2006-09-14 11:16:16 · 10 answers · asked by The Angry Stick Man 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The only order that can be disobeyed, as some have already mentioned, is an illegal order. An illegal order is one that is contrary to the established laws of the nation or the standard laws of war.
There is no caveat for "immoral" orders. Morality is not objective. Some may have problems with going out and shooting civilians who are being used as human shields. For them, that would be immoral. The law of war requires that those who use human shields be charged with war crimes, not those who shoot human shields. If a soldier were to disobey an order to shoot, they could easily be court-martialed.
Missions that could be considered suicidal are another "immoral," but not illegal order to follow. That is part of the reason for basic training. To follow orders, even if the order could result in great bodily harm or death. Those who disobey such an order could be court-martialed for cowardice in the face of the enemy. (Article 99, UCMJ)
2006-09-14 11:43:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A soldier would have to feel that such an order was against the Geneva Convention or a disproportionate response to the threat. He would however have to justify himself afterwards.
2006-09-14 13:13:56 · answer #2 · answered by bob kerr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically, the only order a soldier will not, or can not follow, is an illegal order. An illegal order is anything that would cause unjust harm to anyone or anything. Also, anything that is illegal or degrading to oneself or others around them.
2006-09-14 11:26:10 · answer #3 · answered by krodgibami 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
U.S. soldiers are trained to know what they are to do. If a soldier believes that an order is morally wrong, he is obligated not to obey. Other than this, not following orders has great consequences.
2006-09-14 11:23:35 · answer #4 · answered by J j 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There have been instances where the soldiers felt like they were being sent out on a death mission. I remember back when a group of soldiers refused to go out in the Humvees because of not enough shielding the Humvees to save their lives.
2006-09-14 11:20:13 · answer #5 · answered by Marenight 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
as with each and every warfare one will advance to ask your self why did they die. i imagine even GW Bush would not comprehend why they died. He knew why he despatched his military there nl. to attain administration of Iraq's oil provide yet as an entire fool he walked in to a bee hive without searching the position he went. i imagine the evaluation to Vietnam isn't unfitting. yet another ineffective warfare in which the almighty American military were given this is butt kicked by employing an "inferior enemy" of which they had to flee in shame even as all develop into over. nonetheless Bush is so stuck contained in the clouds he's to ignorant to attain that he's dropping administration over the conflict dropping existence after existence of his personal youthful adult men and females. If Vietnam proved one difficulty than this is that you won't be able to wrestle an enemy you won't be able to see. regrettably even after such quite some years and such quite some deaths some persons are to ignorant to entice training from the previous.
2016-11-26 23:30:26 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he found out about this--what's REALLY going on in Iraq!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm
2006-09-16 02:24:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would have to be an ILLEGAL ORDER, but would have to be proven, otherwise, he would be court martialed for
mutiny or disobeying an direct order.
2006-09-14 11:19:20 · answer #8 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if asked to do something morally wrong.
2006-09-14 11:24:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If he or she was being told to do something they didn't believe was necessary or appropriate.
2006-09-14 11:23:45 · answer #10 · answered by Trish H 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋