Opinion At what point can a Sodier be Blamed for their actions ? And

[mozfonky]

Yeah I’m honestly kind of floored by just how astonishingly dumb this thread is. I think I’ll just peace out on this one. Maybe I’ll just come back to check and see if any of them figured out how to research if being a soldier in a war is illegal

Hint for all the winners in this thread: being a soldier isn’t what got the Nasis that were tried into trouble

the question is valid though, we do know that soldiers are not supposed to do some of the things that they do in wars, rape, torture, killing kids and the elderly. There have to be rules for those things because people go off the deep end without those rules. We had the vietnam thing (My Lai) and We had the thing in the middle east where our soldiers were taking pictures and making prisoners do weird sexual shit.

We (humans) are absolute monsters in our core and you give free reign to that and it comes right out, that's why the question is valid and that's why even with war, something where it might sound stupid to say there are rules, the need for rules.

 

[Blayt7hh]

the question is valid though, we do know that soldiers are not supposed to do some of the things that they do in wars, rape, torture, killing kids and the elderly. There have to be rules for those things because people go off the deep end without those rules. We had the vietnam thing (My Lai) and We had the thing in the middle east where our soldiers were taking pictures and making prisoners do weird sexual shit.

We (humans) are absolute monsters in our core and you give free reign to that and it comes right out, that's why the question is valid and that's why even with war, something where it might sound stupid to say there are rules, the need for rules.

Yeah you’re missing the point… these laws are established. You don’t have to sit here and ponder it. To answer your burning question no a soldier (obviously) can not be tried for having fought in Iraq

 

[mozfonky]

Yeah you’re missing the point… these laws are established. You don’t have to sit here and ponder it. To answer your burning question no a soldier (obviously) can not be tried for having fought in Iraq

you're right, I don't think they can. Even though Vincent bugliosi spent some of his last years going after George Jr., insisting he could be tried, it went nowhere. I suppose if things were different, if the iraqi's and irani's had somehow won and won big, then instead of sadaam being hung, it would have been GW but we know things didn't turn out remotely like that.

 

[tenniswhiz]

Yeah I’m honestly kind of floored by just how astonishingly dumb this thread is. I think I’ll just peace out on this one. Maybe I’ll just come back to check and see if any of them figured out how to research if being a soldier in a war is illegal

Hint for all the winners in this thread: being a soldier isn’t what got the Nasis that were tried into trouble

The thread title clearly says “blame”.
We’re not talking about legality. We’re talking about morality.
I’m surprised a person who is presumably so much more intelligent than everyone else in this thread couldn’t grasp this simple concept.

 

[mozfonky]

The thread title clearly says “blame”.
We’re not talking about legality. We’re talking about morality.
I’m surprised a person who is presumably so much more intelligent than everyone else in this thread couldn’t grasp this simple concept.

honestly, you never get away from your own conscience anyways, even if you're a horrible person and love being a horrible person, meaning you don't feel a bit of guilt, even then, it's gonna affect you. I once read Don King had a fit of paranoia and started panicking and getting shit together to try and go on the run, no one was doing anything to him, it was in him. People know what they are. And.., if you're spiritual, you have to wonder about the effect in the afterworld of anything you do. I would think that killing anyone for any reason would have to mark your soul in some way, no matter what and that's not something you even have to discuss "will there be punishment" which points to an external force of some kind, don't even need that, it's in a person.

 

[Blayt7hh]

At what point is a victim of coercion blameless for their actions?

I was just thinking about the nazi soldiers who were prosecuted for ww2.

The thread title clearly says “blame”.
We’re not talking about legality. We’re talking about morality.
I’m surprised a person who is presumably so much more intelligent than everyone else in this thread couldn’t grasp this simple concept.

You see what had happened was I had read the OP

 

[Jack V Savage]

C'mon.

Many, and most in history, armies/soldiers are/were conscripted.
That means they didn't join voluntarily, they were forced to be there in the first place.

Say, for example, you have a wife and child. You are given an order. You refuse that order. What do you think happens?

For reference, refusing an order during war-time in the USA constitutes grounds for your commanding officer to potentially shoot you (or have you shot).

On the other hand, even obeying orders, you can (and may be) tried for various crimes.

Soldiers are frequently scape-goats for those in a position of authority. I don't believe they should be blameless for personal decisions of monstrosity, but I DO believe the penalties they faced from those in power above them should mitigate any acts they are evaluated for.

Examples:

If the CO orders the unit "occupy" the village, and they kill every man, woman, and child they see, I agree they are criminals.

If the CO orders they kill "every living thing they see, (because they are all THE ENEMY", then I believe the soldiers are not the proper targets of prosecution, but rather the commanders.
https://famous-trials.com/mylaicourts/1656-myl-intro
(EDIT: I posted this quickly, don't read if you want to avoid the ugly aspect of humanity, such as child murder. I wish I had not read it myself.)

U.S. soldiers don't have to follow illegal orders and can actually have a duty to disobey them in some circumstances.

 

[ShadowRun]

Can we apply the same standards to US soldiers who “defended their country” by serving in Iraq?
Spare me the “omg you’re comparing the USA to Nazi Germany” BS.
Lots of countries have WMD. The USA doesn’t war with them all. Iraqi turned out not to have shit anyway.
Over a million dead Iraqis because of that war, and millions more displaced and suffering.

Yea they had it so good before being killed , gassed ect. Paradise before the war …

 

[SugarKrok]

You see what had happened was I had read the OP

I was asking about it from a moral standpoint. The nazi stuff is just what made me think about the question. beyond soldiers serving in a war, I would wonder if someone who is brainwashed by a cult can be considered blameless, if they do terrible shit after. Like legally maybe they’ll get manslaughter or wtv. Morally can we blame them for being dumb/ susceptible and being brainwashed ???

 

[tenniswhiz]

You see what had happened was I had read the OP

They were prosecuted, mentioned in passing. He was just thinking about them. So you interpret that the whole thread is about bringing war criminals to justice.
You did that because you’re stupid.

 

[tenniswhiz]

I was asking about it from a moral standpoint. The nazi stuff is just what made me think about the question. beyond soldiers serving in a war, I would wonder if someone who is brainwashed by a cult can be considered blameless, if they do terrible shit after. Like legally maybe they’ll get manslaughter or wtv. Morally can we blame them for being dumb/ susceptible and being brainwashed ???

Thank you.
And it was very clear.

 

[tastaylvr]

U.S. soldiers don't have to follow illegal orders and can actually have a duty to disobey them in some circumstances.

Do you actually believe this horseshit?

Yeah you’re missing the point… these laws are established. You don’t have to sit here and ponder it. To answer your burning question no a soldier (obviously) can not be tried for having fought in Iraq

The magical international court that only seems to work in favor of the big dick in that era. Laws are irrelevant in war since the big dick is the law.

It's also weird to bring this up when you think everyone in Hamas should die because of the actions of a few.

 

[Natural Order]

This is probably all laid out in grey terms within the Geneva Conventions.

 

[tastaylvr]

This is probably all laid out in grey terms within the Geneva Conventions.

Who enforces this?

All that shit is for the weak countries

 

[Natural Order]

Who enforces this?

All that shit is for the weak countries

Nobody, just as the rules from a "country" perspective aren't enforced either. It's a piece of theatre we made to try and create some civility to our insanity.

 

[shunyata]

U.S. soldiers don't have to follow illegal orders and can actually have a duty to disobey them in some circumstances.

In theory, yes. In practice members of the House Armed Services Committee tried to have Hugh Thompson Jr courtmartialed for attempting to intervene in the My Lai massacre to stop the killing of unarmed civilians.

He received death threats for years after returning to the US, both by phone and in the form of mutilated animal corpses left on his front porch.

30 years later he was awarded the Soldier's Medal.

To be fair, the Army never courtmartialed him.

But the chairman of the HASC was vocally pushing for it, he seemed to think that the massacre and the coverup attempt was not the issue but it leaking to the media was the real crime.