Comments on Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standardTypePad2009-11-11T13:03:38ZDavid Bognerhttps://www.treppenwitz.com/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://www.treppenwitz.com/2009/11/calling-bullsht-on-a-shameful-double-standard/comments/atom.xml/treppenwitz commented on 'Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standard'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef01287595d9b9970c2009-11-13T11:06:25Z2009-11-13T11:06:25Ztreppenwitzhttp://www.treppenwitz.comBatya... You also seemed to have only skimmed my post. Th rem 'lawful order' is a very specific one that...<p>Batya... You also seemed to have only skimmed my post. Th rem 'lawful order' is a very specific one that denotes legal, ethically acceptable orders issued by officers in the chain of a government's command. Soldiers may not refuse lawful orders for political reasons. full stop.</p>Batya from Shiloh commented on 'Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standard'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef0120a68d7459970b2009-11-12T21:24:19Z2009-11-12T21:24:19ZBatya from Shilohhttp://shilohmusings.blogspot.comYou're a few years younger than I am, so maybe your generation didn't belittle the Germans and others who excused...<p>You're a few years younger than I am, so maybe your generation didn't belittle the Germans and others who excused their murder of Jews with: "I was just obeing orders."<br />
There are times when the orders are wrong, immoral and/or dangerous.<br />
During Olmert's Lebanon War, my son's commander was ordered to bunk them in a building which he deemed unsafe. He refused and they found another spot. Another officer obeyed the order and many of our soldiers were killed and wounded.<br />
And about the Leftists, they're descended from the "non-conformists" of my day. I'll never forget overhearing: "All the non-conformists must have green bookbags."</p>Karl Newman commented on 'Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standard'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef0120a68d4841970b2009-11-12T20:43:05Z2009-11-12T20:43:05ZKarl NewmanDavid, You're right. I went back and checked; it seems I misread the original news report. My bad. BTW, one...<p>David,</p>
<p>You're right. I went back and checked; it seems I misread the original news report. My bad.</p>
<p>BTW, one of the signatories to the letter is a reservist Staff Sergeant (Paygrade E-6 in the US) named Newman. Just a coincidence, of course. :)</p>treppenwitz commented on 'Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standard'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef012875883f40970c2009-11-12T11:58:46Z2009-11-12T11:58:46Ztreppenwitzhttp://www.treppenwitz.comShlomo... If that is what you took away from this post then I have a suggestion for you: Unplug your...<p>Shlomo... If that is what you took away from this post then I have a suggestion for you: Unplug your computer, put it back in the box and donate it to some poor person who has basic reading comprehension skills so that they can enjoy the wonderful world of the Internet. You are obviously not able to read on a level that justifies the expense of a computer. Nowhere have I excused or forgiven hypocrisy on either side of the political divide. Nowhere have I said that the soldiers (or any other right wingers) have acted better than the left. The sole point of my post (which seems to have eluded you) is that the left does not have the right to condemn the right for behavior that they themselves condone in their own camp. In the future perhaps you can email me in advance for a 'Cliff Notes' version of the post so you can study up before posting a comment.</p>Shlomo commented on 'Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standard'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef0120a6866c74970b2009-11-12T11:05:53Z2009-11-12T11:05:53ZShlomoSo your argument is... since the left wing is hypocritical about refusing orders, the right wing has the right to...<p>So your argument is... since the left wing is hypocritical about refusing orders, the right wing has the right to be hypocritical as well?</p>treppenwitz commented on 'Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standard'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef0120a6864398970b2009-11-12T09:48:23Z2009-11-12T09:48:23Ztreppenwitzhttp://www.treppenwitz.comKarl Newman... in fairness, I don't think the banners or the letter rise ot the level of sedition. But I...<p>Karl Newman... in fairness, I don't think the banners or the letter rise ot the level of sedition. But I agree with your overall point.</p>Karl Newman commented on 'Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standard'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef0128757b935d970c2009-11-11T19:13:42Z2009-11-11T19:13:42ZKarl NewmanDave, When David and I were in US Navy boot camp, we were taught military law (UCMJ) and the Law...<p>Dave,</p>
<p>When David and I were in US Navy boot camp, we were taught military law (UCMJ) and the Law of Armed Conflict. The latter was instituted after the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. Both covered the subject of lawful orders and the duty to disobey unlawful ones. I was told, and I'm sure David was too, that if we thought an order was unlawful and we disobeyed it, we had <i>better</i> be right. I heard that several times over my Navy career. Why such an emphasis on obeying orders? David already covered that pretty well but I'll add one more reason. Military forces that don't obey civilian leadership are a threat to the elected government that commands them. Not all coups begin in the senior ranks, either. One can look around the world and see the danger of a military that won't obey civilian leadership. </p>
<p>A banner put up by a handful of soldiers may not seem like a big deal but each act of sedition, like the one mentioned in David's post, is a crack in the foundation of free government and must be dealt with in a decisive manner. Free nations settle their issues at the ballot box or in the courts, not on the parade ground.</p>treppenwitz commented on 'Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standard'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef0120a6797a28970b2009-11-11T18:18:32Z2009-11-11T18:18:32Ztreppenwitzhttp://www.treppenwitz.comDave... I deliberately used the term 'lawful' to modify the word 'order' because there are obviously some orders that soldiers...<p>Dave... I deliberately used the term 'lawful' to modify the word 'order' because there are obviously some orders that soldiers may not follow... such as those the Nazi soldiers followed during the holocaust. That is obviously an extreme example, but the idea is that while we don't want soldiers to think too much... we want them to understand where the bright lines are in terms of conduct and morality. Beyond that, all orders issued by the government are lawful until the supreme court decides otherwise. No soldier... not even very senior officers... may second guess the government. The military is the instrument of the government's policy. Soldiers don't make policy in the field. That's called anarchy. The obligation to question government decisions lies squarely on the civilian population. We need to leave the soldiers to do their job without interference or conflicting political input.</p>dave commented on 'Calling bullsh*t on a shameful double standard'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef0128757b4d71970c2009-11-11T17:54:03Z2009-11-11T17:54:03Zdavetwo comments as you stated "to carry out lawful orders" is at question who decides? Is it not the responsibility...<p>two comments<br />
as you stated "to carry out lawful orders" is at question who decides?</p>
<p>Is it not the responsibility of the commanding officers to understand what is going on or are they just blind politicos covering their A**? They have the responsibility of of the soldiers to protect or they loose credibility will not be followed.</p>