Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
You have a gun and you're pointing it at innocent people because a billionaire told you to. They've done nothing to you or your family, or to your country.
Yet you're the one in their house, gun pointed in the face of their kids.
Is that moral?
You have a gun and you're pointing it at innocent people because a billionaire told you to. They've done nothing to you or your family, or to your country.
Yet you're the one in their house, gun pointed in the face of their kids.
Is that moral?
When has it ever been moral?
You see, if you are from a poor country and you do this, you are a terrorist. But if you're from the west and white, you're a liberator.
History is witness that it has never stopped them from doing it for centuries.
Germany has it encoded in their constitution, military personel can disobey unlawful and imoral orders.
It's the same in the US, but you have to be court-martialed to prove that the order was unlawful (ie, you fail to obey a command, you'll be arrested, and only let go if the military tribunal determines you were right to not follow that command).
If Germany's system is the same... then you've got the rule on paper only. Soldiers don't question orders, it's how they're taught to act. This is a post hoc justification for punishing regular soldiers for unlawful acts, rather than anything actually actionable in the moment.
I'm know little about the details around how it works in the US, but I think saying
This is just a post hoc justification for punishing regular soldiers for unlawful acts
Is a bit of an oversimplification. The point is that if a soldier will face consequences for disobeying an order, but no consequences for obeying an unlawful one, they have no dilemma (outside their own morals) when faced with an order they believe is illegal. Furthermore, they can be coerced into doing things they know is wrong and illegal. By putting this into law, you force the soldier to face the dilemma that if they truly believe an order is illegal, they can be punished for following it. That gives a much stronger incentive to actually stand your ground when ordered to do something that makes you think "there's no way in hell that this can be legal". It also removes or diminishes an officers power to coerce soldiers to do something they know is wrong and illegal.
Regarding
Soldiers don't question orders, it's not how they're taught to act.
there's probably some minor cultural differences between armies here, but by and large you're probably mostly right. However, I don't think it's right in extreme (think, genocide) circumstances. A lot of these laws came in place post-WWII, and are formulated with the knowledge in mind that soldiers can and have been ordered to execute civilians and shoot at unarmed protesters. I've been a soldier myself, and would definitely question an order to open fire on unarmed civilians. I hope most other soldiers would do the same.
The problem is that the consequences aren't balanced. If you disobey an order, the consequences are immediate. If you obey an illegal order, you might face consequences at some point in the future. If you disobey an order because you genuinely believe it's illegal, there's no protection for you if that happens to not be the case. Meaning the only way to know that you're safe to disobey an order on the grounds that it's illegal is to know exactly what law is being broken. Not a thing that soldiers are trained to know.
That, plus, in that moment you have to have a mountain of conviction to resist doing the thing they've been drilling into your head since basic, follow orders without thinking. Which is why I'm saying it amounts to nothing more than "the common soldiers aren't supposed to follow illegal orders, this is all their fault for not stopping this" as a justification.
I believe it‘s even more strict than that (insert obligatory I am not a lawyer here).
For military commands, German soldiers must not obey orders that would constitute a criminal offense (§11(2) SG). Outside of that, the respective laws for civil servants are applicable (§11(3) SG). These laws, specifically §63 BBG, contain an obligation to object to illegal orders (Remonstrationspflicht). If a civil servant doesn‘t object, they are personally responsible for their actions.
So it‘s not just an option to object to unlawful orders, it‘s an obligation.
This is essentially the same in the US, soldiers are required to disobey an unlawful order.
That's said, you had better be absolutely certain about that decision to disobey an order, because there most likely will be a hearing/court martial over any such incident. If the brass don't see the situation the same way, you're gonna be in a lot of trouble.
Similar law in Norway IIRC. The idea is essentially to put you (the soldier) in the situation where being threatened with punishment for disobeying the order is weighted up against the threat of punishment for obeying an unlawful order. Basically, if you're given an order you honestly believe is illegal, it's a lot easier to stand by a decision to face the consequences of disobeying it if you know that following the order can lead to the same, or worse, consequences.
~~Acceptable~~
Imperative FTFY
Oh shit! You mean it’s ok to not commit atrocities atrocities? What an innovative new idea.
It's a new one for the church.
It's an indescribably rare, but welcome statement from religious and military leadership that I welcome. Hooray for me.
Excellent. Send the good Cardinal to the front.