A question that came up in class the other day was: When is it acceptable for American soldiers to disobey orders? The question came up in relation to our discussion about who is responsible for Genocide, in particular the Holocaust, where Hitler's most important men claimed that they had simply been following orders. This later came to be reffered to as the Nuremburg Defense. In response to this case study, we talked a bit about when soldiers should be responsible to disobey orders. In researching this question, I found one definition that really stood out to me. "When an order is so manifestly beyond the scope of the superior officer's authority and the order is so obviously and palpably unlawful as to admit of no reasonable doubt of its unlawfulness, there is actually a duty to disobey it." I have also seen many things that describe the disobedience as acceptable when a soldier feels International Law is being broken. Below is one of many websites discussing this topic. I suggest you all read this to get a better sense of what is going on.
In response to this article and to the topic in general, there are many questions still left unanswered. There is still the issue of morality, something that differes from person to person. Where one person may thing an action is morally incorrect, another person may be fine with it. So who defines what exactly is incorrect? And what should a soldier do if they think something is completely wrong and unlawful, but few of their fellow soldiers agree?
Also, many people consider the war in Iraq to be unlawful and to break International Law. Does this give soldiers the right to say they won't serve? Can soldiers go to Iraq and then at any time deside that what is going on is completely wrong, and leave? Who can generally define the what is "wrong"? When is it truly acceptable to disobey?
6 comments:
Rachel, thanks for posting on this topic.
I think that the article gives some insight as to the answers of your questions, but many are still debatable. One part of the article that I completely agree with is, "If we want to avoid another catastrophe like the one occurring now, we must insist that the military train its soldiers not only to obey orders, but also, under certain circumstances, to disobey them." I think that it is really important for soldiers to know when to disobey because sometimes going through with an order can lead to detrimental consequences for a mass majority.
I don't think that any one person can define what is correct because every individual follows a different moral code and like what rachel said, what one person might see as unlawful, another might be ok with. But if one person is to define what is correct, it must be a superior official and they must make the standards known to all soldiers before they start fighting. If all soldiers can agree to a common code of conduct, less problems will arise.
To avoid problems with soldiers going in and out of war due to morality codes, I think that soldiers should agree to follow all orders (regardless of their ownn moral codes unless , like stated in the quote, it is going to be harmful to a larger population.
I guess I'm kind of caught in between two different sides here. These are really tough questions.
I am more or less in the same position as Aileen... the definition of when not to obey seems pretty subjective and so seems fairly hard to truly be able to decide when a soldier should not obey orders.
That said, I feel that there are some orders that should always be ignored. For example, we have heard of cases where soldiers raped civilians and they said they were ordered to do so... I think orders like this are fairly universally accepted as "wrong"
are there some things that are universally wrong and all soldiers should be taught to ignore such orders. If so, who teaches all soldiers this... since there is not international army..
I agree with Aileen's assessment of the problem of allowing every soldier to follow their own moral codes. In class and on the blog, we have already addressed the problems with morality and truth being relative - it makes judgment and punishment particularly difficult.
I think soldiers should be trained under a list of pre-defined human rights. They should be taught what constitutes inappropriate behavior and what should warrant disobedience. Once they are given clear guidelines, then they can make evaluations based on them.
However, this brings up the question that we addressed in class - isn't killing already a violation of human rights? Also, is it intolerant to suggest a universalized set of human rights that others disagree with? Could it be a violation of freedom of religion?
I agree with what a lot of people are saying. I think that these questions are particularly difficult especially because most of us haven't been in the military or situations where strict obedience is called for. Therefore, we can only be hypothetical and make inferences about how someone should be able to not always obey the laws, when in fact the opportunities and flexibility for these decisions may not even exist in the military.
In particular, I was struck by Melanie's comment/suggestion to have all the soldiers be trained under "pre-defined human rights," where they are taught about morality. My confusion was in figuring out WHO would be pre-defining these human rights, and HOW exactly they could determine what would be considered appropriate and acceptable, and when would it be "OK" to disobey orders. It seems like an easy solution to our problem, however I've having a hard time figuring out where this power would come from, and how people could come to a consensus about the laws. I don't necessarily believe that there are any "clear guidelines." When it comes to judgment and moral dilemna's with regards to the authority, things start to get really murky.
Soldiers must be well read on the topic of International Human Rights treaties and documents such as the Geneva Convention. Orders should be weighed against the guidelines America has agreed to concerning the conduct of soldiers in war.
If an order appears to cross the boundaries set on military conduct by these treaties, soldiers should have a specific wing of the military or an independent agency to report the conduct of its officers.
"America must have the moral high ground, or else we will lose the war for the hearts and minds of the world"
In response to Ting, I was referring to something similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights put out by the UN. I recognize that there is an issue with internationalizing morality, yet at the same time, I feel that there is an issue if soldiers can follow any moral compass that they have. Just to be the devil's advocate, what if someone's ethic code told them to torture and harm the enemy against orders? I realize this is a tricky issue, yet I still stand by my belief that soldiers need to understand in what situations they should be required to disobey orders. I think educating soldiers about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the United Nations' policies on torture are the first steps in the right direction.
Post a Comment