Posted on Mar 4, 2016
Should you disobey an Illegal order from the president concerning Geneva Convention/ROE/Ethics/Torture?
33.5K
379
265
9
9
0
Republican Presidential Debate Fox News GOP Debate 3/3/16 Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich
Republican Presidential Debate Fox News GOP Debate 3/3/16 Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich
I don't care about who you support, your political views, or whatever. For this question, I would like to simply have an informative, intelligent discussion on your opinions of Trumps statement made during the GOP debate regarding us obeying him in regards to torture, etc.
(the following is the whole GOP debate, starting at this question)
https://youtu.be/Uj8DNhxaWgw?t=2730
(the following is the whole GOP debate, starting at this question)
https://youtu.be/Uj8DNhxaWgw?t=2730
Posted in these groups: 
Elections
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Politics
Office of the President (POTUS)
Elections Rules of Engagement (ROE) Politics Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 103
48
48
0
War Crimes are War Crimes. It doesn't matter who instigates it. Illegal orders are illegal orders. A moral obligation is held to disobey illegal orders.
(48)
(0)
PO2 David Allender
SSgt John Parcell - It hasn't changed much since Nam. I wiill admit that Donald is nuttier than LBJ though.
(1)
(0)
PO2 David Allender
CDR William Kempner - Poor leadership, but remember that was just one year after Kent State where the National Guards fired on students. But again poor leadership shows every time. I have often wondered if Lt. Calley was ordered to clean out that village? We will never know though.
(1)
(0)
CDR William Kempner
PO2 David Allender - If you read the accounts, he was given an "implied order". Also My Lai was in 1970. Kent State was about the same time if I remember correctly. It was a bad time in America. As I said, if ONE element was different, it wouldn't have gone down like that.
(1)
(0)
PO2 David Allender
CDR William Kempner - Thank you, CDR, for the correction. I am 76 years of age and I sometimes get date4s mixed up. My Doctor would tell me "Just another sign of old age." I do remember the events of the times though, and you are right, it was a very bad time for our country, even up to and including the Iran-Contra dealings.
(1)
(0)
33
33
0
This is a very dicey subject. While it's easy to claim with moral righteousness that one wouldn't obey and unlawful order, it's damn hard to recognize it. For example, it's easy to assert that one wouldn't torture a prisoner regardless of who issued the order. However, you can bet they won't use the word "torture". They may resort to a euphemism such as "enhanced interrogation". Woe be unto you if a judge/court martial doesn't agree with your interpretation of "enhanced interrogations" vs "torture".
To be fair, I don't think that's our most pressing problem. I'd worry more about the "stupid" orders than the unlawful ones. They're the ones who put missions at risk and get people killed for no good purpose.
To be fair, I don't think that's our most pressing problem. I'd worry more about the "stupid" orders than the unlawful ones. They're the ones who put missions at risk and get people killed for no good purpose.
(33)
(0)
GySgt Ascencion Gomez, D.S.L.
CPT Jack Durish - lol, I like this answer the innocent take it to a different level of discussion.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SGT Jerrold Pesz - The statement was not in reference to saving my grandchildren from imminent threat. I had no intention of taking the thread in that direction. The intent was that I could show a video tape to my grandchildren of my conduct at a later date, away from the emotions of the moment and say that I acted in accordance with what I have tried to teach them. It was in reference to them observing MY CONDUCT and how I treated prisoners. One can always put together a set of circumstances that strain one's core values to the breaking point.
If it was a situation where there is an imminent threat to my grandchildren, my judgment would be suspect anyways. I would hope that I have a good SNCO/XO that would be emotionally divorced from the issue, that would tell me to "sit this one out", while they assumed command. Then I would have to hope I was smart enough to listen. In a high risk situation the last thing you want is a leader whose judgment is clouded by emotions.
If it was a situation where there is an imminent threat to my grandchildren, my judgment would be suspect anyways. I would hope that I have a good SNCO/XO that would be emotionally divorced from the issue, that would tell me to "sit this one out", while they assumed command. Then I would have to hope I was smart enough to listen. In a high risk situation the last thing you want is a leader whose judgment is clouded by emotions.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
GySgt Ascencion Gomez, D.S.L. - I am trying to make sure I understand the premise of the condition you put forward. "... if you don't shoot the bad guy enough to make sure they aren't able to continue". I do not believe that the legal premise is the capability to continue resistance, but the act of offering resistance. If I've misunderstood your statement, please expand on it so I can understand and disregard all of the following.
I would greatly appreciate the input of a JAG on this thread.
The presumption in my definition is that the prisoner has ceased to offer resistance. Any combatant that continues to offer resistance is by definition still a combatant, not a prisoner, and not under my protection. Unlike civilian law enforcement, I do not have a duty to use the minimum force necessary. The only legal authority that can require my command to use the minimum force necessary is; I am under orders to capture prisoners for interrogation.
I will even agree that there are times when taking a prisoner virtually guarantees that I can longer accomplish the mission. Small unit, long-range, deep reconnaissance - I cannot spare the personnel to guard a prisoner. What do I do? I'd need a JAG to confirm this, but I assume I am guilty of a war crime if I kill him. I also believe I am guilty of a war crime if I bind him and leave him, and make no provision to return and safely return him to my custody and protection.
Inherently, there is risk to the mission, the unit, and myself when I take a prisoner in the bush. Once again, I need a JAG to confirm this, but I don't think risk mitigation is a valid defense for mistreatment or torture of a prisoner.
I would greatly appreciate the input of a JAG on this thread.
The presumption in my definition is that the prisoner has ceased to offer resistance. Any combatant that continues to offer resistance is by definition still a combatant, not a prisoner, and not under my protection. Unlike civilian law enforcement, I do not have a duty to use the minimum force necessary. The only legal authority that can require my command to use the minimum force necessary is; I am under orders to capture prisoners for interrogation.
I will even agree that there are times when taking a prisoner virtually guarantees that I can longer accomplish the mission. Small unit, long-range, deep reconnaissance - I cannot spare the personnel to guard a prisoner. What do I do? I'd need a JAG to confirm this, but I assume I am guilty of a war crime if I kill him. I also believe I am guilty of a war crime if I bind him and leave him, and make no provision to return and safely return him to my custody and protection.
Inherently, there is risk to the mission, the unit, and myself when I take a prisoner in the bush. Once again, I need a JAG to confirm this, but I don't think risk mitigation is a valid defense for mistreatment or torture of a prisoner.
(0)
(0)
PO2 David Allender
I am worried about the News Media giving out Troop movements and/or plans of operations in advance, giving the enemy information. That can cost lives also, but who is giving this info out in the first place, as if I don't know?
(0)
(0)
21
21
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google