Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMS General Discussions Politics I changed my mind
TOPIC: I changed my mind
Created by: JNMforPGHFUN The original post for this thread was deleted.
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4
 1 to 10 of 31   End
User Details are only visible to members.
LOL....care, you got me!

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sometimes I need to smack my forehead and say "should of had a V8".

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sen

Thought so LOL was running out of ways to make my point

St Petersburg FL
Username hidden
(989 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
StPete,

Your last post cleared up where my confusion was. Thanks, we are on basically the same page.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sen

"Rule 302d, Manual for Courts-Martial, specifically states that ever military member is responsible for obeying lawful orders AND disobeying unlawful orders AND IMMEDIATELY reporting them up the chain of command and other appropriate military authority. "Just Following Orders" IS NOT a defense, just like ignorance of the law is no excuse."

I really don't understand where the argument is here. You've got a couple of different circumstances wrapped up in that statement. Responsibility for obeying AND disobeying/reporting AND no defense for following orders. Regardless of the senario or which way it goes it's a "judgement call" by the individual to follow or not follow the order. Make the wrong judgement and you've got to "prove" you followed or didn't follow properly.

Ok damnit. LOL Don't hold me to the friggin 1 hour in basic. Do ya really think I remember how much I got.....nolo contendre....I'll accept the 6 hours. And then after basic not much more to reinforce (where as you received much more) ....and I attended and passed NCO Leadership School....received the class academic award as and E-4 Sargeant (when it existed). Got out on normal separation before Advanced NCO courses. An airman / soldier has still got to make a judgement call before deciding to disobey an order.......he better have justification whether it be court martial or article 15 (as I remember you never have to accept an Article 15...you can insist on your day in court.....if you feel lucky or justified).

St Petersburg FL
Username hidden
(989 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"I can't speak for soldiers but airmen only get a 1 hour class in basic training. An airmen and I suspect soldiers (who probably don't get much more) are not trained as lawyers or even paralegals under UCMJ. You've got to remember Sen, with your military police and military judicial training and experience you got much much more military law taught to you than the average airman/soldier." ---------------------------------------------------------------- StPete,

I attended in Air Force Basic Training in 1973 and at that time it was two 3 hour classes. Still have all my break down and training schedules throughout my military career ( I tend to keep everything - Damn pack rat - lol). I checked today's Basic Training and it has been expanded to 12 hours, up from 6 in the old days, god I feel ancient. That is even though I attended a 13 week Basic Training which has been extremely downsized and barely a month in today's Air Force. Plus, E3 through E9's receive NCO Prep school, NCO Leadership school, the NCO Academy and the Senior NCO Academy which all teach the rules under the MCM concerning a lawful order versus unlawful and when and how it they are applied. Those ARE NOT SP, MP or advance Criminal Investigation courses. Those courses are required of all enlisted personnel from when they enter the military and move up the promotion ladder.

Yes, my knowledge is more indepth because it went with the job, but that does not change the fact that Rule 302d, Manual for Courts-Martial, specifically states that ever military member is responsible for obeying lawful orders AND disobeying unlawful orders AND IMMEDIATELY reporting them up the chain of command and other appropriate military authority. "Just Following Orders" IS NOT a defense, just like ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sen

"StPete, have you ever disobeyed an order? I think everyone at one time or another has."

Actually no.....I don't believe I ever disobeyed an order in my 7+ years. I am sure I failed to complete orders satisfactorily or misunderstood. I was a pretty happy camper most of the time. LOL

"Normally it is handled through reasonable discussion at the lowest levels of supervision. If it cannot be absolved that way it goes up the Chain of Command. Administrative punishment (Article 15) or punitive punishment (Courts-Martial) is used when a person with "knowledge and contempt" of a lawful order has refused same."

This I have said .....twice. I obviously didn't say "most" of the time. I'm apparantly not making myself clear. It's not germane to my point if a case ends up in court martial or Article 15. The fact is under both circumstances the individual who refused the order "will" be punished by court martial or article 15. To avoid punishment that individual must "prove" that the order was "unlawful". Additional the individual can refuse to accept an article 15. Article 15's are the equivalent of "nolo contendre"......meaning I'm not admiting quilt, I'm not gonna fight you on the point and I'll accept the punishment.

"Debjack and my point is that this perception that ALL orders must be and are blindly followed is ridiculous."

And what I'm saying is the individual receiving the order he feels is questionable better think long and hard before deciding to disobey. It will be quilty until proven innocent.

"Same with Abu Ghraib. All testimony reflected that these soldiers were conducting humiliation tactics (sorry cannot call it torture) based on direction from other authority. Yet, all were still held accountable."

This I believe is the opposite of the point I've been trying to make. These soldiers "followed" orders which were later determined to be "unlawful".

As far as soldiers and airmen being taught about lawful and unlawful orders.....I can't speak for soldiers but airmen only get a 1 hour class in basic training. An airmen and I suspect soldiers (who probably don't get much more) are not trained as lawyers or even paralegals under UCMJ. You've got to remember Sen, with your military police and military judicial training and experience you got much much more military law taught to you than the average airman/soldier.

St Petersburg FL
Username hidden
(989 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
StPete, have you ever disobeyed an order? I think everyone at one time or another has. Normally it is handled through reasonable discussion at the lowest levels of supervision. If it cannot be absolved that way it goes up the Chain of Command. Administrative punishment (Article 15) or punitive punishment (Courts-Martial) is used when a person with "knowledge and contempt" of a lawful order has refused same.

Debjack and my point is that this perception that ALL orders must be and are blindly followed is ridiculous. Soldiers are taught what constitutes a lawful and unlawful order. In WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War and now this war, soldiers were courts-martialed and convicted of crimes and offenses even when higher authority was shown or provided by sworn testimony that the person was following orders. Look at Mai Lia, Lt Calley testified at most of the other 26 officer, NCO's and soldiers Article 32 hearings (Grand Jury) stating they were following orders. The case was still referred to a courts-martial as the Article 32 panel did not buy the "following orders" excuse. Later all members accepted Article 15 punishment versus facing the outcome of a Courts-Martial. Only Calley went through a Courts-Martial and he never served a day in jail. Although convicted he served his sentence under "House-Arrest".

Same with Abu Ghraib. All testimony reflected that these soldiers were conducting humiliation tactics (sorry cannot call it torture) based on direction from other authority. Yet, all were still held accountable. Where I think the military went wrong and succumbed to outside pressure was these men and women were Courts-Martialed without the option of accepting punishment under Article 15. Although the Manual for Courts-Martial allows the convening authority to remove that option, I think it was removed for political reasons, not the best interest in justice.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
DebJack

Someone or thing (court) must determine whether there is a "failure to follow a legal order" or within their military rights to ignore the order and therefore "innocent" of failure to obey.

St Petersburg FL
Username hidden
(989 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
DebJack

"Pete, about it having to go to court, wrong. It does not have to go there. "

That is ONE thing I said. Reread what I said about an Article 15 which can be punishment at the local unit level such as the commander of the unit.

"The leadership is taught that if an order is challenged to re-evaluate and decide. He is allowed to change his mind if he overlooked something, made a hasty decision, or didn't have all the facts and a subordinate notices something the leader did not. No big deal, it makes for great teamwork and respect for a leader who can recognize a mistake and correct it."

I have no problem with anything you said there and would agree. This is the ideal situation.

" The things you seem to refer to is possibly insobordination or someone not wanting to do the task assigned even if legal. "

No I am not referring to insubordination or someone desiring to shirk their duty. However, what I am talking about is the next step beyond your point I agreed with above. If the person in command (in charge) still believes his order is legal after being challenged by the person receiving such order and neither the "giver" or "receiver" conceeds.....charges of "insubordination" would be the result with the receiver of said order stuck with having to prove to a UCMJ Court (depending on what severity of charges) or as low as Article 15 punishment by say their commander.

St Petersburg FL
Username hidden
(989 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4
 1 to 10 of 31   End
TOPIC: I changed my mind