What does the community think of this comment?

Question

One of the lessons of the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials of Germans after Germany’s defeat in WW II was that obeying orders is no excuse for war crimes. US prosecutors took the position that the German military should have refused to obey Hitler’s orders.

Chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson established that military aggression was a war crime.

US Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada took the Nuremburg lesson to heart. He refused to deploy to Iraq on the solid grounds that the war is illegal, which it is under the Nuremburg standard, and that he cannot order troops under his command to commit illegal actions.

Watada is correct. If the US general staff had the integrity of Lt. Watada, America and Iraq would have been spared the pointless and bloody conflict. Bush was able to illegally initiate the conflict, because the American military behaved exactly as the German military and followed the orders of a criminal commander-in-chief. Watada must be court-martialed in order to protect Bush

The above also applies to the members of the British Armed Forces who are in Iraq.

I'll leave this for the community to decide

Answer 1

you're quite right, but to go against orders in that situation must require HUGE strength of character - remember that the government and the media are all giving out the propaganda that it's a good war, and remember also that people who join the military are by their nature more likely than the average person to obey orders without question. For someone to stand up for their principles in the face of everything they are being told is true and to risk alienation from their compatriots, well, as I say, you'd need such inner strength of character and I'm afraid most people are not that strong.

Answer 2

Taking and brutalising lives was, is and always shall be a crime.
It matters not whether the crimes are committed by a member of the public TO a member of the public, or if it is by a soldier during a time of war.
Soldiers are liable to be shot in certain circumstances if they refuse to follow orders. Commanding Officers are liable to be Court-Martialled under the same circumstances.
Higher up the chain (for instance with the President of America) there is the opportunity to 'get out' of the charges as they have access to a whole countries Law system.
The similarities between WW2 and the Iraq fiasco are obvious.

Both were wars to try to stop an evil man who had too much power.
Both nutcases for a start.
Atrocities committed by both sides.
Saddam victimised and abused part of the Iraqi people and made some 'vanish' rather than gassing them and making it obvious.
World opinion siding with the ones on the moral high ground.

I believe Saddam should have been stopped but by the Iraqis asking for help.
The war was the Yanks throwing their weight around as usual, and believing that their opinion was righteous.
Bush should be prosecuted under the War Crimes precedent, but so should all the commanding officers as well. as the soldiers who were extra aggressive and abusive.
The same goes for British troops..
Watada should be court-martialled but only for failing to obey direct orders. As such he would be able to defend himself adequately and the Court would look higher for the real people to prosecute for the legality of the war itself.


Whilst precedents have been set for Armies to disobey orders that they find illegal - in practice this will not happen. The Army trains you to fight and follow orders. You get orders, you follow them. You dont question whether they are right or wrong because sometimes you dont have the time to think only to react.
Only after the fact will these things come to light.

The one in the wrong was Sad Bad Saddam.
Everyone else reacted either as they had been trained, or as they thought they had to to try to prevent an escalating problem becoming worse.
It was a bad situation from the start and was handled even worse.

Answer 3

Well that statement simply put is full of crap.

The Nuremburg War crimes trial was just what happens after every war. The losers lose. They get paraded and killed. Same thing happens no matter who is in charge. But boy was it gussied up after World War 2. We put a dress and lip stick on it and then killed them for being wrong, doing wrong and ultimately losing the war.

Sure what they did was wrong, wrong in more ways than I feel comfortable writing about, but it was a sham. The whole court process was a sham. The only ones who got out alive did so by kissing butt.

As for this LT who says he will not go to war. He is also full of crap. He signed up; he said he would follow all lawful orders. Then to use the flimsy and totally wrong excuse that the war is illegal, well he must be dumber that we thought. The man is wrong, his trial will too come, but this time it's not just for show. He will lose his battle.

As far as pointing at the President and leveling criminal charges, well that is just a laughable delusion. If the President had done anything illegal he would not be in office. The hounds in congress would have seen to that. But it would seem that they have nothing to go on. And I can assure you that they have a better dirt digging network than you do.

In conclusion, I would suggest you take a long look at history and current events. It is better to be seen as a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Answer 4

Interesting point. But the Lt takes on the burden of proof here. And there are much easier ways to disobey an illegal order without bringing undue attention upon ones self -- such as failing to pull the trigger at the appropriate moment or using a less than true aim. Failing to report for duty however is largely indefensible.

Answer 5

I agree your point, but it's a difficult choice to make since an army pledge is always to obey orders and, anyway, what is the point of an army (defence and security, I guess). It will be interesting to see More4's programme on Monday, a speculative drama about Tony Blair standing trial as a war criminal after he leaves office. I'll certainly be watching it.

Answer 6

nice bit of thinking, you think like i do, i said similar about the brit police who are used as europs occupying forces in britain, and i said several years ago that the military should mutiny against the bent politicians and take by force if nessasary command of our country and establish a loyal british government. that was years ago but i am not as elequant as you are, as regards irak you are probably right, but following orders is as though the follower is totaly brainwashed, but somebody some where has to disobey to put our nations in a totaly justified state.

Answer 7

Why would anybody on this earth want to protect bush he should be court martialed.

Answer 8

No comment.