What's the dealeo?
April 24, 2007 10:20 PM Subscribe
A military question about the laws of the battlefield.
So I was talking to a friend of mine who had just finished Marine basic training a couple of months back. In our conversation he mentioned that the official law was that on the battlefield if someone refused an order (even for being too scared to do something) the law is that he/she has to be summarily shot because he/she is putting their unit members lives in danger.
Of course, I tried to dissuade him of this notion. After all, if you were trying to punish Soldier "A" for putting lives at risk, why would you kill Soldier "A" and accomplish what "A" only might have done?
So doing some googling I found some references to this law, but no one seems to be able to cite a real source. I kinda feel like it's an urban legend that you get told during basic training.
So my questions are twofold
1 - what is the actual law (and is it followed if it is true)?
2 - what would the reasoning behind such a law be (if part 1 is true)? I understand a court martial or something. But killing someone? Sounds doubtful
So I was talking to a friend of mine who had just finished Marine basic training a couple of months back. In our conversation he mentioned that the official law was that on the battlefield if someone refused an order (even for being too scared to do something) the law is that he/she has to be summarily shot because he/she is putting their unit members lives in danger.
Of course, I tried to dissuade him of this notion. After all, if you were trying to punish Soldier "A" for putting lives at risk, why would you kill Soldier "A" and accomplish what "A" only might have done?
So doing some googling I found some references to this law, but no one seems to be able to cite a real source. I kinda feel like it's an urban legend that you get told during basic training.
So my questions are twofold
1 - what is the actual law (and is it followed if it is true)?
2 - what would the reasoning behind such a law be (if part 1 is true)? I understand a court martial or something. But killing someone? Sounds doubtful
Best answer: Section 894 (Article 94) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states:
posted by rob511 at 10:49 PM on April 24, 2007
MUTINY OR SEDITIONThe fact that mutiny (or sedition) is rarely charged, and the ultimate penalty rarely enforced, does not change the current statute. As I understand it (IANAL), pretty much all personnel connected to the US armed forces, including reservists, retirees, and POWs, can be deemed subject to UCMJ provisions.
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
posted by rob511 at 10:49 PM on April 24, 2007
Army here, and we didn't get that message in Basic Training (ca. 1998) Under the UCMJ, we were taught that we were obligated to disobey illegal orders, but we were on our own to (1) determine their legality and (2) face the consequences of that disobedience, which always struck me as a little odd. Nothing about being summarily shot on the battlefield, not from a legal standpoint. That being said, it's very easy for me to imagine a scenario where Soldier A refuses a direct order that jeopardizes the mission and the quickest, most efficient way to resolve the problem is a gunshot. So, you know, follow orders. As a Senior Drill Sergeant once told us, "Privates, it's very simple. All you have to do is exactly what you're told. That's all."
posted by ZakDaddy at 10:53 PM on April 24, 2007
posted by ZakDaddy at 10:53 PM on April 24, 2007
I would have associated that with desertion, or article 85-c as written here, specfically related to Element 2 down the bottom of the page.
posted by jacalata at 11:17 PM on April 24, 2007
posted by jacalata at 11:17 PM on April 24, 2007
In our conversation he mentioned that the official law was that on the battlefield if someone refused an order (even for being too scared to do something) the law is that he/she has to be summarily shot because he/she is putting their unit members lives in danger.
I think maybe you're overstating the situation. I think that the law doesn't mandate that they be summarily executed, but I think it does permit that to happen if the commander on the scene thinks it's necessary in order to accomplish the mission or to prevent the rest of his men from being placed in unnecessary peril.
A good example of that would be a small group of men who are isolated and surrounded by the enemy without having been detected\. If one of them suddenly becomes hysterical and starts screaming, he could well give away the location of the whole group and lead to them all being captured or killed. It might be necessary in such a situation to shoot him to prevent the rest from being discovered.
A different example nearly happens in the movie Das Boot. While the U-boat is under depth-charge attack by British destroyers, one of the men cracks and starts screaming, and tries to open a hatch. That could have led to the loss of the boat and all hands. The commander gets his gun, and is just about to shoot the crazy one, but other men get him under control and quiet him down. (Note that the screaming alone was enough to imperil the boat, because it could be picked up on passive sonar on the destroyers.)
In those cases it would probably be justified for the commander on the spot to kill one of his own men. But I seriously doubt there's any regulation that requires that he do so if he thinks he can save the situation without it.
War is unfun, and sometimes you have to do terrible things in war because if you don't then worse things happen.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:46 AM on April 25, 2007
I think maybe you're overstating the situation. I think that the law doesn't mandate that they be summarily executed, but I think it does permit that to happen if the commander on the scene thinks it's necessary in order to accomplish the mission or to prevent the rest of his men from being placed in unnecessary peril.
A good example of that would be a small group of men who are isolated and surrounded by the enemy without having been detected\. If one of them suddenly becomes hysterical and starts screaming, he could well give away the location of the whole group and lead to them all being captured or killed. It might be necessary in such a situation to shoot him to prevent the rest from being discovered.
A different example nearly happens in the movie Das Boot. While the U-boat is under depth-charge attack by British destroyers, one of the men cracks and starts screaming, and tries to open a hatch. That could have led to the loss of the boat and all hands. The commander gets his gun, and is just about to shoot the crazy one, but other men get him under control and quiet him down. (Note that the screaming alone was enough to imperil the boat, because it could be picked up on passive sonar on the destroyers.)
In those cases it would probably be justified for the commander on the spot to kill one of his own men. But I seriously doubt there's any regulation that requires that he do so if he thinks he can save the situation without it.
War is unfun, and sometimes you have to do terrible things in war because if you don't then worse things happen.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:46 AM on April 25, 2007
The reality is that these aspects of military law came partially out of the kind of large-scale, mechanised warfare of the last century, and before that from the nobleman/serf dynamic present in the imperial armies of 18th century Europe.
In that era, obedience on the battlefield mirrored obediance in civilian life - long periods of doing what the man in the powdered wig said with occasional short, violent and fast reversals in power. Mutinies and sedition had to be dealt with quickly and brutally to avoid destroying the cohesion of units deployed all over the world in horrific conditions.
In the last century with the preponderance of large, conscripted armies fighting large-scale conflicts of attrition in an incredibly lethal battlefield environment, summary execution for not following orders was common, especially among more authoritarian armies (i.e. Russian officers shooting men who retreated at Stalingrad). It also happened in other armies (deserters and sometimes men with shell shock were shot for 'cowardice' regularly - a long running legal battle in the UK successfully got them pardoned last year), though not to the same extent.
In a sense, modern armies are still geared up for those kinds of wars, and hence still have the legal apparatus that goes along with fighting them. In reality, they're largely volunteer forces, very well trained and armed, and far less likely to be in the 'Soldier A' scenario above, because they're fighting different kinds of wars. What's more likely is that an illegal order will be given and a soldier will refuse to follow it. He's unlikely to be shot on the spot, or in the future, because whoever shot him would have to explain the order that he was refusing to follow.
FWIW, I received mandatory training in the the Law of Armed Conflict as defined by the Geneva Convention, while in the British Territorials, and a big part of that was about having the moral courage to refuse an order. I was never in a position to test how that would work, but I was deliberately and regularly told about the laws that applied in that case.
posted by Happy Dave at 1:56 AM on April 25, 2007
In that era, obedience on the battlefield mirrored obediance in civilian life - long periods of doing what the man in the powdered wig said with occasional short, violent and fast reversals in power. Mutinies and sedition had to be dealt with quickly and brutally to avoid destroying the cohesion of units deployed all over the world in horrific conditions.
In the last century with the preponderance of large, conscripted armies fighting large-scale conflicts of attrition in an incredibly lethal battlefield environment, summary execution for not following orders was common, especially among more authoritarian armies (i.e. Russian officers shooting men who retreated at Stalingrad). It also happened in other armies (deserters and sometimes men with shell shock were shot for 'cowardice' regularly - a long running legal battle in the UK successfully got them pardoned last year), though not to the same extent.
In a sense, modern armies are still geared up for those kinds of wars, and hence still have the legal apparatus that goes along with fighting them. In reality, they're largely volunteer forces, very well trained and armed, and far less likely to be in the 'Soldier A' scenario above, because they're fighting different kinds of wars. What's more likely is that an illegal order will be given and a soldier will refuse to follow it. He's unlikely to be shot on the spot, or in the future, because whoever shot him would have to explain the order that he was refusing to follow.
FWIW, I received mandatory training in the the Law of Armed Conflict as defined by the Geneva Convention, while in the British Territorials, and a big part of that was about having the moral courage to refuse an order. I was never in a position to test how that would work, but I was deliberately and regularly told about the laws that applied in that case.
posted by Happy Dave at 1:56 AM on April 25, 2007
First off, they do not have to be shot, but it has happened. (And, in my opinion, there's a time and a place for it.)
In WW2, US Army officer Ronald Speirs (played by Matthew Settle in Band of Brothers) shot and killed one of his sergeants for refusing an order and placing his men in jeopardy for it. From his Wikipedia entry:
Richard Winters, in his own book entitled Beyond Band of Brothers: The Memoirs of Major Richard Winters, detailed exactly what did happen when Speirs shot a sergeant in one of his squads for disobeying a direct order in combat. Winters notes that by shooting the sergeant, Speirs saved the lives of many other men. Winters also repeatedly calls Speirs "a born killer” and states that despite making occasional flawed decisions off the battlefield, Speirs was a superb combat commander, which Winters respected immensely. Winters also points out that Speirs did report this incident to his commanding officer and names the officer. However, that officer was killed in action the next day, and the incident was never pursued at any level. Winters suggests that officers higher in the chain of command were so desperate for competent field officers that they could not afford losing one of Speirs' caliber. The soldiers serving under Speirs respected him immensely, but also feared him. This incident eventually faded away officially but became legend among the troops.
Speirs passed away suddenly a few weeks ago, and I'm not sure he ever spoke publicly about the incident before his death.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:20 AM on April 25, 2007
In WW2, US Army officer Ronald Speirs (played by Matthew Settle in Band of Brothers) shot and killed one of his sergeants for refusing an order and placing his men in jeopardy for it. From his Wikipedia entry:
Richard Winters, in his own book entitled Beyond Band of Brothers: The Memoirs of Major Richard Winters, detailed exactly what did happen when Speirs shot a sergeant in one of his squads for disobeying a direct order in combat. Winters notes that by shooting the sergeant, Speirs saved the lives of many other men. Winters also repeatedly calls Speirs "a born killer” and states that despite making occasional flawed decisions off the battlefield, Speirs was a superb combat commander, which Winters respected immensely. Winters also points out that Speirs did report this incident to his commanding officer and names the officer. However, that officer was killed in action the next day, and the incident was never pursued at any level. Winters suggests that officers higher in the chain of command were so desperate for competent field officers that they could not afford losing one of Speirs' caliber. The soldiers serving under Speirs respected him immensely, but also feared him. This incident eventually faded away officially but became legend among the troops.
Speirs passed away suddenly a few weeks ago, and I'm not sure he ever spoke publicly about the incident before his death.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:20 AM on April 25, 2007
As noted above, the UCMJ does not require that anyone be shot.
It does, however, permit it.
The UCMJ (military law) is worded very interestingly. Striking or assaulting someone of higher rank than you is a crime. There is no mention of any crime for striking or assaulting someone of lower rank than yourself. There are several offenses which boil down to being "disorderly conduct", however, which can be stretched to cover such things. So it's something like:
--Private hits a sergeant: crime.
--Sergeant hits a private: possibility of being considered disorderly conduct, if his superiors disagree that hitting the private was called-for.
In combat situations, a superior officer has not only the right but the duty to keep his inferiors in line, including through deadly force. Such incidents will be investigated extensively, and no officer would do such a thing lightly, but it has happened. Some orders are essentially death sentences anyway. "Go charge that machine-gun nest and distract them while we sneak around the back" is a probable death sentence for the recipient. Rational people will refuse to undertake such things. If you are to get them to do such things, you have to offer guaranteed death as an alternative to probable death.
I think the larger lesson here is that your friend, having just graduated from basic training, has been through a multi-month brainwashing session. He will not be quite normal for at least a year or two. It does eventually wear off.
posted by jellicle at 5:59 AM on April 25, 2007
It does, however, permit it.
The UCMJ (military law) is worded very interestingly. Striking or assaulting someone of higher rank than you is a crime. There is no mention of any crime for striking or assaulting someone of lower rank than yourself. There are several offenses which boil down to being "disorderly conduct", however, which can be stretched to cover such things. So it's something like:
--Private hits a sergeant: crime.
--Sergeant hits a private: possibility of being considered disorderly conduct, if his superiors disagree that hitting the private was called-for.
In combat situations, a superior officer has not only the right but the duty to keep his inferiors in line, including through deadly force. Such incidents will be investigated extensively, and no officer would do such a thing lightly, but it has happened. Some orders are essentially death sentences anyway. "Go charge that machine-gun nest and distract them while we sneak around the back" is a probable death sentence for the recipient. Rational people will refuse to undertake such things. If you are to get them to do such things, you have to offer guaranteed death as an alternative to probable death.
I think the larger lesson here is that your friend, having just graduated from basic training, has been through a multi-month brainwashing session. He will not be quite normal for at least a year or two. It does eventually wear off.
posted by jellicle at 5:59 AM on April 25, 2007
jellicle, interesting points, but I think:
Some orders are essentially death sentences anyway. "Go charge that machine-gun nest and distract them while we sneak around the back" is a probable death sentence for the recipient.
is a direct example of the kind of wars we simply don't fight anymore. These days it's far more likely a soldier will be killed by a grenade placed under a piece of rubbish, or an IED destroying his vehicle. Direct, frontal assaults are incredibly rare, and hence so would the need to potentially shoot someone who refused to do it.
Also,
rational people will refuse to undertake such things
is an interesting idea - how are you defining rationality there? Is it rational when a soldier pushes a friend out of the way and jumps on a grenade? Soldiers agree to take on the risk of death and injury when they sign on the dotted line. Friends of mine currently serving have no wish to be shot, but they definitely have a wish to follow orders and do the job they signed up to do. You can argue all day about whether they're being rational human beings by doing so, but ultimately soldiers have to follow orders to keep them and the people around them alive.
posted by Happy Dave at 6:08 AM on April 25, 2007
Some orders are essentially death sentences anyway. "Go charge that machine-gun nest and distract them while we sneak around the back" is a probable death sentence for the recipient.
is a direct example of the kind of wars we simply don't fight anymore. These days it's far more likely a soldier will be killed by a grenade placed under a piece of rubbish, or an IED destroying his vehicle. Direct, frontal assaults are incredibly rare, and hence so would the need to potentially shoot someone who refused to do it.
Also,
rational people will refuse to undertake such things
is an interesting idea - how are you defining rationality there? Is it rational when a soldier pushes a friend out of the way and jumps on a grenade? Soldiers agree to take on the risk of death and injury when they sign on the dotted line. Friends of mine currently serving have no wish to be shot, but they definitely have a wish to follow orders and do the job they signed up to do. You can argue all day about whether they're being rational human beings by doing so, but ultimately soldiers have to follow orders to keep them and the people around them alive.
posted by Happy Dave at 6:08 AM on April 25, 2007
Response by poster: So it seems pretty clear that while this law does exist, it is really how my friend presented it. While it's true that the maximum penalty for refusing orders is death, it obviously does not have happen like that every day.
So in the example that he kept telling about where someone orders a soldier to "run across the street and secure that building" but the solider refuses because he's too scared, from what you all have mentioned, its extremely unlikely that he'll be summarily shot. My friend absolutely insisted that in that situation the person who gave the order was absolutely mandated to shoot the refuser.
It seems things are not as black and white.
posted by jourman2 at 6:27 AM on April 25, 2007
So in the example that he kept telling about where someone orders a soldier to "run across the street and secure that building" but the solider refuses because he's too scared, from what you all have mentioned, its extremely unlikely that he'll be summarily shot. My friend absolutely insisted that in that situation the person who gave the order was absolutely mandated to shoot the refuser.
It seems things are not as black and white.
posted by jourman2 at 6:27 AM on April 25, 2007
Best answer: Correct jourman2, the idea that they would be summarily shot in a modern Western army is nonsense. There is legal capacity to do it, but unless it was literally a matter of life and death for the other members of a unit (i.e. middle of a large battle, man screaming example from above), he would be shoved aside and taken off the battlefield at the first opportunity, where he'd probably be court-martialled.
I'd imagine your friend is believing barrack-room rumours a little too much, maybe partly because having this imagined threat is a big motivator.
posted by Happy Dave at 6:58 AM on April 25, 2007
I'd imagine your friend is believing barrack-room rumours a little too much, maybe partly because having this imagined threat is a big motivator.
posted by Happy Dave at 6:58 AM on April 25, 2007
So in the example that he kept telling about where someone orders a soldier to "run across the street and secure that building" but the solider refuses because he's too scared, from what you all have mentioned, its extremely unlikely that he'll be summarily shot. My friend absolutely insisted that in that situation the person who gave the order was absolutely mandated to shoot the refuser.
In the example he was using, the much more likely scenario would be that the commanding officer would find someone else to run across the street and secure said building, or perhaps even do it himself, leaving the soldier behind to be dealt with later (why lose a good soldier who could at the very least provide covering fire from this side of the street, etc.).
Now, change the example. Say I'm the CO and have lost a limb, incapacitating me from securing the building myself. Soldier is the only remaining person under my command, and if he does not secure the building across the street, we're both going to die. I'm much more likely to repeat the order on threat of death.
posted by allkindsoftime at 8:37 AM on April 25, 2007
In the example he was using, the much more likely scenario would be that the commanding officer would find someone else to run across the street and secure said building, or perhaps even do it himself, leaving the soldier behind to be dealt with later (why lose a good soldier who could at the very least provide covering fire from this side of the street, etc.).
Now, change the example. Say I'm the CO and have lost a limb, incapacitating me from securing the building myself. Soldier is the only remaining person under my command, and if he does not secure the building across the street, we're both going to die. I'm much more likely to repeat the order on threat of death.
posted by allkindsoftime at 8:37 AM on April 25, 2007
From the code:
"A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct."
Since the C.O. does not have court-martial authority, the way I read this, he is specifically *prohibited* from shooting the soldier in question. Due process, I think, requires a court-martial.
posted by Doohickie at 8:50 AM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
"A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct."
Since the C.O. does not have court-martial authority, the way I read this, he is specifically *prohibited* from shooting the soldier in question. Due process, I think, requires a court-martial.
posted by Doohickie at 8:50 AM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition
Does the above really include a soldier being too petrified to follow an order to run across the street? It doesn't read that way to me. How loosely interpreted is this language?
posted by -harlequin- at 10:45 AM on April 25, 2007
Does the above really include a soldier being too petrified to follow an order to run across the street? It doesn't read that way to me. How loosely interpreted is this language?
posted by -harlequin- at 10:45 AM on April 25, 2007
IIRC, there are thirteen things under the UCMJ that can conceivably get you executed:
1. Desertion (only during wartime)
2. Assaulting a superior officer (wartime)
3. Attempted mutiny, Mutiny, Sedition, or failure to suppress mutiny (wartime)
4. "Misbehavior before the enemy" incl. cowardice (wartime)
5. Compelling a superior officer to surrender (wartime)
6. Improper use of a countersign (wartime)
7. Forcing a safeguard (see here)
8. Aiding the enemy
9. Spying (death is mandatory on conviction)
10. Espionage (but only in connection with another offense)
11. "Misbehavior of a sentinel" i.e. sleeping on watch (wartime)
12. Murder
13. Rape, defined as "sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent"
In peacetime, it's rape, murder, spying, aiding the enemy, forcing a safeguard, and espionage under special circumstances, that can buy you a rope at Leavenworth.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:56 AM on April 25, 2007
1. Desertion (only during wartime)
2. Assaulting a superior officer (wartime)
3. Attempted mutiny, Mutiny, Sedition, or failure to suppress mutiny (wartime)
4. "Misbehavior before the enemy" incl. cowardice (wartime)
5. Compelling a superior officer to surrender (wartime)
6. Improper use of a countersign (wartime)
7. Forcing a safeguard (see here)
8. Aiding the enemy
9. Spying (death is mandatory on conviction)
10. Espionage (but only in connection with another offense)
11. "Misbehavior of a sentinel" i.e. sleeping on watch (wartime)
12. Murder
13. Rape, defined as "sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent"
In peacetime, it's rape, murder, spying, aiding the enemy, forcing a safeguard, and espionage under special circumstances, that can buy you a rope at Leavenworth.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:56 AM on April 25, 2007
Oh, and the point of all that, was that of those offenses, it's only spying where death is mandatory; in all other cases it's death OR punishment as a court martial may direct. And even in the case of spying, it requires a general court martial, there's no provision for summary battlefield executions. (And the definition of spying used in that particular offense is pretty 18th century; modern spies are more likely to be charged under the espionage rule.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:03 AM on April 25, 2007
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:03 AM on April 25, 2007
Here's the article on misbehaviour:
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
So, it looks like a death sentence can only be imposed by courts martial, except during wartime. Again, it's vague, but there's definitely no mandate to shoot your own soldier for refusing an order.
posted by Happy Dave at 11:06 AM on April 25, 2007
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
So, it looks like a death sentence can only be imposed by courts martial, except during wartime. Again, it's vague, but there's definitely no mandate to shoot your own soldier for refusing an order.
posted by Happy Dave at 11:06 AM on April 25, 2007
And a bit more:
899. ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct.
posted by Happy Dave at 11:08 AM on April 25, 2007
899. ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct.
posted by Happy Dave at 11:08 AM on April 25, 2007
Old chiche: That’s why officers carry sidearms.
Actually, that’s partly true. But in most cases where higher brass would wind up in the line of fire it would be close quarters since they’re typically in buildings and such.
No, you wouldn’t shoot someone for cowardice unless that act directly threatened other men’s lives. Nor would you make an enlisted man choose between getting shot by you or by the enemy. In terms of officer training more emphasis is put on command responsibility particularly under the Geneva conventions - in short - you are required to take all measures within your power to prevent illegal acts or acts that cause harm by your subordinates.
So if one of your guys is going to shoot another one of your guys, you are constrained to do everything possible to stop that - including if necessary shooting the shooter.
Desertion really only gets a death sentence only when it’s in the face of the enemy. And even then - that’s pretty subjective.
And here you have to remember the difference in unit size. Fire teams for example have a great deal of latitude in movement. And they’re generally outnumbered so retreating back to the main unit is typical. On the squad level you’ll still have a non-com in charge (a corporal if it’s a marine unit) and that’s 7 to 12 or so guys and still pretty mobile and loose in terms of chain of command.
Once you get to the platoon level you have a lieutenant in charge and typically a sergent (could be a gunny though) who plays the bad ass and thats about 40 guys give or take.
On that level if someone in the front sees something that disturbs them and bolts, the whole unit can’t pick up and leave instantly like a fire team or squad can. In smaller units it’s a bit more intimate and a sergent usually won’t take it upon himself to shoot one of his own unless he has not only obvious cause but abundant evidence.
And yeah, a guy flipping out signalling the enemy would be reason enough - but on the smaller unit levels you don’t have to kill him. You can just split. And that wouldn’t be much of a conscious decision. One second it’s all quiet, the next someone’s yelling you all know you’re compromised - you run.
At platoon strength you’re typically part of a larger coordinated action. If you run you might endanger some other platoons doing something on your flank.
So someone flipping out is far more of a danger to everyone, because there is far more investment in whatever the engagement is.
So beyond the law part of it, it’s very situational.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:38 AM on April 25, 2007
Actually, that’s partly true. But in most cases where higher brass would wind up in the line of fire it would be close quarters since they’re typically in buildings and such.
No, you wouldn’t shoot someone for cowardice unless that act directly threatened other men’s lives. Nor would you make an enlisted man choose between getting shot by you or by the enemy. In terms of officer training more emphasis is put on command responsibility particularly under the Geneva conventions - in short - you are required to take all measures within your power to prevent illegal acts or acts that cause harm by your subordinates.
So if one of your guys is going to shoot another one of your guys, you are constrained to do everything possible to stop that - including if necessary shooting the shooter.
Desertion really only gets a death sentence only when it’s in the face of the enemy. And even then - that’s pretty subjective.
And here you have to remember the difference in unit size. Fire teams for example have a great deal of latitude in movement. And they’re generally outnumbered so retreating back to the main unit is typical. On the squad level you’ll still have a non-com in charge (a corporal if it’s a marine unit) and that’s 7 to 12 or so guys and still pretty mobile and loose in terms of chain of command.
Once you get to the platoon level you have a lieutenant in charge and typically a sergent (could be a gunny though) who plays the bad ass and thats about 40 guys give or take.
On that level if someone in the front sees something that disturbs them and bolts, the whole unit can’t pick up and leave instantly like a fire team or squad can. In smaller units it’s a bit more intimate and a sergent usually won’t take it upon himself to shoot one of his own unless he has not only obvious cause but abundant evidence.
And yeah, a guy flipping out signalling the enemy would be reason enough - but on the smaller unit levels you don’t have to kill him. You can just split. And that wouldn’t be much of a conscious decision. One second it’s all quiet, the next someone’s yelling you all know you’re compromised - you run.
At platoon strength you’re typically part of a larger coordinated action. If you run you might endanger some other platoons doing something on your flank.
So someone flipping out is far more of a danger to everyone, because there is far more investment in whatever the engagement is.
So beyond the law part of it, it’s very situational.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:38 AM on April 25, 2007
Keep in mind that the first section cited (on Mutiny and Sedition) requires that the person being charged act "in concert with another person."
As defined by Article 94 above, disobeying an order by yourself does not rise to the level of mutiny. Article 92, which Happy Dave posted, would cover disobedience, and does not specifically require death.
Also note that UCMJ prohibits, um, murder (Article 118). I have no idea whether the disobedience of a subordinate would bear on justification or excuse, but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a court martial.
posted by averyoldworld at 1:54 PM on April 25, 2007
As defined by Article 94 above, disobeying an order by yourself does not rise to the level of mutiny. Article 92, which Happy Dave posted, would cover disobedience, and does not specifically require death.
Also note that UCMJ prohibits, um, murder (Article 118). I have no idea whether the disobedience of a subordinate would bear on justification or excuse, but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a court martial.
posted by averyoldworld at 1:54 PM on April 25, 2007
So, it looks like a death sentence can only be imposed by courts martial, except during wartime.
Where's the "except during wartime" exception? I realize that if someone starts shooting his fellow soldiers, he will be shot within the unit and there are other situations that would warrant that, but unless the safety of the rest of the unit is at stake, I can't understand why a court martial could be omitted and the guy was just shot by a C.O.
posted by Doohickie at 1:30 PM on April 26, 2007
Where's the "except during wartime" exception? I realize that if someone starts shooting his fellow soldiers, he will be shot within the unit and there are other situations that would warrant that, but unless the safety of the rest of the unit is at stake, I can't understand why a court martial could be omitted and the guy was just shot by a C.O.
posted by Doohickie at 1:30 PM on April 26, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
I do, however, definitely see the value in making the soldiers on the field believe that if they don't do what they are told that they will be shot. I wouldn't be surprised if this legend/law is mentioned to them early and often.
posted by AaRdVarK at 10:26 PM on April 24, 2007