> That's a bit creepy. Its one thing to be grateful for services
> rendered, its quite another to ostentatiously foist your gratitude on
> people. Its all a bit of an act isn't it? It would come across that
> way to me anyhow and I think I would get a bit annoyed if people kept
> coming up and pawing me in public and going on about how they are so
> grateful I'm doing something they oppose.
Bill, just try engaging with people. You'll find it actually works.
You write:
"If the lawful thing is an unjust
> thing, then doing the lawful thing is the cowardly choice, not
> honourable in the slightest. As it happens, the invasion of Iraq was
> an illegal war under international law, so there's no conflict
> between what's right and what's lawful."
You're just wrong. Soldiers have SWORN AN OATH TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Do you people not understand this? Are you just incapable of dealing with this? Soldiers swear an oath specifically NOT to sustitute their own judgement for the orders of their government. THAT is why we trust them with all those weapons. Should they go around saying: "You know I swore an oath to follow orders, but the Arab League (or the Mormon church, or the Aryan Nations, or Pat Robertson, or the Italian Communist Party or whoever) thinks it's a bad idea so screw you" ?
And by the way what legal reason would they give to CONTRAVENE THEIR OATH ? What allegiance to what body would they cite? On whose authority do these soldiers suddenly start refusing to do what the duly elected governmetn of teh United States tells them to do?
You write:
> But soldiers are usually quite young and inexperienced, so while only
> following orders might not be a valid excuse in law, its entirely
> understandable. If the highest government officials don't understand
> the principles of international law, then young soldiers might easily
> be forgiven their ignorance.
>
> What I find oddest of all is that you maintain a love of law, while
> maintaining that international law does not exist, or somehow does
> not apply to the US government except where and when it chooses. Of
> course that may be the case in practice, top US government officials
> obviously feel secure from prosecution and punishment for
> international war crimes. But that is only because, for the moment,
> they have the protection and safe haven of a powerful military. But
> this isn't a state of affairs to be tolerated gladly. At least not
> for someone who professes a love of the law.
>
> The US can do anything it likes, according to this philosophy,
> because it has might on its side. Precisely the morality of the
> gangster. You say that violating the law is a thing to be taken very
> seriously and needs to be justified. I would add that people should
> also be prepared to face the consequences. Justifications, no matter
> how powerful, are only mitigating circumstances.
>
> The must apply to soldiers as well though. It is simply not good
> enough to demand that soldiers must always follow legal orders, to
> insist that anything else is tantamount to civil war. In most cases
> that may be appropriate, but soldiers must also be prepared act
> according to their conscience, not according to the law, if the
> circumstances deem it necessary. An order to shoot peaceful
> demonstrators, torture or execute prisoners might very well be
> lawful
No, it can't be lawful. Why? Because the CIVILIAN AUTHORITY has made it specifically unlawful to follow such orders. People who have followed such orders have been prosecuted. Apparently nobody here understands that we actually have a well-defined standard for lawful and unlawful orders. It's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Again, the Secretary of Defense signed off on every target that was likely to kill 30 or more civilians to make it perfectly clear that these were the orders of the civilian government exactly because collateral damage threatens the legality of an order. Orders to torture prisoners are illegal and Pfc. Lynndie R. England is in jail right now for following such orders.
, but that doesn't mean the soldier is justified in, never mind
> morally obligated to, mindlessly obey. The soldier is also a human
> being and has the obligations of a human being.
>
> The consequences of obeying the order, not just the legality of such,
> must be taken into account. The way you talk, it is enough to
> mindlessly obey, as if the soldier is merely a robot. I agree its a
> very serious thing for a soldier to disobey a lawful command, it
> can't be justified for trivial reasons. But the idea that members of
> the armed forces are exempt from all obligations as a human being are
> quite unacceptable.
It's totally unacceptable for citizens to kill people the way soldiers do. We do not prosecute our soldiers after every battle for attempted murder because they have sworn an oath to let our judgment supercede theirs. The entire legal concept of making a person a soldier is that WE and not they, are responsible for the killing that results from OUR legal orders. So long as soldiers promise not to do the killing on their own account, but strictly follow OUR legal orders, they are not ethically culpable. They are totally our agents. That's why soldiers don't have the same rights as citizens. To get that ethical dispensation they MUST give up their autonomy to the civilian government and swear an oath to follow all LAWFUL orders.
That's why it's such a shitty job in wartime. You have to do terrible stuff as a matter of course, take terrible risks and you don't have a choice unless the orders are illegal. That's why I thank them.
You guys have really got to think about this a little harder.
boddi