IMMEDIATELY DO WTF YOU ARE TOLD TO DO .

" ANY QUESTIONS  ? "

It dosn't work that way.

Am I missing something?

Quoted: IMMEDIATELY DO WTF YOU ARE TOLD TO DO . " ANY QUESTIONS  ? "

Okay, If they tell you "Go Jump Off A Bridge"; will you do it?

Luckily not every service member feels that way when it really counts.

Quoted: Quoted: IMMEDIATELY DO WTF YOU ARE TOLD TO DO . " ANY QUESTIONS  ? " Okay, If they tell you "Go Jump Off A Bridge"; will you do it?

ORDERS ARE ORDERS BUD....

Quoted: It dosn't work that way.

+1 Only with an effective leader. Pushbutton know-nothings best be quiet.

It depends on who you are talking to, how long you have known the person, what kind of unit your are in, etc...

There are NCOs that drink beer after COB in the motor pool.

And then there are Sergeant Majors that will put you at parade rest if you fail to give them a greeting as you walk by...

It totally depends.

But yes, in general, there is a lot of institutionalized subservience in the Army.  This is ESPECIALLY true for lower enlisted folks like me.

Quoted: Am I missing something?

Another thread got sidetracked, so he started his own discussion.

Basically, he was saying that "orders are orders," regardless of whether they are lawful. If a soldier refused an order to confiscate guns, he could expect to get buttstroked in the back of the head by another soldier who was willing to.

There was also some mention of horrific penalties that could be imposed for refusing to follow an unlawful order.  And, as in this thread, there was a lot of disrespect towards military personnel for swearing an oath that obligated them to obey orders.

Ok this topic seems to be referring to something else.

Well on the issue of orders, that's what your chain of command and NCO support channel is for.

For example:  If your section leader gives you an order that you think is wrong, you can:

(1) Clarify it with him (he might have meant something else), then
(2) If he really meant it, then tell him you think it's wrong.  And then you go ahead and do it anyway (as long as it doesn't bring you danger or threaten you or someone else).
(3) And then after you have complied with his order, you take it up with the platoon sergeant, 1st sergeant, company commander, sergeant major, battalion commander, etc...

99% of the time it won't get any higher than the platoon sergeant.

Oh yea and btw you have the option of signing a DEC statement.  For example, if you get orders to go to Alaska and you really really don't want to be there.  But this is a career-ender.  Don't expect to re-enlist if you sign a DEC statement.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: IMMEDIATELY DO WTF YOU ARE TOLD TO DO . " ANY QUESTIONS  ? " Okay, If they tell you "Go Jump Off A Bridge"; will you do it? ORDERS ARE ORDERS BUD....

Orders are orders, my arse! There are some orders that simply cannot be obeyed, like round ing up civilians and killing them as retaliation (Mi Lai Massacre). i will not obey an order like that, even if it ends my career in the military; i rather be chastised and removed from service rather than do something like that.

Be more specific.

disaplane is the instant obidiance<sp> to orders...


right or wrong...

i deeply remember repeating that over and over as i was quarterdecked..

oh the fun memories

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: IMMEDIATELY DO WTF YOU ARE TOLD TO DO . " ANY QUESTIONS  ? " Okay, If they tell you "Go Jump Off A Bridge"; will you do it? ORDERS ARE ORDERS BUD....

Soldiers have no obligation to follow an illegal order.

Quoted: disaplane Discipline is the instant obidiance obedience to orders... right or wrong... i deeply remember repeating that over and over as i was quarterdecked.. oh the fun memories

Fixed it for you.

Bullshit...

Whether you are driving nukes or shovelin' shit..

" ORDERS ARE ORDERS ".

YOU TOO JAMBO.

My first duty is to uphold the constitution.  The 2A is part of that.  If ordered to confiscate weapons from lawful US civilians I'd refuse.

Quoted: My first duty is to uphold the constitution.  The 2A is part of that.  If ordered to confiscate weapons from lawful US civilians I'd refuse.

the thing is when presented with this situation you will not know if they are lawful if they were they wouldn't be portrayed as lawful.

Quoted: Soldiers have no obligation to follow an illegal order.

the problem is soldiers are not lawyers and sometimes its extremely hard to if the order legal or illegal.

Quoted: Quoted: Soldiers have no obligation to follow an illegal order. the problem is soldiers are not lawyers and sometimes its extremely hard to if the order legal or illegal.

Yup...
You took the oath, no time to analyze the planet, or the time or money it would take to win a case... so ... YOU TAKE YOUR ORDERS.. Period.

Quoted: Quoted: My first duty is to uphold the constitution.  The 2A is part of that.  If ordered to confiscate weapons from lawful US civilians I'd refuse. the thing is when presented with this situation you will not know if they are lawful if they were they wouldn't be portrayed as lawful. Quoted: Soldiers have no obligation to follow an illegal order. the problem is soldiers are not lawyers and sometimes its extremely hard to if the order legal or illegal.

Well, jump off a bridge is obviously not a lawful/legal order.

Just like in the civilian world, you will come across plenty of supervisors and leaders that don't know WTF they doing.
If an an NCO gives you a retarded, dangerous but lawful order and you decide to do something different, just be prepared to stand in front of The Man and explain yourself. You maybe fucked or you may not.

Despite your attitude, I'll give a serious answer here.

If you are on patrol in Iraq and your platoon leader shouts out "Shoot that car now!" you don't play 20 questions.  You shoot the car, and you do it now.  Maybe it isn't the right call, but unless you have specific reason to believe otherwise, you are obligated to assume that the order is lawful.

Some orders are clearly unlawful, and they range from fairly trivial (like doing your First Sergeant's laundry) to serious war crimes (like shooting unarmed prisoners).  "Following orders" is never an excuse for committing an act which you should have known was illegal.  In fact, you would be obligated to try to prevent the others from committing a crime in your presence (while staying within the law).  Other unlawful orders would include things like being ordered to kill yourself, or being asked to knowingly violate the Constitution.

There is also a lot of grey area.  A good example would be if you were ordered to serve under a foreign officer.  That may be unlawful, but it is something that a layman can not easily understand and it would have to be settled by people with specialized education.  Since an order like this is not irreversible (unlike murder), the recommended course is that you comply but pursue alternate means (chain of command, inspector general, JAG, etc.) to resolve the issue.


If you are faced with an order that is clearly unlawful, the appropriate response is to ask for clarification.  Then, assuming that you heard the order correctly, you should inform your superior that you believe the order to be unlawful, and give him a chance to reconsider.  If he persists in issuing an unlawful order, then you must refuse if obeying would constitute a crime on your part (like murder).

If you violate a direct order, you may be faced with several different punishments:

Negative Counselling statement - a record is put in your personnel file but no direct action is taken.  You can write a rebuttal to go in your record with it.

Company-Grade Article 15 - This is administrative punishment by your company commander.  He can reduce your rank, temporarily reduce your pay, or require extra duty, but the maximum penalties are very low.  If you disagree that the punishment is fair, you can request a Court Martial.

Field-Grade Article 15 - This is administrative punishment by a field-grade officer (battalion-level and up).  The types of punishment are the same as for a company-grade article 15, but you can be demoted a little further, have just a bit more pay taken, and be put on extra duty for just a bit longer.  Again, you can refuse the punishment and request a court martial instead.

Court Martial - I have little knowledge of how these courts work, other than both sides are represented by lawyers and it involves a judge and jury comprised of military personnel.  A court martial is required for any punishment involving jail time, discharge from the military, or anything else that would be considered severe.

BiscuitsJaM

You are a good troop..
HOWEVER:
IF I tell you ... you are jumpin' off this chopper and doin' a TANK.
You follow orders... NOW.

READ ME BRO ?

Quoted: BiscuitsJaM You are a good troop.. HOWEVER: IF I tell you ... you are jumpin' off this chopper and doin' a TANK. You follow orders... NOW. READ ME BRO ?

I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but that is one of the stupidest things that I have heard in a long time.

Quoted: BiscuitsJaM You are a good troop.. HOWEVER: IF I tell you ... you are jumpin' off this chopper and doin' a TANK. You follow orders... NOW. READ ME BRO ?

OMG... this is a joke, right?  Please tell me this has been a joke.

BiscuitsJaM, your patience is admirable.  If it's any consolation, the effort you put into those responses wasn't entirely wasted; I learned something.

Quoted: Court Martial - I have little knowledge of how these courts work, other than both sides are represented by lawyers and it involves a judge and jury comprised of military personnel.  A court martial is required for any punishment involving jail time, discharge from the military, or anything else that would be considered severe.

Close, theres 3 kinds of CM:

General, Summary and Special.

General is the most severe and this is the one that includes lawyers for both and judge/jury.

Special is intermediate with up to 3 people on jury.  It is requested instead of a Summary where you may have better chances of winning because majority vote instead of just one person as in Summary....but the punishments are also more severe should you be convicted.

Summary is least severe and is just you, your lawyer and the Judge/prosecutor/defense.  You may attain a lawyer but you are not guaranteed one.  The Judge/pros/defense is an all-in-one.  He also has a legal counselor waiting in the wings should any questions about the law proceeding arise, he can take a short few min. recess to discuss with him.  The judge is NOT a lawyer or anyone with prior law experience, generally.

umm, if you mean that your supposed to get out of the LANDED helicopter, and get into an allied/enemy unmanned tank, or capture an enemy tank, then thats not an unlawful order. You are aquiring new assets for the military, possibly helping win the war.

If your going into that tank because the loader was hurt, and they're short a loader, then suck it up and do it. Thats what uncle sam pays you for. Just because your a marksman, or a grenadier, if the tank crew needs help, thats your priority.

Now if your saying something like, jump out of this moving helo thats 50 yards in the air, then thats basically comitting suicide, and you have the right to NOT follow that order.

Like said before, if the officer in charge makes you do something you dont like (like un clogging the toilets in the bathroom) then tough shit. Nobody said the army was easy. But there are limits on WHAT they can make you do. If its unconstitutional, like disarming a town because they have expressed dissent (as in speaking out against, not acting upon) on the goobermint, that would be wrong. But if that town is threatening to overthrow the government without just cause, or have hurt people, or comitted crimes, then thats a lawful order.

Clear as mud?

BTW, no offence, but you sound like the same kind of guy in Full Metal Jacket,who's ridin in that helo shootin civies

ETA

all your page 2 are belong to us

OOOPS Double post

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: IMMEDIATELY DO WTF YOU ARE TOLD TO DO . " ANY QUESTIONS  ? " Okay, If they tell you "Go Jump Off A Bridge"; will you do it? hinking.gif

SIR, YES, SIR!!! How high a bridge should I jump from, SIR?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: IMMEDIATELY DO WTF YOU ARE TOLD TO DO . " ANY QUESTIONS  ? " Okay, If they tell you "Go Jump Off A Bridge"; will you do it? SIR, YES, SIR!!! How high a bridge should I jump from, SIR?

Kids!

SIR, should I jump feet first or head first, SIR?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My first duty is to uphold the constitution.  The 2A is part of that.  If ordered to confiscate weapons from lawful US civilians I'd refuse. the thing is when presented with this situation you will not know if they are lawful if they were they wouldn't be portrayed as lawful. Quoted: Soldiers have no obligation to follow an illegal order. the problem is soldiers are not lawyers and sometimes its extremely hard to if the order legal or illegal. Well, jump off a bridge is obviously not a lawful/legal order.

Oh? and why not?  Please cite some reasonable ruling or other legal basis for that.  I would suggest the Manual for Courts Martial is a good place to start.  (For every hypothetical circumstance where it doesn't make sense, I can come up with an equally valid situation where the order to jump off a bridge makes sense.  Since that dog won't fight, what legal basis do you have?)

Way too many people posting here are making blanket statements here about matters they have neither the experience and/or education to make a qualified and correct answer to.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So unless you are extremely clear in your mind, and are able to articulate a valid reason why the order is illegal based on the regulations and/or UCMJ to a Court-Martial, you'ld better obey the order and make your complaint afterwards.

See R.C.M. 916(e)(2)(d)  page II-109 of the Manual for Courts Martial 2005 edition

Also the elements sections for violations of Articles 92 and 94 of the UCMJ

Just to say I'm sure or I know it violates the Second Amendment is not going to fly very far, unless you or your counsel are able to prove that it does under the circumstances in which it was given.

Otherwise you could end up like that kid that refused the orders to wear the Blue Helmet because "American soldiers never serve under the orders of foreign officers, in foreign forces or in the UN Forces", hence an illegal order.  All of those claims are clearly incorrect and easily shown to be historically and currently inaccurate.

Well if that bridge was collapsing, and your commander told you to get the fuck off, then would i do it? yes, because water can move out of the way, concrete cant.

But if tells you to do so for no reason other than to see you do it... well then he can shove that order up his arse.

While all good and necessary, this mindless obedience is IMO getting our military in trouble to some extent in todays war.  Its a Cpl/Lcpl (Army feel free to chime in) fight and you 99% of the time don't have time to ask Sarge what to do.  IMO we need to teach our new joins more thinking and less Aye Sir.


Flame suit zipped and ready to rock.

Quoted: I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So unless you are extremely clear in your mind, and are able to articulate a valid reason why the order is illegal based on the regulations and/or UCMJ to a Court-Martial, you'ld better obey the order and make your complaint afterwards. See R.C.M. 916(e)(2)(d)  page II-109 of the Manual for Courts Martial 2005 edition Also the elements sections for violations of Articles 92 and 94 of the UCMJ Just to say I'm sure or I know it violates the Second Amendment is not going to fly very far, unless you or your counsel are able to prove that it does under the circumstances in which it was given. Otherwise you could end up like that kid that refused the orders to wear the Blue Helmet because "American soldiers never serve under the orders of foreign officers, in foreign forces or in the UN Forces", hence an illegal order.  All of those claims are clearly incorrect and easily shown to be historically and currently inaccurate.

That guy that refused to wear UN insignia is a fool.  He's specifically used in many classes as an example of what NOT to do about a questionable order.

I'm not an expert, but, as with any other U.S. servicemember, I'm expected to have a small amount of knowledge.  Lawyers can argue over these things endlessly, but, in the end, it comes down to what the soldier in the field thinks is the right thing to do.  If he makes a poor choice or can't articulate himself, he has to be willing to take the consequences.

Gun confiscations can take many forms, and it is conceivable that some of them could be "lawful" while others are "unlawful."

"No citizen in this town is allowed to have guns, period." is a clear infringement of the wording of both the U.S. Constitution and the state Constitution.  Lawyer-types may disagree, of course, but I think this one is pretty clear.

"All citizens must be evacuated from their homes to save them from flooding - no guns are allowed in the shelters" is not obvious.  Maybe it is an unlawful order and maybe not, but it would require a whole lot of courts to sort it out.

Just do like I did, find a private and have him do it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: IMMEDIATELY DO WTF YOU ARE TOLD TO DO . " ANY QUESTIONS  ? " Okay, If they tell you "Go Jump Off A Bridge"; will you do it? ORDERS ARE ORDERS BUD....

Sure hope you aren't in the Military, especially in a leadership position.  


That defense was tried at Nuremberg?  It didn't go over very well there either.

Presuming their innocence, would you execute your Mom and Dad if ordered?  Would you spray your whole family with FA fire?  Grenade a school yard full of children? There are ordrs and then  there are lawful orders.

My money would be safe betting that fundummy has zero military experience.  

I'm curious, is it fun to have paranoid fantasies?

" ...according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."  As a cadet, we were taught you have a duty not to obey an unlawful order.  If ordered to commit a war crime, you have a duty not to obey that order.  Just ask Lt. Calley.  There is always someone like fundummy who forgets your oath applies only to lawful orders.  It clearly does not apply to committing a war crime, for example.  That does not mean there might not be consequences.  Yes, you still might be punished for not obeying that particular order ( there is an asshat in every chain of command it seems), but better to do some time in Leavenworth than be hung for a war crime.  Grey areas are just that and you have to be willing to pay the price if you choose to not obey.  Your duty is to obey, but the oath clearly does not imply obedience to unlawful orders.  To this day, Nazi concentration camp guards are hunted down and tried.  To say they were just following orders is no defence.

It's amazing how much attention these idiotic troll threads get.

Instant willingness and obeidence to orders.... (lawful orders)
As learned in Boot.

Quoted: BiscuitsJaM You are a good troop.. HOWEVER: IF I tell you ... you are jumpin' off this chopper and doin' a TANK. You follow orders... NOW. READ ME BRO ?

Who the hell are you supposed to be?  Sgt Slobber?

Quoted: Another thread got sidetracked, so he started his own discussion. ... And, as in this thread, there was a lot of disrespect towards military personnel for swearing an oath that obligated them to obey orders.

In that case, it is obvious that the original poster doesn't know Mr. Avila's attitude towards that like I do.

He is on very, very thin ice.

Practically speaking, if some order is illegal and dangerous (i.e. could either get you and your fellow soldiers killed if you disobey and tried for war crimes eventually if you do obey) prudence is called for.

You need to bring it to the attention of higher authority without getting yourself killed.

But lets be clear here; in the 4 years of GWOT how many times have we heard of higher command ordering an illegal and evil act? Less than a dozen real cases, most of which were squad level actions in the middle of the two way shooting gallery, or immediately after a fire fight/IED/SNIPER attack when the fog of war is thickest.

Abu G. was hardly a top down affair; it wasn't Cheney and Rumsfield running the prison and it wasn't CIA agents commanding the sargeants to play all the tricks, take photos and make asses of themselves.

No, the real evil mess ups happen bureaucratically - like the stupid order to pull out armour from Mogudishu and then being told, minus APCs, and tanks, to go after the hell holes' biggest war lord, in broad daylight, smack dab in the center of his militia's base.

Politicians playing generals have caused the greatest evil and suffering in war by far.

Quoted: IMMEDIATELY DO WTF YOU ARE TOLD TO DO . " ANY QUESTIONS  ? "

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Soldiers have no obligation to follow an illegal order. the problem is soldiers are not lawyers and sometimes its extremely hard to if the order legal or illegal. Yup... You took the oath, no time to analyze the planet, or the time or money it would take to win a case... so ... YOU TAKE YOUR ORDERS.. Period.

WTF?  Have you ever recited or read the oath of enlistment?  While it does mention obeying the lawful orders of the officers appointed over you, it also expressly states, quote "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That means orders which violate the Constitution do not have to be followed, so no gun confiscations, etc...

Quoted: BiscuitsJaM You are a good troop.. HOWEVER: IF I tell you ... you are jumpin' off this chopper and doin' a TANK. You follow orders... NOW. READ ME BRO ?

Are you drunk?

Yeah, because "I was following orders" has always been such a great defense.






I'll give it a out of


96Ag

Quoted: BiscuitsJaM You are a good troop.. HOWEVER: IF I tell you ... you are jumpin' off this chopper and doin' a TANK. You follow orders... NOW. READ ME BRO ?

I've read some internet commando crap on the internet before but this is real stupid.  Are you in the Military or have you ever been?  Have you ever been a NCO/officer?  If you answered no to the above then nevermind, you have no idea what your talking about.

A soldier has the duty to NOT follow an unlawful order or directive.  If you knowingly follow a unlawful order you will be in a world of shit.  Confiscating guns could be both lawful and unlawful depending on the situation.  

I seriously doubt Mr. Fundummy is anything more than an armchair commando with that attitude or he is just pulling peoples chains.  If you were in Mr. Fundummy then tell us when, where, time served and rank.  I did time with HHC 1/30th Inf on Ft. Benning from 97-99 and 99-01 with HHC 2/5 Cav on Ft. Hood with two trips to the big sand box mixed in there.  I finished my time out with the Texas Nasty Girls as a lowly E5p.