates to line up a bunch of civilians and shoot them, firing squad style, I am sure that the soldiers would refuse and deal with the "consequences."

And that is your assertion, MARIS61, that soldiers would do something along the lines of obeying such an order. It's a downright insult and terribly wrong thinking.

 

[MARIS61]

If an officer ordered subordinates to line up a bunch of civilians and shoot them, firing squad style, I am sure that the soldiers would refuse and deal with the "consequences."

And that is your assertion, MARIS61, that soldiers would do something along the lines of obeying such an order. It's a downright insult and terribly wrong thinking.

No, that is not my assertion. That is a deliberately extreme, but certainly possible exagerration. Depending on the circumstances, like if it were during a declaration of martial law which many believe is planned this decade, I would expect confusion and division among the soldiers as to how to react. I believe that is the norm under martial law for things like being caught out after curfew and such, and considered "legal" but an obviously immoral and I believe treasonous act.

 

[Denny Crane]

We (us taxpayers) pay our soldiers a low hourly rate, and expect them to kill anyone they are told to kill whether it be women, children...

Economies around the world differ.

...

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/tra...sport--whistle-blower-originally-ignored.html

Twelve U.S. soldiers face trial after Afghan civilians 'were killed for sport and their fingers collected as trophies'

 

[BrianFromWA]

Hopefully these soldiers are tried, and if found guilty, punished to the maximum extent of the law.

I'd hesitate to say, though, that the actions of 12 guys speak louder than the actions of almost half a million military members who've fought in Afghanistan over the last 8 years without murdering someone.

 

[MARIS61]

Hopefully these soldiers are tried, and if found guilty, punished to the maximum extent of the law.

I'd hesitate to say, though, that the actions of 12 guys speak louder than the actions of almost half a million military members who've fought in Afghanistan over the last 8 years without murdering someone.

He said that virtually everyone in the platoon was aware of what was going on, but no one seemed to object.

"There are no more good men left here. It eats away at my conscience everyday."

 

[Denny Crane]

He said that virtually everyone in the platoon was aware of what was going on, but no one seemed to object.

"There are no more good men left here. It eats away at my conscience everyday."

Depressed person and he's the exception to the rule. I seriously doubt there are "no more good men" over there.

 

[MARIS61]

Depressed person and he's the exception to the rule. I seriously doubt there are "no more good men" over there.

Guess it depends on your definition of good and bad.

Some say killing people you've never even met is bad. Some say failing to act to stop known murderers in your midst is bad.