Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!james
From: james@alberta.UUCP (James Borynec)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Napoleonic battle ethics; or, `When to Fink on an Errant Boss...'
Message-ID: <864@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Mar-86 13:04:02 EST
Article-I.D.: alberta.864
Posted: Wed Mar 26 13:04:02 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 15:26:54 EST
References: <6513@utzoo.UUCP> <893@masscomp.UUCP> <6529@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: james@pembina.UUCP (James Borynec)
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <6529@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> 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.
>
>Quite true.  What they don't tell you, however, is that this can get you
>hanged for war crimes if you take it too literally.  The training is based
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

If I was a soldier given an illegal order in the middle of a war, a war
crimes trial would seem pretty abstract when compared to the alternate
scenario:
 a) receive illegal order from my officer.
 b) I state that the order is illegal, and will not be obeyed.
 c) The rest of the squad hesitates, knowing that it really is illegal.
 d) Officer pulls out pistol, and shoots me.
 e) the rest of the squad obeys his orders.
 
Sure, the officer may be hanged twice, once for the war crime, and once
for shooting me, but it doesn't help me all that much!
j.borynec james@alberta