Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    The links I posted have disproved that very point.
    That was a typo, I meant to say that you cannot be done for not following an illegal order, i.e. you can be done in Britiain for not following an order, unless that order was illegal.


    An illegal order is an illegal order regardless of which country or organisation gives the order, follow it and you will be tried in an international criminal court, it doesn't matter if you are a British Soldier, an American Soldier, an IS soldier or a Ukrainian seperatist. If you are caught you will be tried by the international community.
    Unless not following that order would result in you being killed.

    If a commander is giving you an illegal order he/she has already shown disregard for the rule of law, wether or not your armed forces executes people who do not follow orders is irrelevant at that point.
    The commander who gives the illegal order is almost always guilty. It's the person who recieves the order under threat of death who is not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    x
    Let's boil this down a bit lower. Suppose I pointed a gun at your head and said "punch this person and break their nose, otherwise I'll shoot you and then break every bone in their body" would you do it?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So, the operators of the IDF artillery batteries will all be tried for their crimes if, by some miracle, Israel is actually tried in court for it's war crimes? Similarly with elements of the armies of probably every major power in NATO, definitely UK and US?
    Obviously, in all those cases it relies on the [near] impossible event of any of those countries actually being tried.
    There would have to be charges levied, then an investigation, then a commitiee would deside wether or not a suspected war crime has been commited, then a trial would be conducted. Every country has a set of rules of armed conflict RoE, which differ country to country, but all fall within the parameters of LOAC, incidently the UK has some of the strictest RoE in NATO.

    If you are ...as I suspect refering to the 2003 war in Iraq, if that was found to be an illegal war (which I personally feel it was) the soldiers who entered the country would not face charges for entering the country because

    "A soldier who carries out an order which is illegal under the law of
    armed conflict is guilty of a war crime, provided that he or she was
    aware of the circumstances which made that order unlawful or could
    reasonably have been expected to be aware of them"

    besides invasion of another country does not fall under the LOAC, the LOAC governs actions once the armed conflict is in place, the case of an illegal invasion is a matter for a different international court waaaay above my payband.


    However if you are refering to the individual actions of soldiers on the ground, they are held accountable if they breach LOAC, for example Marine A. Trials also take into account the clause of being unaware, as shown with the Soldier from 1 Ghurka rifles who beheaded a Taliban commander. What other nations do I cannot account for.

    But If for example you mean the shelling of civillians in Gaza, as long as the IDF can prove the civillians were not the intended target and they made reasonable efforts not to harm civillians, they will also not be in breach of LOAC, if they were brought to account and found guilty it would then be a case for the courts, how do you prove WHO fired a certain shell? You can't convict a man of killing civillians if none of the shells he fired hit civillians. And this is why it takes years in the courts to convict a lot of war crimes.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    That was a typo, I meant to say that you cannot be done for not following an illegal order, i.e. you can be done in Britiain for not following an order, unless that order was illegal.




    Unless not following that order would result in you being killed.



    The commander who gives the illegal order is almost always guilty. It's the person who recieves the order under threat of death who is not
    .
    Show me where it says that, I'm sure the person would have a convincing case if it could be proven beyond doubt, but it is not a solid defence and should not be assumed that it will exhonerate you in an international court.



    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Let's boil this down a bit lower. Suppose I pointed a gun at your head and said "punch this person and break their nose, otherwise I'll shoot you and then break every bone in their body" would you do it?
    In such a case, the damage inflicted on the 3rd person is minor, the punishment I would recieve would reflect that so it would certainly be considered by me. But its a very black and white example, unfortunatly very little in life is as such, this is where the moral compass comes into play. I for one have no problem punching someone in the nose with or without a gun pointed at my head, but my moral compass would not allow me to rape and torture, as has been pointed out, everyones moral compass points differently just like a real compass, there is magnetic north and true north. True north is the law and your magnetic north is your own needle that hovers around what is generally agreed by society as north.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    There would have to be charges levied, then an investigation, then a commitiee would deside wether or not a suspected war crime has been commited, then a trial would be conducted. Every country has a set of rules of armed conflict RoE, which differ country to country, but all fall within the parameters of LOAC, incidently the UK has some of the strictest RoE in NATO.

    If you are ...as I suspect refering to the 2003 war in Iraq, if that was found to be an illegal war (which I personally feel it was) the soldiers who entered the country would not face charges for entering the country because

    "A soldier who carries out an order which is illegal under the law of
    armed conflict is guilty of a war crime, provided that he or she was
    aware of the circumstances which made that order unlawful or could
    reasonably have been expected to be aware of them"

    besides invasion of another country does not fall under the LOAC, the LOAC governs actions once the armed conflict is in place, the case of an illegal invasion is a matter for a different international court waaaay above my payband.


    However if you are refering to the individual actions of soldiers on the ground, they are held accountable if they breach LOAC, for example Marine A. Trials also take into account the clause of being unaware, as shown with the Soldier from 1 Ghurka rifles who beheaded a Taliban commander. What other nations do I cannot account for.

    But If for example you mean the shelling of civillians in Gaza, as long as the IDF can prove the civillians were not the intended target and they made reasonable efforts not to harm civillians, they will also not be in breach of LOAC, if they were brought to account and found guilty it would then be a case for the courts, how do you prove WHO fired a certain shell? You can't convict a man of killing civillians if none of the shells he fired hit civillians. And this is why it takes years in the courts to convict a lot of war crimes.
    I wasn't thinking of Iraq specifically, just NATO forces generally. And how can a soldier be unaware of the illegality of beheading a Taliban commander, I don't really see any way in which that could be reasonably perceived as legal.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    Show me where it says that, I'm sure the person would have a convincing case if it could be proven beyond doubt, but it is not a solid defence and should not be assumed that it will exhonerate you in an international court.
    You originally claimed that being order to do something illegal under threat of death was illegal and that the person would "have no defense what so ever in a court" (your exact words). Please keep this in the context of this thread, we are discussing a very particular case. Please give evidence of your original claim. So far you have given none.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    In such a case, the damage inflicted on the 3rd person is minor, the punishment I would recieve would reflect that so it would certainly be considered by me. But its a very black and white example, unfortunatly very little in life is as such, this is where the moral compass comes into play. I for one have no problem punching someone in the nose with or without a gun pointed at my head, but my moral compass would not allow me to rape and torture, as has been pointed out, everyones moral compass points differently just like a real compass, there is magnetic north and true north. True north is the law and your magnetic north is your own needle that hovers around what is generally agreed by society as north.
    Now you've admitted that you are above the law, per se, it just comes down to bargaining. I should think there are very few people that you couldn't "bargain" with to make the commit some pretty severe crimes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Option 2, I'd rather be shot than to kill someone else. Although, from Jack's point of view, it would depend on what kind of person he is, does he feel guilt for killing someone? Or it could be his circumstances/the prisoners circumstances, they could both have families etc. And finally from the point of view as in what causes the least suffering, that would be option 1 although you can't really assess the psychological damage to the prisoners relatives or to Jack himself.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I wasn't thinking of Iraq specifically, just NATO forces generally. And how can a soldier be unaware of the illegality of beheading a Taliban commander, I don't really see any way in which that could be reasonably perceived as legal.
    It was a strike op, the commander was dead, but the soldier had orders to bring proof, what was meant was a DNA swab, every soldier in Afghanistan has a DNA sampling kit to collect bio data of Taliban, the soldier under fire at the time paniced and collected the Taliban commanders head.

    He was immediatly removed from theatre, and placed under investigation and eventually found innoncent of a war crime, in such a situation other nations are able to demand investgations into the inccident, including the Afghanistan government and even the Taliban (though it would require a representative to appear in an international court, which they do not recognise).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    You originally claimed that being order to do something illegal under threat of death was illegal and that the person would "have no defense what so ever in a court" (your exact words). Please keep this in the context of this thread, we are discussing a very particular case. Please give evidence of your original claim. So far you have given none.
    There is a HUUUUUUGE differemce between a convincing case and a solid defence, in that same sentence I also stated it was not a solid defence.

    I have shown you the LOAC, I have shown you it from 3 different organisations one of which is an international NGO.

    What claim would you like evidence of exactly?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Now you've admitted that you are above the law, per se, it just comes down to bargaining. I should think there are very few people that you couldn't "bargain" with to make the commit some pretty severe crimes.
    Nope never said I was above the law, I even stated I would be punished, try harder.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    There is a HUUUUUUGE differemce between a convincing case and a solid defence, in that same sentence I also stated it was not a solid defence.

    I have shown you the LOAC, I have shown you it from 3 different organisations one of which is an international NGO.

    What claim would you like evidence of exactly?
    I want evidence that someone who is coerced into following an illegal order, under threat of death, is crimminally liable. You have not given me evidence of anything I did not know, all you have given says that following orders is not a defense, but not in the case when you are under threat of death (which is very different). Also you very clearly said he would have "no defense". You said he would be a war criminal, I want proof.

    Lets go to your other reply:

    "Dear God I hope none of you ever join Britain's Armed Forces, obey that order and you have no defence no protection, legal or moral, you are a rapist and war criminal, HOWEVER you try to justify it, you are in the wrong. "

    You seem to now being saying that you would have some legal protection, because your life in in danger if you don't follow the order. Going back to the actual topic, do you still think that going with option 1 has no defense, legally or morally?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    Nope never said I was above the law, I even stated I would be punished, try harder.
    If you were so morally perfect you would refuse to do it, simce you accepted you would do it it logically follows we could slowly ramp up the crime, maybe having to adjust the punishment.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    I want evidence that someone who is coerced into following an illegal order, under threat of death, is crimminally liable. You have not given me evidence of anything I did not know, all you have given says that following orders is not a defense, but not in the case when you are under threat of death (which is very different). Also you very clearly said he would have "no defense". You said he would be a war criminal, I want proof.

    Lets go to your other reply:

    "Dear God I hope none of you ever join Britain's Armed Forces, obey that order and you have no defence no protection, legal or moral, you are a rapist and war criminal, HOWEVER you try to justify it, you are in the wrong. "

    You seem to now being saying that you would have some legal protection, because your life in in danger if you don't follow the order. Going back to the actual topic, do you still think that going with option 1 has no defense, legally or morally?
    first bold:

    1.Very well, read my posts

    2.Open the link I posted

    3.Read the content of those links

    4. show me where it says "but if someone if holding a gun to your head ...it's cool"

    included in those links you have the Geneva concention and the latest amended LOAC, you want proof its there,

    second bold, the difference is between human understanding and adherence to law, a judge and jury but well understand the reasons you commited the crime. Might even convince some to lighten your sentence, but you are still guilty.

    It's not about what I THINK, it's about what the law IS.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you were so morally perfect you would refuse to do it, simce you accepted you would do it it logically follows we could slowly ramp up the crime, maybe having to adjust the punishment.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    no one is morally perfect, did you even read any of my posts?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    4. show me where it says "but if someone if holding a gun to your head ...it's cool"
    It doesn't need to. When someone is holding a gun to your head crimes below murder becomes cool, its called duress.

    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    included in those links you have the Geneva concention and the latest amended LOAC, you want proof its there,

    second bold, the difference is between human understanding and adherence to law, a judge and jury but well understand the reasons you commited the crime. Might even convince some to lighten your sentence, but you are still guilty.

    It's not about what I THINK, it's about what the law IS.
    Or more likely, SPA will take leaf out of CPS's book and exercise its discretion not to prosecute since Jack acted reasonably in all the circumstances and any defense lawyer will cause jury to empathize enough that they return verdict of acquittal because surprisingly our legal system isn't composed of computers which blindly adhere to law but instead composed of human beings.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arithmeticae)
    What should Jack do and why? Assume that for the purposes of this experiment, Jack can only take one of the above options and doesn't do something different like shooting both himself and the prisoner.
    I don't even think this is hard, morally.

    Option 1 minimises suffering to both parties so is morally preferable.

    In real life this dilemma would be much harder because Jack wouldn't know anything for sure, and would have to decide under uncertainty.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    no one is morally perfect, did you even read any of my posts?
    I read your ability to assume and generalise, again.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    first bold:

    1.Very well, read my posts

    2.Open the link I posted

    3.Read the content of those links

    4. show me where it says "but if someone if holding a gun to your head ...it's cool"
    Because after WW2 it was established that the threat of death was a legitiment defense for committing a war crime (for a standard soldier, doubt it applied to higher ranks but that's not important here since the senario used a normal soldier). I have seen nothing to suggest that it has changed, and so I expect it to remain how it was set.

    included in those links you have the Geneva concention and the latest amended LOAC, you want proof its there,

    second bold, the difference is between human understanding and adherence to law, a judge and jury but well understand the reasons you commited the crime. Might even convince some to lighten your sentence, but you are still guilty.

    It's not about what I THINK, it's about what the law IS.
    In the UK you are not guilty of a crime if you were forced to under threat of death (unless you had joined a gang, but that's not relavent here). This has been established in several cases.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    It doesn't need to. When someone is holding a gun to your head crimes below murder becomes cool, its called duress.


    Or more likely, SPA will take leaf out of CPS's book and exercise its discretion not to prosecute since Jack acted reasonably in all the circumstances and any defense lawyer will cause jury to empathize enough that they return verdict of acquittal because surprisingly our legal system isn't composed of computers which blindly adhere to law but instead composed of human beings.
    I'm afraid you DO need to, that's why it's NOT included in LOAC as an examption...because it's not.

    You may be right, but that doe not mean it is allowed or legal, hyperthetical situations are one thing, but I am just saying what the law is, as we all know the letter of the law is not always carried out for a number of reason, but the law is still the law, just as a fact is a fact, I'm not saying Jack SHOULD be punished, I'm am just saying in an international court IF they WANTED to prosecute him, they would have a very easy job of doing so. Remember the International criminal court doesn't use a jury.


    (Original post by james22)
    Because after WW2 it was established that the threat of death was a legitiment defense for committing a war crime (for a standard soldier, doubt it applied to higher ranks but that's not important here since the senario used a normal soldier). I have seen nothing to suggest that it has changed, and so I expect it to remain how it was set.



    In the UK you are not guilty of a crime if you were forced to under threat of death (unless you had joined a gang, but that's not relavent here). This has been established in several cases.
    Like I said what was is not what is.

    International criminal law is very different to UK law.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.