Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - When is an order to be considered unlawful?

Skunk · 09-25-2003, 04:55 AM

This is not intended to be another Israel-Palestinian issue debate - so please DO NOT go there.

Recently, 27 pilots Israeli air force pilots refused to carry out further missions in the occupied territories. They are not alone in this, another 550 senior NCO's and officers have also made the same refusal.

I'm interested in what people think about the legality and justification of a serving member of the armed forces in refusing to obey an order. Just what exactly constitutes a lawful order and under what grounds is it acceptable to refuse an order by a senior officer?

A lot of people might subscribe to the idea that any order which does not contravene the Geneva Convention (or national law) is lawful.

But the issue is not so clear cut - when I was training for my SSC, we were given a situation in which we were behind the enemy line and came across some soldiers with a white flag. What do you do with them - my inclination was to take them prisoner (of course!), to which my instructer said: you're responsible for the lives of those under you - in this situation you should consider the possibility of a fatal firearms accident in the heat of battle...

Fortunately, I was never put in that situation - so I'll never know if I would have (cough!) had an 'accident' with my weapon.

Is winning the battle the primary goal of the soldier and the niceties of 'honourable conduct' presribed in the Geneva Convention of secondary importance? Milosovic thought so - and we're prosecuting him for it and his subordinates who carried out his orders. Had he won, he would be prosecuting Blair and Clinton and their subordinates (probably).

What do you think? Are such things as the Geneva Convention unrealistic? Should any member of the armed forces be allowed to refuse an order in war or peace - or should we 'through the book at them'?

09-25-2003, 04:55 AM	#1
Skunk Banned User Join Date: September 3, 2001 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Age: 63 Posts: 1,463	This is not intended to be another Israel-Palestinian issue debate - so please DO NOT go there. Recently, 27 pilots Israeli air force pilots refused to carry out further missions in the occupied territories. They are not alone in this, another 550 senior NCO's and officers have also made the same refusal. I'm interested in what people think about the legality and justification of a serving member of the armed forces in refusing to obey an order. Just what exactly constitutes a lawful order and under what grounds is it acceptable to refuse an order by a senior officer? A lot of people might subscribe to the idea that any order which does not contravene the Geneva Convention (or national law) is lawful. But the issue is not so clear cut - when I was training for my SSC, we were given a situation in which we were behind the enemy line and came across some soldiers with a white flag. What do you do with them - my inclination was to take them prisoner (of course!), to which my instructer said: you're responsible for the lives of those under you - in this situation you should consider the possibility of a fatal firearms accident in the heat of battle... Fortunately, I was never put in that situation - so I'll never know if I would have (cough!) had an 'accident' with my weapon. Is winning the battle the primary goal of the soldier and the niceties of 'honourable conduct' presribed in the Geneva Convention of secondary importance? Milosovic thought so - and we're prosecuting him for it and his subordinates who carried out his orders. Had he won, he would be prosecuting Blair and Clinton and their subordinates (probably). What do you think? Are such things as the Geneva Convention unrealistic? Should any member of the armed forces be allowed to refuse an order in war or peace - or should we 'through the book at them'?