it wasn't me pointing at iraqi men

[CitationLover]

looks like the nuremburg,"I was following orders" defense is being used.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/12/iraq/main616921.shtml

i love how the brig gen who ran the prison is running like a mutt saying it wasn't her fault. glad to see we have integrity and can't admit when we're wrong.

 

[apdsm]

Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise needs to put these people on the stand! (and make them say)...

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

 

[Timebuilder]

Following Orders....

I don't see anything on the CBS page about "running like a mutt" but I can tell you this: the only order you can legally follow is a legal order.

To suggest that anyone must follow an illegal order, or that solidiers are incapable of determining whether an order IS legal, is incredible.

If someone gave illegal orders, that needs to be prosecuted. If someone followed an illegal order, that too, should be prosecuted.

It seems so simple.

Army Pfc. Lynndie England, seen worldwide in photographs that show her smiling and pointing at naked Iraqi prisoners, said she was ordered to pose for the photos, and felt "kind of weird" in doing so.

Sure looks like she was having a grand old time....

 

[apdsm]

Just like an overnight.....NO CAMERAS!

 

[ThomasR]

Ir wasn't Me

I don't see anything on the CBS page about "running like a mutt" but I can tell you this: the only order you can legally follow is a legal order.

To suggest that anyone must follow an illegal order, or that solidiers are incapable of determining whether an order IS legal, is incredible.

If someone gave illegal orders, that needs to be prosecuted. If someone followed an illegal order, that too, should be prosecuted.

It seems so simple.

Finally, a voice of reasonable logic.

 

[jarhead]

apdsm

Just to correct the source of your quote, that was Jack Nicholson playing Col. Jessep, not Tom Cruise

 

[ATL2CDG]

It's not a specialist's or a private's job to discern between 'legal' and 'illegal' orders. The US military is NOT a democracy... or even a republic. It's a totalitarian dictatorship. When a subordinate receives an order, in any form, they have an obligation to comply, especially in times of the Bush-led(lost) war on terrorism.

I hate to be trite, but watch the aforementioned A Few Good Men and you'll have a better idea of what I'm saying.

 

[Timebuilder]

It's not a specialist's or a private's job to discern between 'legal' and 'illegal' orders. The US military is NOT a democracy... or even a republic. It's a totalitarian dictatorship. When a subordinate receives an order, in any form, they have an obligation to comply, especially in times of the Bush-led(lost) war on terrorism.

I hate to be trite, but watch the aforementioned A Few Good Men and you'll have a better idea of what I'm saying.

Actually EVERY service member has the responsibility to refuse any illegal order.

Period.

I'd give up using Hollywood as a guide for anything.

 

[ATL2CDG]

And how is a private first class going to determine what is legal and illegal?

You've obviously never served in the military.

 

[Timebuilder]

If I have to explain to an NCO how this is wrong, then we have the wrong people serving.

I have four years of military training. In the civilian world, the test in legal terms is the reasonable person standard. If a resasonable person is asked to do these things with prisoners, a reasonable person should ask the person in command for a clarification of the orders. Sometrimes, asking for the clarification is enough to make the superior stop and think about what they just ordered. If a person is still unsure, then they can ask the chaplain to seek a more clear explanation from higher command, or if available, they can seek that clarification on their own. Telling a superior that you do not understand the order is not the same as insubordination.

We were taught this after some soldiers were being given patantly illegal orders in Vietnam. In the years following the My Lai massacre, which happened on March 16, 1968, everyone became more sensitized to the difference between legal and illegal orders.

All it really boils down to is common sense. If you are prohibited from doing something to a fellow soldier in a prison setting, then it is unlikely that you can legally do this same thing to a war prisoner in a similar circumstance.

 

[jarhead]

Very well stated, Timebuilder. Most military people know inherently what a legal or illegal order is. And that goes from private to General, and from seaman to Admiral. When it's borderline in clarity, it's up to the individual to get that clarity. If my First Sergeant told me to frag the captain, I don't need clarification; that's an illegal order.

 

[Timebuilder]

...not that you or I have had a CO that we thought about fragging, just for a moment.....

 

[GogglesPisano]

IMHO, I think once Pfc England gets out of Leavenworth, she will find comfortable employment as a NYC professional dominatrix.

Am I wrong here?

 

[weekendwarrior]

It's not a specialist's or a private's job to discern between 'legal' and 'illegal' orders. The US military is NOT a democracy... or even a republic. It's a totalitarian dictatorship. When a subordinate receives an order, in any form, they have an obligation to comply, especially in times of the Bush-led(lost) war on terrorism.

I hate to be trite, but watch the aforementioned A Few Good Men and you'll have a better idea of what I'm saying.

That's insane! You act as if a PFC is not human! She is still human, and hollywood has nothing to do with it. If her NCO or anyone told her to shoot the prisoner, would she do it because it was an order? I think not. She has just as much responsibility to say "no" and have someone ask questions later. And yes, in Basic Training you are taught that orders have to be legal orders.

So with that logic, if she was a SGT or better, she could disobey that order? For me, when I was a PFC, if someone gave me a questionable order such as hers, I'd have no problem questioning them back, or even making a moral and ethical decision to disobey and take it to the next level in the chain of command. That right there would have saved her butt in this situation.

Her comment about those being orders are way off base. She is a chicken Sh!t with no integrity whatsoever. Her pictures show way too much emotion for them to be staged.

 

[LJDRVR]

Huh?

It's not a specialist's or a private's job to discern between 'legal' and 'illegal' orders.

You're kidding right? I assure you that even a 19 year-old E-1 (And I was one) knows the difference between a lawful and un-lawful order. They are well aware of many legal considerations such as the code of conduct, UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. Give the average junior enlisted person a bit more consideration and benefit of the doubt than some ill-informed blanket statement, please.

This is a clearcut case of a small group of people making poor descisions that deep-down they KNEW were wrong. (What the heck is that idiot one-star doing walking around free spouting off how she didn't know what was going on with her subordinates and besides, it's only what intel wanted. Jeez! Step up scumbag. You're the commander, how about acting like an adult?

No guts. No integrity. None of em'.

 

[Big Duke Six]

That about covers the lawful orders question. Good lord, ATL2CDG, you're killin' me. Is Top Gun your bible for 2V2 tactics?

 

[Snakum]

It's not a specialist's or a private's job to discern between 'legal' and 'illegal' orders.

Every US Army serviceman and servicewoman receives guidance on 'illegal orders', Geneva Convention, etc. during basic training. Technically-speaking, it actually is their job to discern the two.

That said, however, what are the chances a Reserve MP unit from Bugtussle, WV will question orders from civilian and military MI officers, especially when it doesn't involve physical torture? Slim and none.

Minh

 

[Timebuilder]

I'd imagine that a reserve MP brigade would have gotten a lot of extra training between 9-11 and the deployment that took them to Iraq.

Just a hunch.

 

[bart]

Is ordering fraternity style hazing illegal?

This has gotten ridiculous, yes they were mistreated, but for crying out loud, they are in a military prison, what do they expect, warm milk and cookies and blankies for their naps?

 

[jarhead]

Broken fluorescent light bulbs shoved up the anus?

Broken broom handles up the rectum?

Tied up men beaten to death by stomping and bare knuckles into their hooded heads?

German Shepard dogs set on them?

Which fraternity did you belong to, Bart?
I sure don't want any of my relative’s kids in that fraternity.

That’s a far, far leap from milk cookies and blankets, don’t you think?

Don Rumsfeld has said it was wrong, but you seem to dispute that judgment from the top of the defense department. Get a grip, man, you certainly omit o lot of factual information when you infer it was just some naked guys getting looked at.