[Dingfod]

I posted this in another thread, but decided maybe it deserved a thread of its own because it is outside of politics a little bit.

How does the grunt in the field determine what is a lawful or unlawful order? I mean, murder should be obvious, but what else would there be to tell? It's not like they can call the legal department and say "Sarge says shoot the sumbitch, the sumbitch is unarmed and holding a white flag, can I go ahead and shoot the sumbitch?" Sarge may not like that much.

I understand that during the Vietnam war and even in Desert Storm, the soldiers were given cards with Geneva Convention rules for treatment of enemy prisoners, but this time they were not. In fact, the administration made quite a big deal out of saying the Geneva Convention didn't apply. If the administration sets the tone by implying that international law is to be ignored, how can someone at the field level make a determination of what is legal or not? You'd think it would be obvious, but I bet it's not.

If, by international law, the entire pretext for attacking Iraq was unlawful, is everyone in the military culpable for obeying that unlawful order? Remember, Iraq had not attacked anyone since they invaded Kuwait. Attacking another country because they merely might be capable of being a threat is a rather new tactic, gunboat diplomacy without the diplomacy.

Miscellaneous curious ramblings by a guy that never served in the military either.