You have a gun and you’re pointing it at innocent people because a billionaire told you to. They’ve done nothing to you or your family, or to your country.
Yet you’re the one in their house, gun pointed in the face of their kids.
Is that moral?
Hey man, I’ve got five kids to feed!
AcceptableImperative FTFY
Germany has it encoded in their constitution, military personel can disobey unlawful and imoral orders.
It’s the same in the US, but you have to be court-martialed to prove that the order was unlawful (ie, you fail to obey a command, you’ll be arrested, and only let go if the military tribunal determines you were right to not follow that command).
If Germany’s system is the same… then you’ve got the rule on paper only. Soldiers don’t question orders, it’s how they’re taught to act. This is a post hoc justification for punishing regular soldiers for unlawful acts, rather than anything actually actionable in the moment.
I’m know little about the details around how it works in the US, but I think saying
This is just a post hoc justification for punishing regular soldiers for unlawful acts
Is a bit of an oversimplification. The point is that if a soldier will face consequences for disobeying an order, but no consequences for obeying an unlawful one, they have no dilemma (outside their own morals) when faced with an order they believe is illegal. Furthermore, they can be coerced into doing things they know is wrong and illegal. By putting this into law, you force the soldier to face the dilemma that if they truly believe an order is illegal, they can be punished for following it. That gives a much stronger incentive to actually stand your ground when ordered to do something that makes you think “there’s no way in hell that this can be legal”. It also removes or diminishes an officers power to coerce soldiers to do something they know is wrong and illegal.
Regarding
Soldiers don’t question orders, it’s not how they’re taught to act.
there’s probably some minor cultural differences between armies here, but by and large you’re probably mostly right. However, I don’t think it’s right in extreme (think, genocide) circumstances. A lot of these laws came in place post-WWII, and are formulated with the knowledge in mind that soldiers can and have been ordered to execute civilians and shoot at unarmed protesters. I’ve been a soldier myself, and would definitely question an order to open fire on unarmed civilians. I hope most other soldiers would do the same.
The problem is that the consequences aren’t balanced. If you disobey an order, the consequences are immediate. If you obey an illegal order, you might face consequences at some point in the future. If you disobey an order because you genuinely believe it’s illegal, there’s no protection for you if that happens to not be the case. Meaning the only way to know that you’re safe to disobey an order on the grounds that it’s illegal is to know exactly what law is being broken. Not a thing that soldiers are trained to know.
That, plus, in that moment you have to have a mountain of conviction to resist doing the thing they’ve been drilling into your head since basic, follow orders without thinking. Which is why I’m saying it amounts to nothing more than “the common soldiers aren’t supposed to follow illegal orders, this is all their fault for not stopping this” as a justification.
I believe it‘s even more strict than that (insert obligatory I am not a lawyer here).
For military commands, German soldiers must not obey orders that would constitute a criminal offense (§11(2) SG). Outside of that, the respective laws for civil servants are applicable (§11(3) SG). These laws, specifically §63 BBG, contain an obligation to object to illegal orders (Remonstrationspflicht). If a civil servant doesn‘t object, they are personally responsible for their actions.
So it‘s not just an option to object to unlawful orders, it‘s an obligation.
This is essentially the same in the US, soldiers are required to disobey an unlawful order.
That’s said, you had better be absolutely certain about that decision to disobey an order, because there most likely will be a hearing/court martial over any such incident. If the brass don’t see the situation the same way, you’re gonna be in a lot of trouble.
Similar law in Norway IIRC. The idea is essentially to put you (the soldier) in the situation where being threatened with punishment for disobeying the order is weighted up against the threat of punishment for obeying an unlawful order. Basically, if you’re given an order you honestly believe is illegal, it’s a lot easier to stand by a decision to face the consequences of disobeying it if you know that following the order can lead to the same, or worse, consequences.
Oh shit! You mean it’s ok to not commit atrocities atrocities? What an innovative new idea.
It’s a new one for the church.
It’s an indescribably rare, but welcome statement from religious and military leadership that I welcome. Hooray for me.
Excellent. Send the good Cardinal to the front.
deleted by creator
