364
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + +
Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform? (view source)
Revision as of 09:32, March 19, 2007
, 09:32, March 19, 2007→Yes
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.
*'''Reply''' Military law has very clear rules about what constitutes a lawful order. An order to commit genocide would be unlawful, and therefore a serviceman is not only not obliged to follow it, but would be obliged to object. This is the basis upon which Nazi war criminals were found guilty of crimes they committed while under orders from their superiors.
An order to serve on a UN mission would be issued through the correct chain of command and would be lawful. A soldier would have no legal basis to object.
I personally believe (as an ex-servicman) that any military personnel refusing a lawful order for political reasons should be punished severely. If we allow our military to become politicised we weaken democracy.