Military Obedience: When is it acceptable to disobey orders?

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.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=7c3f05d0f48781bdded354b557bfffbe

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?

Darfur and French Non-Profit Organization

In response to what happened in Darfur about the French non-profit organization, here is more information from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/africa/27chad.html?em&ex=.
Based on the newspaper article, and continuing from our class discussion, here are some questions:
-Even though this was considered a crime, in regard to the genocide, and if in fact the parents had agreed with the French non-profit organization, should they have continued with the operations anyway?
-What makes a good neighbor, especially in terms of genocide and this situation, and when do you think neighbors (any kind-countries, people, etc.) should intervene, even though what they would be doing would be considered a crime in order to help others?
-What would be some factors that would cause neighbors not to react?

Psychology of Obedience

As we explore the topic of obedience in greater depth, I thought I would post about an oustanding experiment preformed by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s.

"In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."
Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the "teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" is actually a student or an actor who is never actually harmed."
(The Milgram experiment, http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm)
In the end, 65% of the "teachers" "shocked" participants up to 450 volts and none stopped before 300.

To get a sense of the actual experimental conditions, follow this link and it will take you to an audio recording of the experiment. http://learningat.ke7.org.uk/socialsciences/Psychology/PsyAudio/thirdguy.wav

While this experiment is morally incorrect, it showed a lot about how far people are willing to go to obey. The question is, why?

So to relate this back to genocide: Today in class Ms. Finn mentioned the Eichmann Trials. Eichmann was put on trial after the Holocaust for "crimes against humanity." While Eichmann did commit a crime, can it be said that he was 'just following orders'? As we know, many people in Nazi germany obeyed Hitler's commands, even if they didn't agree with them. My class (F Block) had a very interesting discussion around the idea of obedience and I wanted to open this up to anything lingering from today.
Some questions:
-What are your initial thoughts about Milgram's experiment? Do you find the results surprising?
-What do people fear if they resist and don't obey?
-Who is the most susceptible to obeying irrational demands? Why? (we touched on this briefly in class today)
-How can we teach people to not obey authority if what authority is promoting is sincerely wrong?

I know this is somewhat a broad topic, so anyone feel free to add anything and pose more questions!

shoah foundations

here are some follow up questions:

-Why do you think the work of the shoa foundation is important not just for the holocaust, but to help the overarching issue of genocide, hatred, and discrimination?

-What do you think are things that might be put in the guidelines for the interviewers and recorders of the interview? Why do you think these guidelines are important?

The shoa foundation

The shoah foundation is a visual history foundation. It was started in 1994 by Steven Speilberg, he decided to start the foundation soon after making the movie, "Schindler's List." The foundation feels that visual history is important because it allows viewers to really connect with the holocaust survivors and try to see things from their perspectives. Shoa in Hebrew means catastrophe, Steven Speilberg refers to the foundation as having a three act goal,

• Act One can be seen as a race against time to collect the testimony of remaining Holocaust survivors before it is too late.
• Act Two is the process of indexing and cataloguing the visual history testimonies the Foundation has collected.
• Act Three is the process of turning the survivors into educators.
  

At the moment they are working on act two, volunteers have recoded about 52,000 visual histories. Each one takes about two an a half hours to record. The recordings are of a variety of people from different countries who speak many different languages. The following are the different survivors that their archive hold recordings from.

• Homosexual survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their homosexuality or suspected homosexuality.

• Jehovah's Witness survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their religious affiliation with the Jehovah's Witness faith.

• Jewish survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their religious affiliation with Judaism.

• Political prisoner survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their political convictions and/or expression of those convictions.

• Sinti and Roma survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their affiliation with the Sinti and Roma cultural groups ("Gypsies").

• Eugenics policy survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on eugenics laws and policies -- in an attempt to maintain a "pure" German race, the Nazis sterilized and killed people with mental and physical disabilities.

This link allows you to downloads the questionnaire that they use in the interviews along with guidelines for the interviewers, which are very important to the foundations,
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/vhi/vhf-new/Pages/1-Access-Methodology.htm

The questionnaire is actually 40 pages long, the format and questions of the questionnaire was somewhat surprising to me.

If anyone looks at the questionnaire I would like to know what your thoughts on it are.

Photos vs. Words

Just a quick question of opinion: when reporting on or making crises (civil war or genocide, for example) known, is the use of pictures more powerful than words, and why?
(Photographer: Steve McCurry. Photograph of Sharbat Gula, 1985)

Basic Rights

So having recently discussed the idea of basic rights in a new democracy and when people are willing to stand up for these rights I thought this article was interesting.

The Road to a South African Driver's License

This article talks about how difficult it is to get a driver's license in South Africa. Fewer than 4 out of 10 people who applied for a license actually received one. In America I know that some people consider having a license to be a basic need. Trying to get a license is "so daunting that it set off riots this year"

Do you think that not being able to receive a license is violating a right?
What is considered a basic human right?
Does basic human rights vary from place to place?
What rights do you think people are willing to die to protect?

Summary of the Week 10/22-10/29

This week in class we began our look into Germany's Weimar Republic. Covernig the time between the end of World War I and the begining of Hitler's rule, the republic offers a glimpse of the troubles a fledgling demcracy may face. It also shows how Germany created an atmosphere which allowed someone like Hitler to come into power.
On monday the 22nd, before jumping into the subject, Ms. Finn made a presentation of the Chicago style of Citation. This is in preperation for our paper which is due in a couple of weeks as well as all future History courses we may take. We then met in pairs to answer questions about democracy such as how a new democracy should educate their citizens so they become capable members of the nation.
On wednesday the 24th, We first focused on our previous night's homework. The assignment was to right the introuductory and first body paragraphs to a possible essay about the Weimar Republic. During class, we met with a partner, and peer edited our work so that we could get a feel of the likely mistakes we would have for our future paper. Then, we met in groups of four where each group answered questions about a different document. The four documents were: a summary of the Versailles Treaty, part of the Weimar constitution, German news Reports during the beginning of the Weimar Republic, and a map showing German Territory losses caused by the treaty of Versailles.

On friday the 26th, we once again split up into fours, but this time to teach oneanother about the documents we looked at the previous class. Then, in those same groups of Four, we were each given a summary about one of the political parties during Weimar Republic. These included the the Socialist, Commmunist, Catholic, and Nazi party. After learning about our parties, each group had to make a presentation which explained their parties ideas and goals, and at the end two other students had to decide which group would be elected.

News on the fight to pass the Armenian genocide resolution

Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives decided to delay the vote on the Armenian genocide resolution which we discussed in class last week. The main reason given as a justification for putting off the vote until a later date was due to the fear of crippling U.S.-Turkey relations. An article in the S.F. Chronicle noted that lawmakers believe the resolution will be supported by the majority of House at a more favorable time (when it will not affect important U.S.-Turkey relations). Condoleezza Rice told House panelists that passing the resolution now "would really damage our relations with a Democratic ally who is playing an extremely important strategic role in supporting our troops." California Democrat Adam Schiff, one of the primary sponsors of the resolution said that "we [the primary sponsors] want to make sure that when the measure is brought to the floor, we're confident the votes are there. I think the worse thing would be that you take it up and you're not successful, and Turkey argues that it's a denial of the genocide."

To see the full article from which this information was taken, visit:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/10/25/national/w135735D42.DTL&hw=genocide&sn=008&sc=576

What do you think the benefits and down-sides are to delaying the vote?

Do you agree or disagree with Schiff's worry that by delaying the vote or re-trying the vote at a bad time, there is a possibility of Turkey using the failure as a means of furthering denial of the genocide? Why or why not?

Is there a more appropriate time to continue the fight to pass the resolution? If so, when?