On 21 Feb 2007 11:28:18 -0800, "tack" wrote:


The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to
fight for insane plots for world domination. I DO NOT support the
troops.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I do not recall such an oath
when I was active duty.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors
risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY
disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime
to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer.
Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the
disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

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.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm