Following order. military CoC

[longtimefan]

I'm trying to find one of the older reviews. I believe it was a DS9 review, but I may be mistaken.

In the Review, Chuck talks about a soldier duty. That in the right circumstances a soldier may bring concerns about an order to his superior officer, but if the officer disagrees, it is the soldiers duty to salute and go about following the order to the best of his ability. IIRC he (Chuck) even quotes the military rule book.

Does anyone remember which it was?

[GreyICE]

I don't know if it exists, but if it does, then Chuck's research has failed him. Soldiers in the United States military have a duty to disobey unlawful orders.

Now there is a defense that unless the order palpably illegal - example, round up a village, kill everyone, dump their bodies in a ditch - you can use the "following orders" defense. But it still doesn't absolve you of war crimes for following unlawful orders. Because that hyperbole about killing a village full of people and dumping their bodies in a ditch? Uh, yeah, a US Soldier did that. And yes he was following orders. And fuck yes he got convicted.

Things that will always get you convicted: Torture (of any flavor), retaliation killings, killings of civilians, targeting of hospitals, etc. Basically if you read the order and go "fuck yes that violates the Geneva Conventions" then you have a duty not to follow it.

Things that probably won't get you convicted, but might get a superior convicted: Call down an air strike on a location, fire a mortar shell at a target, set up land mines at a location, etc. There's legitimate military reasons to do any of those. You obviously can't get a full target profile of everything at all times during a war, so the people giving the orders take responsibility.

It basically kicks responsibility up the food chain in ambiguous cases. For instance, dropping a bomb on a nursery school is a war crime. Dropping a bomb on an ISIS training camp is not. And from 10,000 ft. you'll never know the difference, so it's on whoever gives you your mission briefing.

So yeah, if your superior says "I don't care what you say Private Shithead, you go shoot those people who surrendered to you, I don't want to drag them back to base and I don't want to let them go free" then tough shit. You can't shoot them. That's a war crime. NOT following that order might also get you in the shit, but that's Catch 22.

[longtimefan]

Oh For the love of....

Quite the lather you've worked yourself into there with your manifesto (which btw tl;dr).

I didn't say anything about blowing away children ffs get over yourself. damn I'm here for 1 f***ing post and already need the damned ignore button

[TGLS]

I'm trying to find one of the older reviews. I believe it was a DS9 review, but I may be mistaken.

In the Review, Chuck talks about a soldier duty. That in the right circumstances a soldier may bring concerns about an order to his superior officer, but if the officer disagrees, it is the soldiers duty to salute and go about following the order to the best of his ability. IIRC he (Chuck) even quotes the military rule book.

Does anyone remember which it was?

Have you tried Chain of Command (the TNG episode)

[Ixthos]

It wasn't in a DS9 episode, it was in Babylon 5, in either late season 3 or one of the ones in season 4, when Sheridan is telling Earth Force to back down after committing illegal orders.

Chuck basically outlined that the rules are: ill advised, counter productive, or potentially suicidal orders MUST be obeyed AFTER stating your opinion on them to your commander and they confirm they still want you to do them, but illegal orders must be DISOBEYED, but the problem is that if an order actually was illegal can only be fully determined after the fact.

[Thebestoftherest]

It wasn't in a DS9 episode, it was in Babylon 5, in either late season 3 or one of the ones in season 4, when Sheridan is telling Earth Force to back down after committing illegal orders.

Chuck basically outlined that the rules are: ill advised, counter productive, or potentially suicidal orders MUST be obeyed AFTER stating your opinion on them to your commander and they confirm they still want you to do them, but illegal orders must be DISOBEYED, but the problem is that if an order actually was illegal can only be fully determined after the fact.

Thoughts so.

[Ixthos]

Just checked, the episode where the difference between ill advised orders - which must be obeyed after voicing objections - and illegal orders that must be disobeyed, is covered in Babylon 5 Season 4 No Surrender, No Retreat, while Season 3 Severed Dreams just covers illegal orders.

[Freeverse]

Oh For the love of....

Quite the lather you've worked yourself into there with your manifesto (which btw tl;dr).

I didn't say anything about blowing away children ffs get over yourself. damn I'm here for 1 f***ing post and already need the damned ignore button

It wasn't in a DS9 episode, it was in Babylon 5, in either late season 3 or one of the ones in season 4, when Sheridan is telling Earth Force to back down after committing illegal orders.

Chuck basically outlined that the rules are: ill advised, counter productive, or potentially suicidal orders MUST be obeyed AFTER stating your opinion on them to your commander and they confirm they still want you to do them, but illegal orders must be DISOBEYED, but the problem is that if an order actually was illegal can only be fully determined after the fact.

So, basically, the video you're looking for says pretty much the same thing as the "manifesto" you refused to read because it was five short paragraphs, give or take a sentence or two.

I weep for our generation.

[Jonathan101]

People are saying it was a B5 episode, but it might have been the Voyager episode "Jetrel" because he makes similar arguments there.