[RashadSaleh]

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_hierarchy "strict accountability – those who issue orders are responsible for the consequences, not those who carry them out"

If you are a subordinate and you disagreed with a certain order, either because you think the order is stupid or morally wrong, you can (and should) still carry out the order to the best of your ability.

If the emotional distress caused by a contradiction (perceived or real) between carrying out your duty (which you have agreed to follow strictly) and your moral principles -- if this emotional distress becomes unmanageable to the degree that makes it impossible to carry out your duty (although you know perfectly well that you won't be responsible for the outcomes), you can simply submit your resignation or ask that someone else takes your place.

There is also the scenario where the orders you are given conflict with the law itself, in which case your superior(s) are violating the law in which case you have no duty to carry out the orders.

This is why not every civilian can be a military person.

[austincheney]

This line of thinking does not apply to the US military. If you have reason to believe an order is illegal, or even should have known, you are just as guilty of the illegal act as the person giving an order. That being said don’t execute an illegal order hoping chain of command will qualify as a valid legal defense.

[lb1lf]

-While I have no first-hand knowledge of the US military (or, for that matter, any military - I was conscripted into a branch which didn't take hierarchy too seriously), just about every time the subject of immoral/illegal orders came up, consensus was that the smart (for the individual) thing to do was to acknowledge the order, then do nothing.

The reasoning was that refusing an order would get you in serious trouble much faster than your claiming it was illegal would get you out of trouble - hence your best bet was to get hit with a (lesser) charge of incompetence rather than having the full weight of the army come crashing down on you for refusing.

[RashadSaleh]

Sounds like a case of corruption. Military systems can be corrupt for the same reason that humans can be corrupt. Unfortunately, nobody found the magic wand yet, so we still have to be responsible for ourselves and make difficult choices. Reform is hard work and a lot of people might not want to make the sacrifice (and understandably so).

[einpoklum]

Also, you swear your oath to defend the _constitution_, against all enemies foreign and _domestic_:

https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

this comes _before_ the obligation to obey orders. Meaning that, at least in principle, a soldier is obligated to disobey unconstitutional commands, and in fact, to act to countermand them.

Of course that's not what armies are like in practice, but still.

[RashadSaleh]

I have mentioned this already folks. Nobody has the authority to break the law - not a general nor the president nor a judge nor a district attorney nor a member of parliament. A law remains the ultimate authority until it is voted out of practice.

[JoeAltmaier]

Not having the authority, has little to do with the moral imperative to consider overriding circumstances.

We all have complete authority to make personal choices as we see fit.

[RashadSaleh]

What you call the moral imperative wasn't voted on, doesn't have a police to enforce it, doesn't have a judge to interpret it, doesn't have a media to debate it, and you just might happen to change your mind about it a couple of years into the future.

Even if you say that your strategy is to make people (including yourself) feel guilty about breaking this imperative, and amplify this feeling as much as possible so as to compensate for the lack of organization required for a proper law, it is not certain that that will ever work and I don't know of an example where it did work, although it has been tried over and over. And if I may say, it also corrupts human nature so even if it worked I won't be personally positive about it, but that is just me.

[JoeAltmaier]

That's why its called 'morals'. The compass inside us, we use to decide what's right and wrong. Its the reason anybody does anything - including follow the law when it seems like the right thing to do.

That 2nd part - where did that fantasy come from? Not sure how to respond.

[RashadSaleh]

And your neighbour thinks the same. And by the way they have a gun. In a civil society disagreements are solved peacefully through voting and clear structures of accountability so you don't need to guess if you are responsible or not.

Even the same person disagrees with themselves over time. People who vote this way this election, vote the other way the next one.

You devise me a system where people are above the law according to their own judgement at the particular moment they see fit, and still not have violence.

This is why you can fight your entire life for the reform you like to see happen, and still not get it. But 50 years of exchanging ballots is always better than 5 minutes of exchanging bullets.

[JoeAltmaier]

All that strife, today, is prevented by morals and not laws. When it works anyway.

[RashadSaleh]

I did mention that though but if you think it is stupid and/or immoral, the right thing to do is to still carry it out.

[shoo]

Why? What is meant by "right thing to do"?

[RashadSaleh]

All human beings are equal. There is no supreme arbiter of human argument. When you need to organize with fellow human beings, you then need to give people the benefit of a doubt after achieving certain qualifications to give orders according to their own arguments and views. On the other hand, when you achieve those qualifications, others will have to give you the benefit of a doubt to give orders according to your own arguments, views and values.

[Lukas_Skywalker]

So you‘re saying every order ever given by any leader should have been followed, just because they were more „qualified“ than the people following.

I disagree. What if a leader got his qualifications but has since gone slightly insane? Qualification alone isn‘t reason enough to blindly follow orders.

[RashadSaleh]

In a democracy, and if the orders don't break any laws, then yes you follow the orders, and you are not considered responsible for the outcomes. If you can't do it, you resign or ask for someone else to do it. If you are still not satisfied you can go to a protest, go to the media and express your views, and exercise your vote in the next elections.

The problem of the leader that goes insane is solved with checks and balances.

[eeZah7Ux]

The infamous "I was just following order" defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

> This is why not every civilian can be a military person.

This is why not every civilian wants to be a military person.

[RashadSaleh]

The highest ranking officer in a democracy is the president -- an elected civilian.

This was not the case in nazi germany, and the military was forced to follow orders, regardless of their consent. This means that if you had the choice and the ability to disobey but didn't, then, by definition, you were a culprit.

Politics is greater than the military. War is defined as the act of imposing your political will over your enemy through organized violence. The "organized" part is the part that you have a problem with, but that is fine because you can be a civilian or even a critic of the military. However, I can't see how a person, who, out of a superior moral capacity, able to cooperate without the understanding while still keep and protect their values -- I can't see how such a person is blind or looking for excuses for exemption of responsibility. Not everyone can have that capacity and it is most likely a result of upbringing and I don't know if there is a military in the world that can generate that in a person.

[wongarsu]

If something is morally wrong in a military context, there's a good chance that it's against international law. And the Nuremberg Principle IV states:

> The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

[RashadSaleh]

International law does not really apply and is an ideal. The fact is that the state of the world order is anarchy: there is no president of the world or a parliament voted by all inhabitants of the world. Meanwhile, each country has its own laws which really govern the public life of the people. But a very good point though and I don't know if I answered it sufficiently. However I am not sure after WW2 lower ranking german soldiers were blamed for the third reich.

[wongarsu]

While the world doesn't have a president, you could call the International Criminal Court in The Hague[1] the world's court. If you're a citizen of or on the territory of a member state the ICC has jurisdiction for war crimes (among others), and the majority of countries are member states.

Of course the bigger players all aren't members (US, Russia, China, India). But WWII Germany wasn't part of anything either and we still had the Nuremberg Trials, so it's very much "international law doesn't apply until suddenly it retroactively does".

It's noteworthy though that the ICC's stance on the Superior's Orders defense is not completely clear for the less severe cases.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

[c22]

Where I live recreational marijuana use is not legal in my country, but it is permitted in my city and any laws prohibiting it are not enforced.

You are drawing an arbitrary line in declaring "which laws matter." In reality the lives of the people are governed by which laws are most effectively enforced at a local level.

[RashadSaleh]

Also see the movie, A Few Good Men