If a soldier kills a unarmed civilian who poses NO THREAT intentionally.....?

Question

Should he be able to use the defense that he is following orders?

I say no. It is contradictory to the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribuneral. So why is it that U.S. soldiers used it successfully for the My Lai Massacre? This isn't a anti-American question, it just happens that this incident is what popped in my mind.

How can justice be served to protect those innocent from further future attrocities? How can the military improve so that this can't happen again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Man, what the hell do I know about Kim Jong Ill? The dude is fat, and seems to like tight fitting clothes.

Guess why this question came up? Cause Oliver Stone is making a movie about it. Geez. Why so defensive, I am asking a question on how to improve court proceedings or way to protect civilians, not "America sucks and this is why." Geez, if America sucked so much, why do I visit several times a year?

Would an American please help me out and give me an answer that isn't like the first two?

I am saying, it's better to know of atrocities of the past and improve onthe future, than to ignore the past and let it repeat itself.

What enemy propoganda? Soldiers of the company testified, and helicopter pilots (who intervined) testified against fellow soldiers. Oh yeah, and tehre was that company photographer who had some photos of dead unarmed civilian.

The hero was the helicopter pilot who intervined, told his 3 copters in the area to shoot any American soldier who did not follow orders to cease fire. Who put himself on the ground with the very likely possibility of getting shot by his own American soldiers and personally rescued dozens of civilians huddled together.

Your "hero" the person in charge of the company insisted on using grenades to get the civilians out when asked to help get them out by the pilot, depending on your source 300-500 civilians died under his orders that day.

Thank you Chris for you answer. It is intelligent and adds something to the discussion. I take it you hve been a soldier, and I applaud you, it takes alot to be a soldier.

Answer 1

What you have here is an example of why Wikipedia should be used with caution.

If you carefully read the article there is no supporting reference that any soldier involved in the massacre was successful with the 'following orders' defense.

Wikipedia is a quick and easy reference source - but there is a reason it is not allowed as a reference for scholarly research.

Answer 2

It should be classified as murder, and I was only following orders is no defence. Well, not in the UK and anywhere in the world that isn't America, anyway.
UK Rules of Engagement state very clearly that you are not to open fire unless you are threatened directly, or you are acting in defence of other personnel or property. This is further tempered by 'propotional force.' If a guy's throwing a rock at you, you are not allowed to shoot him. The response must be proportionate to the attack. If he's throwing a rock, belt him one with your baton. If he's about to shoot you, slot the bugger before he gets the gun pointed at you.

And you will end up in court in the UK if you shoot an unarmed person if you're a soldier, sailor or flyer. Not, I note, if you're an armed policeman. Then it's an honest mistake.

Edit - Excuse me, Anon. It's not anti American to state facts about something that happened in Vietnam and was worldwide news at the time. It's not anti American to wonder why the soldiers at My Lai were treated differently to others accused of war atrocities.
Besides, I thought freedom of speech was a dearly held American belief? Unless it's not something you want to hear, right?

Answer 3

Unless you have been in combat you can not understand. Imagine having someone come into your class at school everyday. Then someone comes into your class and randomly kills someone or simple shoots someone. Some days they miss other days they does not. Imagine after that happens for your teacher/professor has a couple students move your dead friend to the back of the classroom and then having to continue with your lesson or test. Imagine having to go back to class the next day and having to sit in the seat of your dead friend, with his bloodstain still in on the chair. How long could you do that? Could you do it for a year, or 15 months? That is what our soldiers are asked to do.

Yes, it is wrong to kill civilians. It takes lots of mental will power to keep things under control. The physiological strain it has people. If you lose it for one minute it could happen, and people could die. It is wrong for it to happen, the guilty do need punished, but I can understand why it happens.

Answer 4

Unlike the Vietnam era, there is much more of an effort today to educate our troops about the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). We're taught what constitutes a violation, to refuse an order to violate LOAC, and to report LOAC violations as soon as practicable.

I think there is more of a willingness today to defy unlawful orders. There is also more of a transparency to military command today: the media are everywhere, and today's atrocity isn't tomorrow's headline -- it's TODAY'S headline, in realtime.

Keep in mind, however, that ANY profession will have those who fail to meet its standards. This is true of doctors, lawyers, priests and police officers, and it's true of the profession of arms.

We can't make this "never happen again." All we can do is set the standard, then hold violators accountable.

Answer 5

killing a unarmed civilians is wrong (and so is the war) the defense of " I was following orders " is wrong as well I am ashamed that my solders that are fighting in this war ( which is costing us billions in taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives and civilians in Iraq ) actually follow these orders at times that just goes to show you that some brainwashing may be taking place here also i think that our "President" (sorry excuse for one I might add) should be charged as a war criminal.

Answer 6

If a soldier kills a unarmed civilian who poses NO THREAT intentionally.....?....Its murder

America hung a lot of Germans for 'following orders' after WWII

Answer 7

Bulls-it that isn't an anti-American question. When was the last time you said something equivalent about Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Il?

Answer 8

If an individual kills somebody just because, then hey "To the Gallows I Believe".... "If the same individual is under fire and another individual dies as a fact then " my condolences...

Answer 9

THE KILLING OF CIVILIANS IS AN ATROCITY,AS WELL AS THE KILLING OF PRISONERS OF WAR. ANY COUNTRY OR GROUP WHO COMMITS THESE CRIMES ARE GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES.

Answer 10

Then he is committing an act of murder and should be prosecuted for same.