I think Kori is too absolutist over soldiers' not refusing illegal orders. Is it not the case that the oath is to the constitution not the President. Surely Nuremberg and other events since have ended the 'I was only following orders' defence?
The presumption may be to follow orders, but there are lines. If order to kill a prisoner and so on, that's wrong.
I think there’s a level of nuance. As Kori points out it would be unworkable for soldiers to question whether every order they receive is legal or not. There has to be some trust that the civilians giving the orders are carrying out legal due diligence. At the same time, where an order is clearly unlawful i.e. executing unarmed children, quite rightly there should be an onus on individual soldiers to refuse it. I would suggest the double tap leans more towards the latter but I’m not a legal expert.
Mark, Ben, and Charlie, I think Kori operates at a much higher level of decision-making than your examples, which might create some confusion. The classic case in International Humanitarian Law of attacking civilians would often be in a context of soldiers taking orders from other soldiers. In such a case, IHL, in this case the Geneva Conventions and additional protocols, make it clear that soldiers are not absolved from legal responsibility just because they are being ordered to commit a war crime. But the case of, in peace time, deciding whether or not an alleged drug ship is a legitimate target is more complex and involves consideration of both legal and domestic law. I think it is in such a case that uniformed personnel, in Kori's argument, should carry out the order and then, if they think it's illegal, challenge it afterwards. How that would work in terms of legal responsibility, I'm not sure, and I assume it is very much a question of each country's legal system.
Per your last question, I would say that there is a moral code built in to IHL, as with any legal system. Whether one subscribes to those morals is another matter.
But still nobody is taking into account that trump is indebted to Russian oligarchs for rescuing his corporation from bankruptcy - so WHEN will anybody realize WHY he is constantly yelling about everything but his buddy putin - just remember HELSINKI for the truth in all of this - he is TERRIFIED OF P[UTIN !!!!!!!!!!
Thanks once again for the insight provided, Lawrence. Absolutely necessary to get at least a chance to see developments in their proper order. And let’s hope the US military will remember that they made their pledge of allegiance to the US Constitution. Not to some deluded halfwit that equally deluded civilians elected to be their POTUS.
I think Kori is too absolutist over soldiers' not refusing illegal orders. Is it not the case that the oath is to the constitution not the President. Surely Nuremberg and other events since have ended the 'I was only following orders' defence?
The presumption may be to follow orders, but there are lines. If order to kill a prisoner and so on, that's wrong.
I think there’s a level of nuance. As Kori points out it would be unworkable for soldiers to question whether every order they receive is legal or not. There has to be some trust that the civilians giving the orders are carrying out legal due diligence. At the same time, where an order is clearly unlawful i.e. executing unarmed children, quite rightly there should be an onus on individual soldiers to refuse it. I would suggest the double tap leans more towards the latter but I’m not a legal expert.
Your comment prompts the question in me, naively l suppose, 'Does morality come into anything lile this?'
Mark, Ben, and Charlie, I think Kori operates at a much higher level of decision-making than your examples, which might create some confusion. The classic case in International Humanitarian Law of attacking civilians would often be in a context of soldiers taking orders from other soldiers. In such a case, IHL, in this case the Geneva Conventions and additional protocols, make it clear that soldiers are not absolved from legal responsibility just because they are being ordered to commit a war crime. But the case of, in peace time, deciding whether or not an alleged drug ship is a legitimate target is more complex and involves consideration of both legal and domestic law. I think it is in such a case that uniformed personnel, in Kori's argument, should carry out the order and then, if they think it's illegal, challenge it afterwards. How that would work in terms of legal responsibility, I'm not sure, and I assume it is very much a question of each country's legal system.
And does life and death come jnto this anywhere?
What do you mean, exactly?
Per your last question, I would say that there is a moral code built in to IHL, as with any legal system. Whether one subscribes to those morals is another matter.
So fire, kill those in the way when it is illegal and immoral and work it out later. Too late they are dead. Aw well.
But still nobody is taking into account that trump is indebted to Russian oligarchs for rescuing his corporation from bankruptcy - so WHEN will anybody realize WHY he is constantly yelling about everything but his buddy putin - just remember HELSINKI for the truth in all of this - he is TERRIFIED OF P[UTIN !!!!!!!!!!
And for a good reason too. Once again a hint about the strategic capabilities presently occupying the White House. Not funny.
Thanks once again for the insight provided, Lawrence. Absolutely necessary to get at least a chance to see developments in their proper order. And let’s hope the US military will remember that they made their pledge of allegiance to the US Constitution. Not to some deluded halfwit that equally deluded civilians elected to be their POTUS.