What is a lawful order....?

In 2004, the military began court-martials of several military members deployed to Iraq for mistreating prisoners and detainees. Several members claimed that they were only following the orders of military intelligence officials. Unfortunately (for them), that defense won't fly. The mistreatment of prisoners is a crime under both international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see Article 93 — Cruelty and Maltreatment).

It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.


http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm


Can they be punished for this? They certainly can. An order to perform a dangerous mission is lawful, because it's not an order to commit a crime. Under current law, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

In fact, if it can be shown that one or more of the soldiers influenced others to disobey, they may find the crime of Mutiny, under Article 94 added to the list of charges. Mutiny carries the death penalty, even in "peace time."

So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime.

If they were captured while bearing arms against our force and not in uniform then they don't fit the definition set under the Geneva convention or the UCMJ...

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

************************************************************

GENEVA CONVENTION:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.


***********************************************************

Armed combatants not wearing a uniform or identification distinguishing them as part of a governmental military force are considered an exception to the rule under the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ.


*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuZsSsyQ-M

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/06/17/undeclared-war-and-the-destruction-of-the-constitution/#.Ufst422DoSk

The United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in our country, delegates the power to declare war to the Congress and the power to wage war to the President. What that means is that only the Congress, as representatives of the People and of the States, can determine whether or not the nation goes to war. If the People, through Congress, decide that the nation shall go to war, the President then, and only then, has the authority to wage it.

Unless the country is being invaded, if the congress does not declare war against another country, the president is constitutionally barred from waging it, no matter how much he desires to do so. This is, again, shown clearly in the following statements:

“As the executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”
- James Madison

Presidential orders, even those issued as commander-in-chief, are subject to restrictions imposed by Congress. A Congressional declaration of war, for example, limits Presidential powers, narrows the focus of the action, and implies, or clearly stipulates, a precise end-point to the conflict. Like it or not, the Constitution is clear, and the only way it can be changed is through the procedure for amendments as outlined in the Constitution.

All Presidents that have waged war without a Congressional declaration, including Presidents Truman, Johnson, Clinton and Bush, have broken the law; the law specifically stated in the Constitution; thereby conducting themselves like dictators, albeit democratically elected, in order to determine the future of foreign people and nations.

In addition, the fact that Congress is not permitted under the Constitution to transfer the war-declaring power to a President has been repeatedly ignored. Only Congress can declare war, if we are inclined to follow the rule of law. Thus, those members of Congress who’ve voted to do so are just as guilty, in violating the law, as Presidents have been in their act of accepting, rather than refusing, this illegal transfer of power.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

If they were captured while bearing arms against our force and not in uniform then they don't fit the definition set under the Geneva convention or the UCMJ...

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

************************************************************

GENEVA CONVENTION:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.


***********************************************************

Armed combatants not wearing a uniform or identification distinguishing them as part of a governmental military force are considered an exception to the rule under the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ.


*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuZsSsyQ-M

I guess blowing those little kids to bits with drones qualifies as humane treatment....

I agree that Congress must approve the United States going to war and that military actions against other sovereign nations must be approved by Congress, except in extreme immediate emergencies.

Which wars are you connecting to those presidents Teo and...

Why are you neglecting to add Obama to your list for his little carpet bombing war, without Congressional approval I might add, against Libya and then not withdrawing our embassy afterwards.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuZsSsyQ-M

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

If they were captured while bearing arms against our force and not in uniform then they don't fit the definition set under the Geneva convention or the UCMJ...

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

************************************************************

GENEVA CONVENTION:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.


***********************************************************

Armed combatants not wearing a uniform or identification distinguishing them as part of a governmental military force are considered an exception to the rule under the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ.


*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuZsSsyQ-M

I guess blowing those little kids to bits with drones qualifies as humane treatment....

I thought we were discussing the treatment of people captured in a warzone.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

 

We were but since we never declared war on Pakistan it isn't a warzone so any military action which results in dead civilians is simply murder...but when you have sunken as far as the USA has in immorality and brutality it just doesn't seem to matter...Lawlessness.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:We were but since we never declared war on Pakistan it isn't a warzone so any military action which results in dead civilians is simply murder...but when you have sunken as far as the USA has in immorality and brutality it just doesn't seem to matter...Lawlessness.

What makes you believe I agree with how the current administration is conducting our foreign affairs with Pakistan?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

 

Damaged Eagle wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:We were but since we never declared war on Pakistan it isn't a warzone so any military action which results in dead civilians is simply murder...but when you have sunken as far as the USA has in immorality and brutality it just doesn't seem to matter...Lawlessness.

What makes you believe I agree with how the current administration is conducting our foreign affairs with Pakistan?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

 

I never considered this an argument....Oh and Obama is the most flagrant Dictator we have ever had during an undeclared war..

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:We were but since we never declared war on Pakistan it isn't a warzone so any military action which results in dead civilians is simply murder...but when you have sunken as far as the USA has in immorality and brutality it just doesn't seem to matter...Lawlessness.

What makes you believe I agree with how the current administration is conducting our foreign affairs with Pakistan?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

 

I never considered this an argument....Oh and Obama is the most flagrant Dictator we have ever had during an undeclared war..

I merely pointed out how the Geneva Convention and UCMJ defined prisoners who must be treated in accordance to those documents.

All other people captured who don't fall under that definition are the exception.

******SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

 

Bradley Manning is the only combat veteran of the Iraq war whose service is worth honoring. Like hundreds of thousands of servicemen, Manning carried out unlawful orders to participate in an illegal war. Unlike any of the rest, he took necessary action to expose discrete criminal acts committed in the larger context of that illegal enterprise.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/william-norman-grigg/committing-war-crimes-is-a-duty%E2%80%A8/

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I never considered this an argument....Oh and Obama is the most flagrant Dictator we have ever had during an undeclared war..

I'll also reiterate something I've stated before...

Those who lead along with their family members should not be exempt or given excuses (like a college exemption) from being called to serve on the lines during a time of war. If they want to approve such an action then they should risk losing a little blood in the conflict since they are the reason diplomacy failed.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuZsSsyQ-M

 

I also wonder how a trial would play out for snowden... his disclosure clearly shows violations of the constitution.