GIs who refused order won't face court-martial

[quaoar]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/troops.html

BAGHDAD -- The U.S. military in Iraq has disciplined 18 soldiers who refused to go out on a transport convoy they thought was too dangerous, but the reservists will not face court-martial, a military spokesman said Monday.

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan said another five soldiers would also face "nonjudicial" punishment under Article 15 of the U.S. code of military justice. He declined to give details.

Article 15 gives commanders discretion to order detention of up to a month, loss of up to a month's pay, extra duties and loss of rank.

All the reservists are from the 343rd Quartermaster Company. Because they are being disciplined under Article 15 for failing to follow orders, no court proceedings will be held and the identities of the soldiers will not be released.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Well those guys are alive and I am sure

they prefer the Article 15 quite honestly

[shesemsmom]

2. Exactly

and of course they won't be booted out.....we have to have all the warm bodies we can get

[imax2268]

3. ok...

maybe a military expert here can answer this...

but isn't it written in military law somewhere that you can "disobey" a direct order from a superior if you feel it will jeapordize your life and the life of your fellow soldiers...???

(on edit)found this...

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809<890>.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

[tsuki]

7. Absolutely. But try. I have often wonder if these guys received

a direct order before two witnesses?

[villagechild]

8. unlawful orders

I do not believe an "unlawful order" would be one that would jeapordize lives of fellow soldiers. An unlawful order would be one that amounted to a crime under the UCMJ. I'm not an expert, but have served USAF, and have studied the UCMJ. BTW, you did cite one of the most controversial and potent articles, good on you!

[qazplm]

10. nothing "unlawful" about the order

it was certainly stupid, and my understanding is that the chain of command is also going to receive some sort of punishment and their careers are likely over.

What they can do and what soldiers often dont understand is start going up the chain of command...sooner or later, most, not all, but most of the time, they will run across someone sympathetic if they have a valid issue as these soldiers appear to have had.

[DemoTex]

4. So, what happened to the officer(s) that issued this egregious order?

They must have received punishment. What was it? This is as fucked up as the 'Nam.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

5. the pentagon doesn't want civilian lawyers asking any

pesky questions tainted fuel.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

6. The one month w/o pay thing is very popular in the Military.

When I mentioned what had happened to a person I know in the Army he told me they would probably just get docked a month's pay. Seems that is a very common punishment.

The way I see it I could always make money later in life, providing I am living that is.

[struggle4progress]

9. kick

:kick:

[Judi Lynn]

11. Thanks for posting this news. It would be so helpful if the officer

who put them in the position in which they had to endanger their own employment, and risk jail, or worse, to save their lives got a real trouncing, but I'm sure they really don't care, at the heart of things.

It's great they were spared an obviously overwhelmingly pointless and threatening assignment.