2nd Light Forums |
Topic Title: The lowest aim in your life is to become a soldier Topic Summary: Created On: 03/01/2013 09:59 PM |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
- dirtyfrank | - 03/01/2013 09:59 PM |
- RustyTruck | - 03/02/2013 04:52 AM |
- JimmyBobby | - 03/02/2013 05:31 AM |
- McLean | - 03/02/2013 07:05 AM |
- Greensleeves | - 03/03/2013 05:16 AM |
Topic Tools
|
03/02/2013 04:52 AM
|
|
Well, that was harsh.
------------------------- “It is the heart of US policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to be saving democracy from communism “ - Michael Parenti |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 05:31 AM
|
|
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death. Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal. "I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since. The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity). UCMJ for idiots |
|
|
|
03/02/2013 07:05 AM
|
|
"Now what do I do with all these yellow ribbons?" ------------------------- " |
|
|
|
03/03/2013 05:16 AM
|
|
London is entitled to his opinion. Maybe more so after reading about his upbringing. At 13: In 1889, London began working 12 to 18 hours a day at Hickmott's Cannery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Griffith_Chaney
|
|
|
FuseTalk Basic Edition - © 1999-2024 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.
First there was Air Jordan .