I suppose one would need another election to test in how far the new government is eschewed by those who voted for it. There are those in the civil service whose positions have been terminated, who are speaking out; there may be others still employed who are afeared to speak out because they don't want to lose their positions. The vociferous are that because, in some measure, they have nothing more to lose by being that.
The distinction between a lawful and an unlawful command is correct, except, even you introduce the concept of the unlawful command with the word "but". Can I suggest a rewrite: "officers are obligated to follow legal orders—AND they ARE OBLIGATED TO refuse illegal ones"? And what of those who are not of officer rank?
We are harking back to a principle that was established at Nuremberg: it is not conscionable to simply follow orders if the orders one follows are unconscionable.
I am not entirely sure why Aaron Bushnell did what he did. It was probably not to have a street in Hebron named after him. I wrote at the time that he did it not because of what would happen to him by his doing it, but because of what would happen to us. Since then, there has been a ripple of resignations, Harrison Mann being the one that stands out most for me. That's the backstop, not the JAG, which is nice to have. It must be impressed upon soldiers, sailors and airmen what "conscionable" means and what "unconscionable" is. In the US if not in certain other ally countries. Who knows, perhaps then even the US can boast that it has "the most moral army in the world", but there are a litany of military operations, special or otherwise, littering US history that obviously failed to properly grab the attention of the morally minded in times past.
I suppose one would need another election to test in how far the new government is eschewed by those who voted for it. There are those in the civil service whose positions have been terminated, who are speaking out; there may be others still employed who are afeared to speak out because they don't want to lose their positions. The vociferous are that because, in some measure, they have nothing more to lose by being that.
The distinction between a lawful and an unlawful command is correct, except, even you introduce the concept of the unlawful command with the word "but". Can I suggest a rewrite: "officers are obligated to follow legal orders—AND they ARE OBLIGATED TO refuse illegal ones"? And what of those who are not of officer rank?
We are harking back to a principle that was established at Nuremberg: it is not conscionable to simply follow orders if the orders one follows are unconscionable.
I am not entirely sure why Aaron Bushnell did what he did. It was probably not to have a street in Hebron named after him. I wrote at the time that he did it not because of what would happen to him by his doing it, but because of what would happen to us. Since then, there has been a ripple of resignations, Harrison Mann being the one that stands out most for me. That's the backstop, not the JAG, which is nice to have. It must be impressed upon soldiers, sailors and airmen what "conscionable" means and what "unconscionable" is. In the US if not in certain other ally countries. Who knows, perhaps then even the US can boast that it has "the most moral army in the world", but there are a litany of military operations, special or otherwise, littering US history that obviously failed to properly grab the attention of the morally minded in times past.