Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site masscomp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!masscomp!ahv
From: ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Napoleonic battle ethics; or, `When to Fink on an Errant Boss...'
Message-ID: <893@masscomp.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Mar-86 09:41:58 EST
Article-I.D.: masscomp.893
Posted: Mon Mar 17 09:41:58 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 08:22:24 EST
References: <6513@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst)
Organization: Masscomp - Westford, MA
Lines: 16
Summary: 

>>And as for soldiers' obligation to weigh the soundness of the campaign,
>>Nuremberg and later such courts established very clearly that it *is*
>>the soldiers' obligation to weigh the *legality* of their orders.
>>-- 
>>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>>				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
>
>If events such as the `Judgement at Nuremberg' established anything, it
>is that regardless of the *legality* of orders from a superior
>one is obliged to consider and accept responsibility for the *morality* 
>of ones actions.  The impied corollary is the following bottom line:
>ya gotta do the right thing, cause the moral `buck' stops with you.
>
Everybody that goes through military basic training is taught that if
you are given an order by a superior that you think is illegal or 
otherwise "questionable",  you OBEY the order and complain later.