Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So....if you REFUSE a direct order, you should be court-martialed?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:31 PM
Original message
So....if you REFUSE a direct order, you should be court-martialed?
All these folks writing and calling in to complain about the GIs in Iraq who refused to deliver contaminated fuel in unarmored vehicles...do they really feel
that they should be court-martialed?

Would their refusal be analogous to refusing to take a flight physical?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. they usually leave the CONTAMINATED FUEL out of the discussion
i've noticed.

i think that you can safely ignore an unlawful order i.e. contaminating your own troops :crazy:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowbody0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. my buddy in iraq said one guy was discharged
this was word of mouth - not official
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadmessengers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yes
To me, it is precisely analogous. To a wingnut? Probably not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiddenInVA Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes & Maybe
Yes, the GI's who refused to obey the lawful order to deliver the fuel
(the jury is still out on whether the fuel was contaminated - that has
turned into a 'he-said, she-said' fight), need their gonads held over
the fire. They knew when they signed up that they might get shot at,
and just because you are a truck-driver, that doesn't give you a waiver
to whine 'I might get shot at!' Suck it up dude!

As for refusing to take a physical, I'm not sure. The job required that
a physical be taken, to make sure that he was physically up for the
job slot that he was holding. By not taking the physical, he became
disqualified for the slot, and unable to perform the duty. In this
case, the AF could have pulled the 'and other duties as assigned' card
that the military is always good about using, and he could have been
manning a supply counter in BFE, Wyoming, dispensing toilet brushes
from the supply room. But, the family had $$, so......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Just curious...were you in the military?
I was.

Refusing a direct order is serious business. Applying a "Suck it up, dudes!" platitude to the situation reveals your understanding of military matters.

As far as refusing to take a physical: I was 40 minutes LATE for a flight physical once, and there was talk of an Article 15. In my 8 years active duty, I NEVER heard of someone refusing a flight physical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. I got some "suck it up dude' for ya right here......
I'd like to see you come say that at the funeral of a returned soldier (under cover of night..no photos, please). Say it to the family, ok?
Look up the one guy in the family who looks like me...the guy who's 6'4" and 280 lbs. Be sure to identify yourself as the person who thinks his nephew or his son's death can be framed in terms of "sucking it up"......explain it to them.....mmmmmmkay?
oh, and make sure someone has video running. We'd all like to see what transpires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. Mutineers should be Court Martialed
Where their grievances can be aired in a UCMJ court. There are good reasons to disobey a direct order and the only true and correct way to remedy them is in the court. Justice will prevail. It appears the military is doing a tap dance to avoid this during the election circus.

Hmmm, flight physical? Seems that justice wasn't served well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. true, though, 'Mutineers' is extreme
Edited on Mon Oct-18-04 02:09 PM by bpilgrim
and not descriptive of this situation 'refusing a direct order', not trying to take over command.

though the powers that be realize that a court martial won't look good if it turns out that troops were looking out for other troops and i agree, there's certainly a 'tap dance' goin on.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. You're correct...
yet the media chose to use that slanted word. Perhaps the UCMJ has a better definition.


My family rises up against my authority through mutinous actions all the time because we are a democracy (and mostly because they are smart) ;)


mutiny

\Mu"ti*ny\, v. i. 1. To rise against, or refuse to obey, lawful authority in military or naval service; to excite, or to be guilty of, mutiny or mutinous conduct; to revolt against one's superior officer, or any rightful authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Articles 92 and 94 of the UCMJ
Disobeying a direct order is not necessarily mutinous or seditious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RivetJoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Correct again.
Edited on Mon Oct-18-04 02:43 PM by RivetJoint
But it is grounds for courtmartial
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Thanks..why was the Port Chicago incident called a mutiny?
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq80-1.htm

Port Chicago Naval Magazine Explosion, 1944

<snip>
Port Chicago would also lead people to examine their society. There was growing resentment toward the policies of racial segregation throughout the nation. The Navy opened its ranks to African-Americans in 1942, but men served in segregated units supervised by white officers, and opportunities for advancement were extremely limited. The men assigned to the ordnance battalion were African American.

The explosion had shaken all of the men, but especially those surviving men who worked on the pier. Of the 320 men killed, almost 2/3 were African-American from the ordnance battalion. What had been minor grievances and problems before the explosion began to boil as apprehension of returning to the piers grew. On 9 August, less than one month after the explosion, the surviving men, who had experienced the horror, were to begin loading munitions, this time at Mare Island. They told their officers that they would obey any other order, but not that one.

Of the 328 men of the ordnance battalion, 258 African-American sailors refused to load ammunition. In the end, 208 faced summary courts-martial and were sentenced to bad conduct discharges and the forfeit of three month's pay for disobeying orders. The remaining 50 were singled out for general courts martial on the grounds of mutiny. The sentence could have been death, but they received between eight and fifteen years at hard labor after a trial which a 1994 review had strong racial overtones. Soon after the war, in January 1946, all of the men were given clemency and an opportunity for an honorable discharge. On 23 December 1999, President William Clinton pardoned Freddie Meeks of Los Angeles, one of the few still living members of the original 50.
<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RivetJoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Because when a HOST
of people begin disobeying an order, it can become a mutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. Folks that left Custer behind didn't mind a bit. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibLover Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. Their club, their rules.
If you join the army you volunteer to die. After signing on the dotted line it's too late to save yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Again...were you in the military?
There are rules in the UCMJ that deal with lawful orders. I think it is Article 92. I'll look it up.

I think in this case the GIs who refused to drive unarmored trucks have at least as good a leg to stand on as Bush who seems to have never given a satisfactory reason for refusing a direct order to take a flight physical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RivetJoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. You are on firm footing.
The UCMJ requires that LAWFUL orders must be obeyed. Now that these reservists have alledgedly disobeyed an order, the burden is on them to prove the order was indeed unlawful. Stupid, misguided, silly, or dangerous is no defense. The order must be unlawful. Shrub, in his failure to take his flight physical did not disobey a direct order, BTW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I agree, the onus is on the troops to establish the unlawful angle
I am looking through the UCMJ and other sources to see if there is an Army officer equivalent of "first, do no harm" or something like that. I'm sure that intentionally sending folks into harm's way UNNECESSARILY is illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RivetJoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Not necessarily.
Like I said, it may be stupid, but not illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I'm not so sure, but I am still researching it
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RivetJoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I am sure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petrock2004 Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. of course
BUT i think it is a very valuable study to consider that you can always judge the validity of a military movement by the willingness of the soldiers to do their duty. in WWII, how many US soldiers even volunteered for suicide missions, because they knew they were doing something to stop a genocide? but, in this "war," it seems that the soldiers know they're not dying for anything worthwhile. and while i agree with another poster that when you sign up, you know you'll have to perform dangerous missions, i can see and understand that even the soldiers think this war is a disgusting waste of human life.

so, personally, i applaud these soldiers. although, in a way, i'm sad that they had to break the law to share their point of view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MsTryska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I agree!
I actually have been thinking about this sine the story broke.


if you're troops arne't willign to go along with your mission, what does that say about your mission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC