Do soldiers have the right to say NO?

Question

This is an important point, the answer to this may well have prevented every one of the major massacres in the last century!
If, given a situation wherein a soldier's commanding officer ordered him/her to shoot and kill a certain target, would the said soldier be allowed to have any opinion whatsoever in the matter?
The target could be any one of the following:
A stone-throwing protester, peaceful protestor, person(s) belonging to a certain ethnic group, all male members of fighting age (meaning 15 & up) in a certain group of arrested people, a kid who's trying to hit you because you just killed his family .. the list goes on.
Every one of the above cases has received a bullet in the head at some or the other point in the last century. In every case, dissension by the soldiers could have saved lives.
Has any country yet held up the right of the soldier to say "NO" to his officer, without threat? Because the people who did these executions probably didn't really want to.

Answer 1

According to military law a soldier has the right AND RESPONSIBILITY (wanted to ensure that isn't missed) to refuse to follow an UNLAWFUL order. That's the short and sweet. Here are some other facts that you might find useful.

First, often soldiers and Marines find the rules of engagement (which covers when and who they can shoot) are often very restrictive. Often they can't fire until fired upon. Well, if the other person's a good shot or lucky then 1 soldier/Marine is already dead or badly injured before they can return fire.

Second, what might be justification to shoot? A protester throwing anything is a serious threat. Don't let the helmet fool you, a rock can still kill. Besides, how do you know it's a rock? How about a grenade. Protest peacefully and in today's military all will be fine. It's when bullets, grenades and rocks start coming out of a protest group that things go badly.

Third, you mention male persons of fighting age. You've made two dangerous assumptions there. First example, Israeli women are serving members of their army. They're as dangerous as their male counterparts. Arabic women have committed suicide bombings on occasion. You can't rule a woman out. Second, a minor can carry a gun, bomb, grenade, grenade launcher, molotov cocktail, etc. long before they turn 15. You only have to look to Vietnam and the conflicts that have been occurring in the middle east since the 6th century.

In summary, a soldier/Marine can say no to an unlawful order. However, to decide if they should say no you have to answer the question; could this person or the tool they're threatening me with kill or grievously injure me? If the answer is yes then you shoot regardless of age or sex.

Answer 2

Most the posters here don't seem to understand how the military works and why. When you join the military you agree to follow orders. It has to be that way and they spend a lot of effort enforcing the mentality that you follow orders without hesitation. The fact is that it saves lives having strict discipline in a combat situation.

A person does have the right to question what they believe to be illegal orders but during a fight it will get soldiers killed to hesitate while you argue a point with your officers. As a result, atrocities happen sometimes. At other times, slow reactions kill people too.

If you have never been in combat, you have no idea what its like. The noise, the fear and the need to act right now to stay alive are the over-riding things in your mind. Until you have been there, don't judge those who have or are in those positions. You simply don't understand.

Answer 3

If the order given to the soldier is unlawful then the soldier has the right and obligation to refuse that order. If a lawful order is given the soldier must obey it. This is of course a book answer, but certain situations on the modern battlefield may allow the soldier more flexibility when it comes to making a decision to kill or not to kill. However most of the time the order to kill is not given, that is more of a thing of the past. Nowadays you are given a mission with rules of engagement that tell you how you must perform in that misison. There is no execution orders given, it is much more fluid than that.

Answer 4

I'm only in the Air Force and haven't been in any hand-to-hand, gun-to-gun... whatever you want to call it... combat. BUT... It is my understanding that if your superior gives an order that is obviously inhumane, or down-right wrong... you don't have to do it. You will probably be court-martialed for not obeying your superior officer, but if you could prove the order was wrong, then should be all right. In the military, I have been taught that you react to situations appropriately: You wouldn't shoot anyone unless they have guns/weapons and become a threat to you and those around you. Anyone can be a combatant, even a 9yr old child, which sadly, enemies give these children guns/weapons and are ordered to kill. What are our people supposed to do then? Not kill him b/c he's a child??? But he kills one/many of our own? It's not fair... I know. War isn't fair or right and not everyone plays by the rules.

Remember the Abu Ghraib incident... happened just a couple years ago and the US Soldiers claimed they were told to do those inhumane things to the Iraqi detainees? That was obviously far beyond the necessary measures needed to take action with those people, anyone could see that, so those same soldiers could have told their superiors 'NO'... and a lot of scandal could have been prevented. But (just to look at it from other sides as well)... why does our nation and others get so mad about what our soldiers did to them, when their soldiers are publicly be-heading, holding hostage and massacering ours? Last I checked, we haven't been that brutal to them. They shoot - we shoot back... and with better weapons.

Answer 5

It depends on the circumstance.

When one becomes a soldier, one gives up certain rights for a time in order to protect the rights of others. IE, you do as you are told, WHEN you are told to do it, and regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.

HOWEVER, a soldier ALSO has a duty to DISOBEY orders which would violate laws of a given nation (for example, being ordered to kill a peaceful protester, genocide, killing of non-combatents. As to the other examples you've pointed out, those being the stone-thrower and the child who is physically swinging his fists, there are better ways to deal with them, so the soldier, if ordered to kill them, must again decline to do so and use ONLY the force that is necessary to prevent harm to the innocent)

Answer 6

It is the obligation and duty for each soldier to question an "unlawful" order. It is also the duty of the soldier to report such an order to a superior officer, although it may be after the fact.

Now take into consideration a mob mentality, having been under fire and the stress of losing comrades in arms. At the time of the incident, it may not be prudent to refuse; but firing into the ground instead of at a target would suffice. After the incident, it is the soldier's moral AND legal duty to report such an incident...

Answer 7

Great question in light of the current world events. Several people posting have essential points:
--The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) requires Soldiers to not follow illegal orders (including using deadly force - shooting someone).
--The UCMJ allows Soldiers to be punished for not obeying lawful orders.
--Rules of Engagement (ROE) always allow for using deadly force in cases of self-defense.
--ROE also spell out what situations Soldiers can use deadly force - but that the force used will always be proportional and try to limit collateral damage. Say a raid on a known terrorist house -ROE may allow for shooting people inside but it cannot be indiscriminate.
--Cases of deadly force are almost always investigated even if it is a firefight with bad guys shooting at you and not some people in the example you gave.

For me (a three time combat veteran) the bottom line is training. If Soldiers and Leaders know why and when deadly force can be used it will usually eliminate Leaders having to give illegal orders and Soldiers having to refuse questionable orders.

Hope this helps your question is very timely. DZ

Answer 8

Many of the respondents got it right o close...Yes a soldier has the right to disobey an ILLEGAL order. But the soldier better be ready to face the penalties they are subject to under the UCMJ if they disobey a LEGAL order.

To the guy that says a soldier has no rights...you're unbelievably....well; ill-informed to be polite. When I served as an Army officer I had a soldier disobey a direct order that I had given him. I had him placed under arrest, he went to a courts-martial and was found guilty of disobeying a direct order of a superior officer.

He was reduced one grade in rank, a reduction of half pay for the spent 3 months in he spent in the stockade at Ft.Sill.

Answer 9

He has an obligation to disobey illegal orders. He should also be willing to take the consequences. The "without threat" phrase in your question should have nothing to do with it. They're responsible adults, and military law. is for adults. The military prize courage, and courage of one's convictions is included. And "dissension by the soldiers" is often absent because war is confusion, and cruelty, and the troops allow a certain latitude that wouldn't be conceivable in civilian life because of the uncertainties.

Answer 10

A soldier in U.S. service can refuse to obey an "unreasonable" order, but he will find that courts marshals interpret unreasonable very narrowly.

Actually, military service is inconsistent with American cultural expectations. Even De Tocqueville recognized that the American people will accept many things, but an aristocracy is not among them. But military institutions cannot run on democratic or egalitarian principles, so they create an artificial aristocracy that is difficult for American youth to adjust to. Being insulted or even struck with no right to retaliate is not easily accepted by our people.

So by European standards, Americans make bad soldiers. They shoot or "frag" abusive officers or noncoms, and have always done it from Revolutionary times. But they are terrific fighters because of the very independent problem solving capacity that makes them bad garrison troops. Every private is his own general.

Killing orders are in a category of their own, especially in combat situations.