View Full Version : Disobeying orders
A Soldier
07-02-2005, 18:24
When is it justified is it ever justified??
Let me just make this clear
NOTHING SAID HERE IS OFFICIALY ENDORSED BY THE ISRAELI GOVEMRNET
THIS IS JUST ONE PRIVATE SOLDIERS CONCERNS.
When is Disobeying orders justified??
In recent weeks I have been giving this quetioun alot of thought.
The goverment of Israel in a move ramrodded through the
Israeli Knesset(parliament) has decided to withdraw from the Gaza strip while uprooting all Israeli communities their. as their is a high likelihood that once the IDF leaves the terrorists (with the PA either turning a blind eye or activly assiting) will probably overrun and kill everyone in the sttlements.
So the IDF together with the Israeli Police has been give the unhappy task of clearing out those communities wheter they want to leave or not.
This has torn the country in two with citzens both supporting and opposing the disengament.
I know of several officers who have found ways out of helping the disengagment, one actually refused and said he was willing to go to jail before he would help.
This is tearing me up inside. What my political views are on the disengament are irrelvant, what is relevant for this disscussion is orders.
I read on one combat vets site that their are many kinds of courage.
Their is the courage to obey orders that will get you killed (to save others)
and their is the courage to disobey (stupid) orders that will get you killed
I have seen my fair share of incomptent officers and I saw how their orders were bent-broken so that things could be done more efficently.
I have also seen how when some orders were broken things fell apart .
I remember one man who refused to take and undermanned and underarmored patrol out into hostile territory untill they were properly outfittted thus saving many lives that would have uselessly squandered.
Then I remember the stories of how Kahalnis tank brigade with almost no ammuniton and not enough fuel stayed on the Golan heights and saved the whole north of Israel by appearing to the syrians to be more powerfull than they were.
I dont know what to think anymore, things that were black and white are now grey and grey.
Nothing makes sense and sometime soon I will have to take a stand one way or another.
Before I do I was wondering if someone could explain
1)When if ever do you disobey orders??
2)_Is there a genuine danger to democracy in disobeting orders??
Well excuse me for any spelling erros but I am exhausted and I have a long day tommorow
The Reaper
07-02-2005, 18:29
I do not know how things work in Israel, Israeli law, or Israeli military regs.
In the US, a soldier is not required to obey an unlawful order.
How an order is determined to be unlawful is the issue.
Guess wrong, and you go to jail.
Good luck.
TR
In the US, a soldier is not required to obey an unlawful order.
How an order is determined to be unlawful is the issue.
TR
That is such a good question. On the other hand, it truly seems cut and dried. Would you care to expound on how a soldier would determine a lawful order?
Is this right forum?
I asked a soldier and his reply was that you follow a legimate order then sort it out later.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-02-2005, 19:13
When is it justified is it ever justified??
When is Disobeying orders justified??
TR's answer is correct, however there are all kinds of orders. Standard Operating Procedures can be considered orders, regulations are orders, Operations Orders are orders, orders can be oral, written or implied. The problem comes more with the issuer of the order than ther receiver. When folks screw up the questions that need to be asked are: were the orders clear, were they understood, were they capable of being obeyed and performed, and were they legal. It is really not always all that cut and dried. A lot of time and effort has been done with the issuance of orders to ensure that the commander's intent is understood by all so that in the absence of orders subordinates can execute intelligent initiative to carry out tasks that will meet the commander's intent. In some cases it might be better to act and seek forgiveness later than to wait for ill timed permission or guidance that costs lives. Everything is situational dependent and I am sure that there are any number of folks on this net that can relate stories of actions that under different sets of circumstances would be considered the right thing to do but not necessarily the legal/lawful thing. It all boils down to one word-leadership.
Jack Moroney
Everything is situational dependent and I am sure that there are any number of folks on this net that can relate stories of actions that under different sets of circumstances would be considered the right thing to do but not necessarily the legal/lawful thing. It all boils down to one word-leadership.
Jack Moroney
Exactly. Wasn't it established that "just following orders" was not a defense? Yet had the other side prevailed in WWII what would or could those soldiers have said had they not done as told told?
Doing the right thing can seem so easy when nothing is at stake.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-02-2005, 19:33
Exactly. Wasn't it established that "just following orders" was not a defense? Yet had the other side prevailed in WWII what would or could those soldiers have said had they not done as told told?
Doing the right thing can seem so easy when nothing is at stake.
Just following orders is not a defense when the orders are determined to be illegal. Doing the right thing should never be difficult for folks that are truly leaders who have their focus on mission accomplishment and taking care of their soldiers especially when they lead from the front rather than push from the rear. It is often the most distinquishing characteristic difference between managers who do things right and leaders who focus more on doing the right thing. The thing that is often "at stake" for managers are their hides while the thing that is "at stake" for the leader is mission failure and lost lives. But even that distinction can be blurred by the situation. What you are looking for does not have a cookie cutter answer and will truly depend on variables distinct to each and every situation.
JM - You capture some real good distinctions in your post. My wife asked me to give rebuttal but there's nothing for me to add to your assessment. You covered it.
Peregrino
07-02-2005, 21:04
I don't understand the problem. The Israeli government has finally decided to end it's occupation of a very small portion of the captured territory it administers. It is taking the prudent step of withdrawing the illegal settlements it created as part of a deliberate policy of annexation by settlement. You have been ordered to assist in (probably) protecting/preserving the lives of Israeli citizens that were used as tools by the conservatives to create their version of the "ground truth". Why would you refuse those orders? Doesn't your clear duty lie with protecting the lives of citizens? Especially when they were used as pawns by your government? :confused: Peregrino
A Soldier
07-09-2005, 17:13
Thanks for everyones input especially The Reaper and Jack Moroney.
I am generally away form home for at least a week so it will take me that long to respond.
Peregerino:
It is taking the prudent step of withdrawing the illegal settlements it created as part of a deliberate policy of annexation by settlement
Israeli citizens that were used as tools by the conservatives to create their version of the "ground truth".
they were used as pawns by your government.
I know that it is impossible to discuss this issue without bringing up politics but I would ask that politics be left out of this, this post is about following or disobeying orders not about whether settling the gaza strip was right or not.
Why would you refuse those orders? Doesn't your clear duty lie with protecting the lives of citizens? Especially when they were used as pawns by your government
The thing you have to understand is that these peopole were not forced there or sent there.
They went their willingly, everyone who is in the gaza strip is their because they wanted to go.
Admittadly every goverment offered tax benefits for those living outside the green line.
These peopole have lived there entire lives their, built houses,communities and businesses there.
Not all of them will be able to relocate their bussiness or farm in time, others feel angered at the thought that they would have to abandon their homes where they grew up for the past 20-30 years.
Those that dont want to leave will have to be forcibly evicted from their homes.
Homes which were built in dangerous areas, at the goverments behest
(both right and left wing goverments). where they lost friends to countless terrorist attacks.
That means that after the negotiations end and it is clear that peopole are not willing to leave, the police backed by the army will have to physically remove peopole from their homes.
These peopole are not going to be willing to leave just because someone who has never lived their tell them to leave.
This means that the army will have to go in and pull out kicking and screaming whole families.Young children Brtohers and sisters husbands and wives and probably even some elderly. It will not be pretty.
In short that is why.
If there are any LEO's who would be willing to share their experinces on eviction I would be gratefull, I think it would add greatly to this dicussion.
To JM thanks youre comment
What you are looking for does not have a cookie cutter answer and will truly depend on variables distinct to each and every situation.
Really answered my questioun, there is no easy answer, and it just helped me to reinforce the decsioion I made.
In Basic Training (which I never went through) it is pounded into your'e head that you should always disobey an unlawfull order.
Of course what they dont tell you is that an order will only be found unlawfull years after it was given and generally than it is too late to help you.
Once again I want to thank everyone who posted.
You helped me to tackle a very difficult and troublsome moral questioun that was plaguing me for some time.
Peregrino
07-12-2005, 20:52
I know that it is impossible to discuss this issue without bringing up politics but I would ask that politics be left out of this, this post is about following or disobeying orders not about whether settling the gaza strip was right or not.
AS - Sorry I didn't see this when you first posted. I do understand all of the points you make. I also understand much of what you don't say. I started to discuss this but I got to considering and just deleted about 20 minutes worth of typing. After a lot of thinking I came to the inescapable conclusion that until the majority of your people say enough, and rein in the extremists on all sides, your country's problems will never be solved by discussion. I hope you see your way clear to understanding and performing your duty as it best serves the future of your nation. I hope you can still face yourself in the mirror when all is said and done. I hope whatever compromises/sacrifices you will inevitably be forced to make do not damage your soul. Good luck and God Bless. Peregrino
Roguish Lawyer
07-13-2005, 10:32
AS:
What do you think is "illegal" about these orders? It sounds to me like you may disagree with the policy of the Israeli government, but have no basis for challenging the legality of the orders.
Shalom.
RL
I'd imagine a part of the answer to that question rests in ones position in the rank/responsibility hierarchy as well.
Though from what I've seen in the papers, the flow of accountability has seemed to flip lately.
zeroalpha
07-13-2005, 18:01
You say the you want to keep politics out of this - However what you are debating in your mind (as I can understand it) is whether your government is justified in doing what they are: Therefore it is a political situation.
I have obeyed orders, and I have also disobeyed orders (within some very fine paremeters) however from what I can understand, you dont like what your government has decided to do and are therefore looking at disobeying any orders againts what you (personaly) believe.
Stop beign a politician and start being a soldier. Soldiers follow orders - Of their resepctive governments whether they like it or not. If you don't liek what your government is ordering you to do (through its chain of command) then become a politician and change it that way.
If you are not willing to follow the orders of your government, then you need to stop being a soldier.
Pretty simply really. (Although I understand the complexness of the situation)
NOTE: Im not going into the what is a illegal order to follow situation - as that is way to complex and dependant on each situation. What may very well be an illegal order in one situation, may not be in another - thats not the relevant issue here.
What is relevant, from what I have read above, is that this soldier disagrees with the decision to pull out - well thats all good and fine, he has that right. However not doign something just because you disagree with it is not justification to disobey an order IMHO. Ok, If there are other outside influences, possibly, but just cos you don't want to clean your weapon, doesnt mean you dont... just because you disagree with what your boss says, doesnt actually mean you don't do what it is he orders you to.
Sweetbriar
07-13-2005, 19:07
I think there is something in play here regarding A Soldier's quandary that American soldiers never have to face, thankfully, and it isn't politics. Israeli soldiers are being ordered to take up arms against fellow Israelis, and civilians at that, for the purpose of creating a state run by the very thugs they are sworn to protect Israel from. There is nothing simple or easy about it. The politics may be that yet another Arab Muslim state is about to be created, but having to wound your own countrymen to do it is not what any soldier expects.
The Reaper
07-13-2005, 20:29
I think there is something in play here regarding A Soldier's quandary that American soldiers never have to face, thankfully, and it isn't politics. Israeli soldiers are being ordered to take up arms against fellow Israelis, and civilians at that, for the purpose of creating a state run by the very thugs they are sworn to protect Israel from. There is nothing simple or easy about it. The politics may be that yet another Arab Muslim state is about to be created, but having to wound your own countrymen to do it is not what any soldier expects.
Did you miss the little unpleasantness here in the US from 1776-1783 and from 1861-1865?
If you read the accounts of soldiers forced to choose in those two conflicts here, you may gain a little insight.
It could happen here again.
TR
adding to the list, the Whisky Rebellion, shortly after Independence...the 1932 Bonus March, broken up by General MacArthur...there have been several occasions where American troops have confronted the citizenry...here's hoping it doesn't happen again, but the oath says "Against all enemies, foreign and domestic" when it comes to defending the Constitution...
Sweetbriar
07-14-2005, 04:08
I'm very much aware of those incidents. However, it's been a couple of generations since then and no one alive now has had to deal with it. From what little first person accounts I've read of the War Between the States, it wasn't straightforward for those who had family or friends on both sides.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
07-14-2005, 04:37
I'm very much aware of those incidents. However, it's been a couple of generations since then and no one alive now has had to deal with it. From what little first person accounts I've read of the War Between the States, it wasn't straightforward for those who had family or friends on both sides.
You obviously do not know about the times troops have been called upon to secure their own military facilities. It got nasty during the VN conflict and I will tell you from personal experience that when the unwashed decided to come after you as a representative of the government they claim to hate, not one of the folks standing toe to toe with me would have had any problem gutting them. It becomes difficult at times to look at folks as fellow citizens when their first instinct is to do harm to you when you are the one that is protecting their rights in the first place. They may have a right to free speach in this country but they do not have a right to be heard at the expense of the rights of others. It is not so much a matter of self preservation but the warrior instinct that takes over and the importance of looking out for the man on your left and right. It is why soldiers should never be used as cops. No, there are some of us that have been there in this generation.
The Reaper
07-14-2005, 07:30
More recently?
Anyone remember Detroit 1968?
TR
More recently?i spent part of the summer of 1972 at Homestead AFB on strip alert for potential riots and such during the Democratic and Republican conventions...
I think there is something in play here regarding A Soldier's quandary that American soldiers never have to face, thankfully, and it isn't politics. Israeli soldiers are being ordered to take up arms against fellow Israelis, and civilians at that, for the purpose of creating a state run by the very thugs they are sworn to protect Israel from. There is nothing simple or easy about it. The politics may be that yet another Arab Muslim state is about to be created, but having to wound your own countrymen to do it is not what any soldier expects.
Um... just my $.02, does anyone remember what happened at Kent State Universtiy during Vietnam?
http://www.vietnamwar.com/KentStateKillings.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
My SSgt used to always tell us its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
A Soldier
09-24-2005, 09:46
The Disengagement has come and gone and my tour of Duty in the Navy is now over I can now honestly say I am a free man and it is nice to smell the sweet smell of freedom.
The Disengagment is one of the most horrendous things this country has to go through, the Assaniation of our Prime-minister Yitzchak Rabin by a fellow Jew tore this country apart in a similar way that the Disengament did. Split it right down the middle between left and right, but as a a nation and as individuals this country has come together and made me proud.
The settlers were evicted from their homes but violence was rare, nobody died . gunplay was never involved, the settlers in a very powerfull statment all turned in their weapons as a statement that they would not fire on the troops who came to evict them.
In the end when the troops came the settlers left peacefully, most left willingly, some had to be talked extensivly out of their homes, and a very small minority had to be physically removed from their homes, more for the cameras benefit than anything else.
When it came down to it we all realised we are each others borthers and you simply cant shoot your'e own brother.
My sister who is in the Army had an officer from her unit go to the disengament , and one of the peopole he was supposed to evict begged him to shoot him rather than take him form his home.
The man was about 40 and a father of 4 I belive, in the end after they cried together the officer told him "That's it we are leaving together", and they did.
It has been a trying time for this country but I belive we came through it together stronger.
It didn't matter if popole belived or didn't belive in the Disnegament and were either for staying or leaving the Gaza strip, we all hurt as a peopole for what happened. And we all realised we are one peopole, one nation.
I read about the war in Iraq and it pains me to hear how soldiers are treated, the vile things said about them. They are merely performing their jobs as handed down through the President to the Armed Forces.
If peopole would just realise that you America are one nation, and one peopole and you could come togehter it would be nice.
Political dissention there always was and always will be, but the politicans should be held accountable not the soldeirs.
I live in a country with a citizens' army so I see what it is like when everyone's sons and daughters serve.
From the son of a wealthy CEO of a company to a the son of a factory worker who can barely make ends meet.
So when peopole demonstrate againt the govement policy, the soldiers are not disrespected because they are not evil men but rather our sons and daughters.
America needs to come thogether as a nation but allow itself to differ in their own opinons.
"Argue but respect one another"
Soryy I have rambled on for too long.
The Disengament was hard on me.
It showed me that patriots dont always wear uniforms and that sometimes protesters can love the country just as much as the soldiers do.
OK getting back to the topic at hand.
The Diengament Plan and the evacuation of the communities from the Gaza Strip.
This is essentialy a case when soldiers take up arms against civillians, this is a very tricky, murky and quagmirish area..
A good example is the Kent State riot as
TUBBS brough up.
Beginning to play devils advocate we might argue about the legality of the
"Tiannamen Square massacre"
Soldiers from the 27th Army of the Peopoles Liberation Army recived orders through their genearals from the "PRC" the Chinese govement to supress the riots in town. Was what they did legal??
Further taking it to an extreme and the soldiers in NAZI death camps were ordered to shoot the inmates, legal or not.
On the other hand look in Louisana with all the rioting the presidnet ordered troops sent in to shoot looters on site. Their were gangs roaming the area performing "Clock Work Orange" stlye gangrapes. Shooting them helped to restore order.
What about not shooting innocents? How do yo define inncoents-Children.
Their are documeted cases of children putting live hand grenades in soldiers hands in vietnam than running away.
Or of children 14 or younger working as Paunzerfaust teams in WWII.
I have heard of children soldiers in Africa who would gut captured enemis with machetes, probably a major danger to any SF soldiers operating there.
Everyone loves to leave legal/illegal orders up in some kind of complex difficult to understand legal mumble jumble but it would be nice if it could be explained in a way soldiers could understand between legal and illegal order.
FROST18E
10-09-2005, 11:08
It's a shame that you had to evict and then give back the land that you paid for in blood, from wars you didn't start, to a bunch of scavenging animals who still live in the stone age. :mad: God bless you and the state of Isreal.
Everyone loves to leave legal/illegal orders up in some kind of complex difficult to understand legal mumble jumble but it would be nice if it could be explained in a way soldiers could understand between legal and illegal order.
I think this is where one needs to trust their leadership. The art of war requires many types of tactics along with OPSEC. The little picture may not look right, but it fits into the Big picture. Problem is we are not often privy to the big picture andthe reason for a tactical action, nor should we. Our judgment can be greatly flawed and failure to perform our duty can become very costly to the over-all operation.
As a Marine, I did not need to know why, I need to carry out my orders as best I can. I am very fortunate to have served under exceptional and dedicated leaders. IMHO this is one of the major difference of our military and those under repressive governments. It is reflected in why we serve and the character of those we serve under.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
10-09-2005, 12:36
IAs a Marine, I did not need to know why, I need to carry out my orders as best I can. .
Well actually we want all our SF troops to know not only why but what the commander's intent is a couple of echelons above and below when possible. When everything turns south the original game plan may no longer be feasible and our folks need to have all the requisite information available to make decisions and carry on the effort using intelligent initiative. You see our job is not about following orders but accomplishing the mission when the orders originally issued no longer make sense to meet the commander's intent.
Jack Moroney-strong beliver that in the fog of war it is often more prudent to ask for forgiveness for your troops after the act than having them bogged down waiting for permission to act when lives are at stake