Humakti DI Clarification

From: rstaats_at_mail.lmi.org
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 17:41:22 EST

     Hi-Ho!
     
     Sandy points out in response to my statement:
     

>>well trained, disciplined military folks follow orders to retreat
>>and surrender

>This is an ideal, not always reached even in modern times.
>And there is a darker, flip side to it. "Well-trained, disciplined
>military folks" presumably are expected to _not_ retreat, and to
>_not_ surrender, when so ordered.
Sandy, I concur with your statement, and the additional historical examples were well thought out and supported your point that often, even in modern times, folks don't always follow orders. But, I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that we *were* talking about an ideal. Wasn't the question, whether it was OK for the Humakti to DI to escape? (``Trust me, I'm a doctor!'' ;-) ) If so, I think the main decision criteria is *why* did the Humakti DI? In the US Manual for Court-martials this is referred to as establishing the elements of proof for an alleged offense. ***My points to date have been crude attempts to get at this critical issue.*** (IMHO) If the Humakti DI'd: (1) Because he was ordered to escape/retreat/etc., then it seems that this was a reasonable thing to do and not desertion in a punitive sense of his brethren. :-) (2) Because he wanted to warn someone about this menace and come back with a more appropriate force to destroy the menace so that the blood expended would not be in vain, then it seems that this also was a rational and acceptable reason to DI. :-) (3) Because he was terrified and wanted to escape whatever the consequences, then it was desertion and reprehensible. :-( From my perspective, there is really not enough information available for this case to make a clear cut decision. :-\ I'd need to interview the imaginary miscreant and find out the details of the last set of instructions he was given and the tactical situation. (You know this is really a great idea for an adventure seed! You could get a lot of role-playing out of a scenario where the PC's are called in to determine the guilt or innocence of an NPC charged with desertion.) :-) On the issue of when is it OK to disobey orders . . . Hmmmmm, common sense tells me this is an intellectual minefield where much energy could be expended, feelings get hurt and nothing is resolved, but what the heck?!? I'll wade in! :-) . . . the basic rule of thumb is **when the order violates the spirit of your vows to the Nation and the accepted conventions of warfare, you are duty bound to refuse to execute the orders**. Examples for US forces would include but are not limited to orders requiring one to: attack unarmed civilians, torture prisoners, poison water supplies, refuse otherwise available aid to wounded and disarmed opponents, or circumvent or hinder the actions of an official duly appointed and recognized under the Constitution of the United States. (The accepted conventions for Humakti are probably somewhat different. ;-) ) Disagreeing with a tactical decision by your superior commanding officer does *not* fall under the crimes against humanity situation. (It would be wise to ask for clarification under such circumstances though. Everybody makes mistakes, and sometimes saying things like ``general, isn't that map upside down? If we went to this grid coordinate, my unit would be in the middle of a mine field.'' can save lots of needless death and destruction.) Being given an order to surrender by a competent military authority is a *legal* order. :-) So, whereas things like burning villages and working at death camps are clearly examples of items contrary to the accepted conventions of warfare, it would be difficult to imagine a situation where failing to surrender when given an order to do so fits into the crimes against humanity category. (There might be a clever example, but it escapes my muddled mind.) In service, Rich ------------------------------

Powered by hypermail