Actually, A Simple Question

A profound change came about in 1949 with the way we in the United States and indeed the world fought wars. This change occurred at the conclusion of the trials in Nuremberg (Nürnberg) of NAZI war criminals.

Prior to these trials, a soldier's duty was to follow all orders unquestioningly. The American military prior to these trials had existed in a state of naiveté. We, as Americans had always taken for granted that our military officers and elected officials were basically good, moral and trustworthy people.

In the 1940's however, that naiveté was shattered on the barbarous shoals of NAZI Germany. It was there, that it became clear that the honor of otherwise moral men could be twisted by a malignant power. Or, further that claiming the protection of military discipline could be used to shield said malignancy.

It became suddenly clear that men of moral fiber were constrained first and foremost to the rule of law and basic human decency, and only after that, subordinate to military discipline. In other words, it became clear that claiming, "I was following orders" did not excuse a man from the rigors of humanity.

From that point on, the soldier was engendered with the responsibility of lawful conduct and further the responsibility to evaluate the legality of every order that he (or she) was given. The soldier's indentured service to corps was subjugated to the greater duty of responsibility to basic human morality.

Stated even more clearly, the most basic of soldierly tenets was given a loophole and new responsibility. Now the basic tenet of, "a soldier's duty was to follow all orders unquestioningly" was amended with one small word to read; "a soldier's duty was to follow all legal orders unquestioningly".

At first glance the addition of that one small word would seem innocuous, but indeed it was an earth shattering alteration to the most basic rule of soldiering. It made the extraordinary commonplace. With the addition of this one simple word, the lowliest of privates was given the ability to evaluate the orders of his superiors. Further not only was he given the ability, he was ascribed the responsibility and accountability for the actions of the corps as a whole.

So let me boil this exercise in verbosity down to guttural terms.

As a soldier it is your duty to obey orders, unless they are illegal. In which case, it is your duty to snitch.

I was taught this revolutionary tenet in basic training, as was every soldier since 1949. In fact I defy any soldier or veteran to question that very basic statement of fact.

This was a very liberal shift for a traditionally conservative institution. It shifted the scope of "duty" to include a responsibility for basic human rights and the supersedence of moral law over military law. Suddenly NCO's had to amend their speech, instead of saying "I am giving you a direct order", they had to add that troublesome little word "lawful" to make it, "I am giving you a direct lawful order". Only god knows how many times I heard that phrase during my tenure in Uncle Sam's club for wayward boys...

There is a point to all of this. The point is a simple question, mainly directed toward my readers who are also veterans. If a soldier is given an order to shoot a baby, what action(s) should he take?

Allow me to answer this rhetorical question and you may certainly disagree, if you feel I am wrong. The answer is. First, the soldier should refuse to carry out the order. Second, the soldier is duty bound to immediately report the issuance of this unlawful order to their superior's superior officer.

Unquestionably, these would be the only available actions of not only a loyal soldier, but also those of any human being with even a rag-tag sense of decency.

Am I right or am I right?

There are those who would disagree with this assessment however. I ask you now, could you possibly find any circumstance where this would not be a valid assessment, any circumstance where you could excuse a person who suspended basic human morals; who acted in a fashion other than I have outlined? Is there any excuse for a person to suspend basic human decency? I think not. Our jails house people such as these. People who suspend these base rules of social behavior. We call them criminals, serial killers, rapists and pedophiles. They are the dregs of society.

Allow me, if you will to share a few quotes:

"we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva
Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of
prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam."

"We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that
moves..."

"I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of
atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in
shootings in free fire zones. "

If the first part of this text was uncontroversial, how then could the man who uttered this definition of, and admission to inhumanity; this dereliction of the most basic duty of a soldier to disobey unlawful orders and immediately report their occurrence be uncontroversial?

I'm as equally certain that you know who uttered these words, as I am that you have concocted a flaccid facade to excuse them in the passion of your partisanship.

On another note, For those of you who still wish to contend that John Kerry was speaking only for those soldiers involved in the winter soldier "investigation" when he was testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the simple utterance of the words "accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam" would indicate that your idea of the scope of his testimony is erroneous and simply stated disingenuous.

As a veteran, supporting a man such as this makes you complicit with his atrocities and just as reprehensible!