NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/politics/guns/25754

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 2.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!crcnis1.unl.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!inmet!inmet!dlb
From: [e-mail] (David Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The War On Drugs and the National Guard
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:52:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Lines: 35
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 29 Dec 92 19:12:31 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: fanny.wash

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(T. Archer) writes:

   Not exactly.  You are addressing a moral issue of human rights.  I
   am, in my own naive way, trying to address a legal issue dealing
   with civil liberties.  According to the letter of the law of the
   land, the grunt on the end is freed of onus, and can't be sued by
   the victim.  That suit, or any charges, are properly placed on the
   person who made the decision: the CO.  On a moral level, I am a big
   fan of holding ALL individuals responsible for thier actions.  If
   the grunt felt that the search & seizure to be morally wrong, he
   should refuse to follow the order.  But I live in reality, and real
   morality is relative to personal cost.  The average grunt will obey
   orders to violate my civil liberties and tell me to take it up with
   his CO.  Hell, "tell it to the judge" is standard for civilian cops
   today.  On the other hand, I like to think that the average soldier
   would refuse to shoot me out of hand.

I hope not too; however, I think I have been unclear.  There are
definite limits to the extent to which a person can be released from
liability for his actions by orders from a superior.  These are legal
limits; I am not addressing moral ones (which, from my point of view,
should be more restrictive than the legal ones).  Nuremburg and other
war crime trials have established an international legal limit
concerning how much a soldier can use the "I was only following
orders" defense.  The question is: is there a similar limit in force
here?  Could a soldier be held liable for his actions despite a
chicken-shit regulation (I hope, I hope)?

Thus, I did not intend to address a moral issue of human rights, but
the legal issue of whether the regulation would hold up in a court of
law.

                    Dave Barton
                    [e-mail]