Law of Armed Conflict

Published on May 13, 2004 By dharmagrl In Current Events

This link takes you to a plain English explanation of the Law of Armed Conflict. If you have any interest in the war in Iraq whatsoever, I'd highly recommend you read it.

Link

To all those who believe the personnel at Abu Ghraib should be found innocent because they were "just following orders", please take note:

SECTION VII- Consequences

We all have an individual duty to know the law of armed conflict and to follow the rules. This includes reporting suspected violations. If we do not report them, we can be subject to trial by an international court or we can be prosecuted by the military.

You must also follow lawful orders. However, an order to commit a criminal act, such as a violation of the law of armed conflict, is illegal...you must not follow it. You can presume an order to perform a military duty is legal, but following an order that an ordinary person would know to be illegal, isn't excusable. For instance, an order to shoot all unarmed civilians or to kill a POW would be illegal. Obeying it would be a violation.

What should you do if you think you've been given an illegal order? First, ask for clarification. Maybe the order was unclear, or you didn't understand it. If you still think the order is illegal, try to get it withdrawn. If that doesn't work, you must disobey it. If others obey the order, you have the duty to report that violation of the law of armed conflict.

Any questions?

Comments

dharmagrl

on May 14, 2004

I guess no-one had any questions or comments...I hope this helps put to bed the "just following orders" debate.

Solitair

on May 14, 2004

Nice link.

No questions though

Paul.

kingbee

on May 14, 2004

id be curious to know about the real-world implications of refusal to follow an illegal order. no matter how many directives and policies are issued to protect whisleblowers in business or government, people who actually go out on a limb because they believe their employer is engaged in illegal activities are taking a big gamble. i'm not trying to question the basis for doing the right thing nor the principle. my current hero is cwo hugh thompson although technically he wasnt refusing an order so much as providing instant ethics to those who should have done the refusing.

JillUser

on May 14, 2004

Like I said on your article about pfc England, my Dad (Army guy during Vietnam) said that they didn't get a whole hell of a lot of training but one thing they did stress was that you are obligated to use your own judgement about orders and not follow an immoral/illegal order. During war time you have your life in danger anyway. Refusing to carry out an order might put you in temporary legal dispute but is that really a "risk" for you? Most people can judge pretty quickly whether or not they could live with something they are about to do. I personally could sooner live with myself in jail over refusing to do something I knew to be wrong than live with myself after doing such a thing. But then again, a lot of people find it a lot easier to pass the buck then to take personal responsibility.

JillUser

on May 14, 2004

Darn it all! Dharma, could you please delete one of those? I submitted, got the old "This Page Cannot Be Displayed", resubmitted and voila. This is happening to me a lot lately. Better write to the guys to fix it.

kingbee

on May 14, 2004

i was thinkin more along the lines of being shot for refusing an order under fire.

kingbee

on May 14, 2004

jill when that happens, click back and copy your text...then refresh the page. more than likely youll see its actually posted.

shadesofgrey

on May 14, 2004

dharma--I actually replied last night, but it apparently didn't post...hmm...(I'm sure I could come up with a conspiracy theory on that--but I'll spare you).

My comment was something to the effect of: Thanks, that clears up a lot of questions.

Gerry Atrick

on May 14, 2004

The "just following orders" defense was used extensively by Nazis at the Nuremberg trials (1947-48) and came to be known as the "Nuremberg Defense". It did not work then and it should not work now.
Of course, if there were orders given then those people are equally culpable. As are those who condoned such actions, though dont hold your breathe. Mr Rumsfeld knew about these abuses for months and did nothing, he would still be doing nothing about it if the pictures hadn't gotten out. And what does he get? A vote of confidence from the President....makes you sick.

psychx

on May 14, 2004

I think it's not only an issue of whether it was lawful or not but what about morality, forget your orders what about principle, feeling that treating any human being as an animal is inhumane and terribly wrong, that in itself should have been enough to stop them from doing what they did... sorry Dharma I don't mean to rant, it just is upsetting.

dharmagrl

on May 14, 2004

Rant away, Psychx. I don't mind...and you;re right. What happened was wrong. Their 'morality meter' should have told them it was wrong, and that plus the LoAC guidlines should have been enough to ensure it didn't go any further.

Unfortunately there seemed to be a lack of morality there as well - that's why PFC England and her comrades were having orgies and putting on sex shows.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!