Military men face moral dilemma on Syrian strike: Follow consciences or orders

[rambone]

I would not. Soldiers are required to follow orders, particularly those of the President unless the soldier knows that order to be unlawful. As pointed out earlier in the thread, the President may not order a soldier to kill a non combatant and if he does that soldier may refuse knowing it to be an unlawful order. A presidential order to deploy is not within the purview of a soldier to decide.

Executive Order 9066 came straight from the president, and was determined to be "lawful" and "constitutional" by the U.S. Supreme Court. Fun fact: it has never been overturned in court.

The Army, police, and FBI rounded up American citizens and put them on train cars into military prison camps. And virtually everyone followed their orders.

Some people standing in those lines are still alive today.

Something BESIDES "lawful" needs to be the standard. It seems you partially agree, but won't say it.

So you want serving military members to be able to veto orders? Would you prefer that the military take a vote? Whether the individual military member supports or agrees with a decision to take military action is irrelevant and must be so for the military to function. Without the chain of command and the discipline to support it the military would be of no use. I don't support military action in Syria but, if I were still on active duty, that opinion would be kept to myself and I would support the chain of command. Without it, we have nothing. There was a comment upthread about military members following immoral orders. Morality is subjective and cannot be applied in this case. An order to attack Syria would be a lawful order from the Commander in Chief. An order to confiscate the firearms of citizens of the United States would not be a lawful order.

I wouldn't call it a veto, but individuals always have a choice. That isn't some evil thing that destroys the republic as we know it. Its a fact, anyone can refuse to comply at any time. They may face persecution, imprisonment, or murder, but its always a choice that rests with the individual. No order must be followed.

Rambone and others are saying is this:Rambone's pretty consistently anti-war with all three cases above. So who does he go after? 1) Afghanistan - BUSH and Congress - FAIR - if that's how you feel - these are the right people to go after .2) Iraq - BuSH and Congress - even more vociferously - FAIR AGAIN3) Syria - Well , the soldiers have a "moral dilemna".... IGUANA ! Place the issue where it should go. On the shoulders of those making the call.Anything less is less than intellectual honesty.

The soldiers with the signs over their faces are obviously having a dilemma of some kind. No? Is the headline no good?

So there is a point where morals or ideology overrides a legal order. That's what I wanted to know.

That's what I wanted to know as well. And while phylodog won't explicitly say it, there are some "Lawful" orders that he says he wouldn't follow (gun confiscation). So we are left to conclude that there is something greater than "the law" and "orders" that governs how we must act. Morals.

Most of the time, Jamil, I agree with you on things - I have to take exception today. An order to kill innocents is not LAWFUL. An order to confiscate arms (protected under the Constitution - the Supreme law of the land) is NOT LAWFUL.A superior officer saying that "Country XYZ" is our enemy IS LAWFUL.It's not about morals nor idealogy. It's about LAWFUL vs not LAWFUL. This is not that unclear.

Sometimes, an order to kill innocents IS LAWFUL. Like air-raiding villages, or perhaps turning 200,000 people "into glass". If that bothers the conscience, and you feel morally compromised, it would seem necessary to refuse the LAWFUL orders.

You sir, are confusing two terms "lawful" (i.e. allowed by law) and "right/just/morally ok" I would agree with you that invading another nation without provocation is NOT RIGHT/JUST/etc. And I agree with you in this case. It IS however, LAWFUL. Obama especially with Congress has the LAWFUL right to conduct an UNJUST war.

So if something is an obvious injustice, the solution is to march on and keep thy mouth shut? This does not sit well with a moral person.

 

[rambone]

And this is part of the reason why the military is not and cannot be in charge of when and where we fight, or who we fight against. The military is not above the elected government. The elected government tells the military where and when to go and what to do, not the other way around.

A guy laying down his weapon and refusing to obey does not compromise civilian management of the military.

Food for thought. "All enemies foreign or domestic" may at some point be the elected civilian government.

 

[Denny347]

Nuff said.

 

[jbombelli]

A guy laying down his weapon and refusing to obey does not compromise civilian management of the military.

Food for thought. "All enemies foreign or domestic" may at some point be the elected civilian government.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The military is subservient to the civilian government. That's how it is, that's how it has to be. Otherwise what we eventually end up with is military dictatorship. You seem an intelligent person, so I'm sure you can see how that could come about.


There is always a choice. They can choose to lay their rifles down and disobey orders, and face a court martial. Or flee to Canada and never return. They don't get to be in charge of where and when they go fight, or who against. THAT IS NOT THEIR CALL. That is up to the civilian government.

If we don't want them to go somewhere, then it's the civilian government that needs to be convinced.

 

[rambone]

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The military is subservient to the civilian government. That's how it is, that's how it has to be. Otherwise what we eventually end up with is military dictatorship. You seem an intelligent person, so I'm sure you can see how that could come about.

There is always a choice. They can choose to lay their rifles down and disobey orders, and face a court martial. Or flee to Canada and never return. They don't get to be in charge of where and when they go fight, or who against. THAT IS NOT THEIR CALL. That is up to the civilian government.

OK, I don't disagree. I got my replies crossed a little.

 

[jbombelli]

OK, I don't disagree. I got my replies crossed a little.

Fair enough.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The military is subservient to the civilian government. That's how it is, that's how it has to be. Otherwise what we eventually end up with is military dictatorship. .

Or it could turn out that they could be the fourth branch of government , that decides if the political ego's and agenda's are worth the blood .


The military is supposed to be subservient to the civilian government and the government is supposed to be subservient to the civilians that elected them , but they're not .


The polls I'm seeing are saying that the majority of folks don't want us to get involved but obummer is running his mouth about how he doesn't need congressional approval ( and therefore civilian approval ) to bomb Syria .

Guberment run amuck , not listening to those who elected them , how do they get stopped without " that which cannot be discussed " here ? Maybe it's up to the military to keep the guberment in check .

 

[jbombelli]

Or it could turn out that they could be the fourth branch of government , that decides if the political ego's and agenda's are worth the blood .


The military is supposed to be subservient to the civilian government and the government is supposed to be subservient to the civilians that elected them , but they're not .


The polls I'm seeing are saying that the majority of folks don't want us to get involved but obummer is running his mouth about how he doesn't need congressional approval ( and therefore civilian approval ) to bomb Syria .

Guberment run amuck , not listening to those who elected them , how do they get stopped without " that which cannot be discussed " here ? Maybe it's up to the military to keep the guberment in check .

The civilian government is certainly subservient to the electorate. All you have to do is vote them out, and replace them with people who don't want to go to war at every opportunity. And as far as polls go, the polls telling us that most Americans don't want to go to war don't matter. What matters is what happens IN THE VOTING BOOTH. And when it comes down to it, the people who don't want to go to war all the time only get 1% of the vote.

The military cannot be allowed to make the decisions as to when and where we go to war. That's not their job, and when you propose that the military keep the civilian government in check, what you propose is absolutely a military dictatorship.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

what you propose is absolutely a military dictatorship.

That's not at all what I'm proposing . I'm saying that everything would carry on like it has with the one exception being the military would make the final decision on whether or not the use of violence is an absolute necessity and how it would be conducted .

 

[jbombelli]

That's not at all what I'm proposing . I'm saying that everything would carry on like it has with the one exception being the military would make the final decision on whether or not the use of violence is an absolute necessity and how it would be conducted .

That is exactly what you're proposing, when you propose

Maybe it's up to the military to keep the guberment in check .

How can you be so blind as to not see that?

And the military most assuredly MUST NOT BE IN THE POSITION to make the decision as to when and where and against whom we fight. THAT MUST be the domain of the civilian government. Otherwise the civilian is subservient to the military, and what do we call that? A military dictatorship.

Seriously, if you can't see these things, then there's no point in further discussion with you on this topic. You're too blinded to the realities of the world.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

And the military most assuredly MUST NOT BE IN THE POSITION to make the decision as to when and where and against whom we fight. THAT MUST be the domain of the civilian government. Otherwise the civilian is subservient to the military, and what do we call that? A military dictatorship.

Seriously, if you can't see these things, then there's no point in further discussion with you on this topic. You're too blinded to the realities of the world.

I think you're reading too much into or misunderstanding what I'm saying .

I'm not proposing the military get involved in daily internal affairs , that would be the government's realm just like it is now .

The military would only get involved if it looked like they were truly needed and they would decide the scope and scale of action .

Why would the military decide such matters ? Because they are the ones who truly understand the cost and benefits of military action .

As it is now , all branches of the military are armed thugs / strong armed enforcers , acting according to the wishes of corporations and politicians , carrying out the dirty work they want done .

I believe that if the Military were in charge of who and where they fought , there would be a lot less BS conflicts and blood on our part .

 

[Birds Away]

If the military has the final say they will decide in their own interests. Which will inevitably lead to a military dictatorship. No other possible outcome.

 

[jbombelli]

I think you're reading too much into or misunderstanding what I'm saying .

I'm not proposing the military get involved in daily internal affairs , that would be the government's realm just like it is now .

The military would only get involved if it looked like they were truly needed and they would decide the scope and scale of action .

Why would the military decide such matters ? Because they are the ones who truly understand the cost and benefits of military action .

As it is now , all branches of the military are armed thugs / strong armed enforcers , acting according to the wishes of corporations and politicians , carrying out the dirty work they want done .

I believe that if the Military were in charge of who and where they fought , there would be a lot less BS conflicts and blood on our part .

You're putting the military in charge of foreign affairs. You're hamstringing our politicians, who are elected to conduct foreign affairs. The military, to use your words, IS SUPPOSED to be thugs/strong-arm enforcers of the decisions made by our elected politicians.

Honestly if you don't understand why the military cannot be permitted to make the decisions as to when and where we go to war and who against, then you really need to do some research and some critical thinking. The military understands military action, not politics. War is absolutely political.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

If the military has the final say they will decide in their own interests. Which will inevitably lead to a military dictatorship. No other possible outcome.

I'm not saying Egypt is a " shinning example " by any means but it sure looks like their military is doing a fair job of not being a dictatorship so far and trying to let the people work it out for themselves .

So yeah , there are other possible outcomes .

 

[Birds Away]

I'm not saying Egypt is a " shinning example " by any means but it sure looks like their military is doing a fair job of not being a dictatorship so far and trying to let the people work it out for themselves .

So yeah , there are other possible outcomes .

The Egyptian military is killing people in the street, imprisoning dissenters without trial, closing down television and radio stations that are not under their control...no, there are no other possible outcomes. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[lucky4034]

If the military has the final say they will decide in their own interests. Which will inevitably lead to a military dictatorship. No other possible outcome.

At this point... I'm more than willing to give it a shot! What we are doing now = FAILURE. The empire is unsustainable....

 

[Birds Away]

I have no interest in trading one oppressive regime for another.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

At this point... I'm more than willing to give it a shot! What we are doing now = FAILURE. The empire is unsustainable....

Move to Egypt, or Peru, or any of a number of other destinations.

 

[hornadylnl]

I have no interest in trading one oppressive regime for another.

Me either. That's why I didn't vote for McCain or Romney.

 

[steveh_131]

Me either. That's why I didn't vote for McCain or Romney.

Oh, snap.