>Gautam
>wanted all of the reservists "hanging from the
>yardarm" (he's a Marine, and I think really enjoys
>playing to the stereotypes), and the other four all
>thought that they should be spending a long, long,
>long time in Leavenworth. Four of them did express
>concerns over the way that the
On Oct 24, 2004, at 1:34 AM, Damon Agretto wrote:
I think it would be better to define what exactly an ILLEGAL order
is...and I think the previous poster clarified it. My opinion: given
my military background, I think some discipline is in order. But I
also think the person(s) issuing the orders
I think it would be better to define what exactly an ILLEGAL order is...and
I think the previous poster clarified it. My opinion: given my military
background, I think some discipline is in order. But I also think the
person(s) issuing the orders to the unit should be looked into as well. It
so
Dan Minette wrote:
> If so, lets say a subordinant knows that an order will
> endanger a number of troops without achieving a real tactical
> or strategic goal, is that order still a legal order?
An order is an order, and it is not for the subordinate to second-guess
his orders. You cannot run
- Original Message -
From: "Ray Moses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Killer Bs Discussion"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: RE: What's a lega
on of those who actually
committed the atrocities.
Ray Moses
Retired Colonel
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan Minette
Sent: Sun 10/24/2004 1:48 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: What's a legal order?
I have a couple of questions raised
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a couple of questions raised by the 18
> reservests that refused an
> order.
Damon can answer your specific questions far better
than I can. I can tell you, though, that in the past
72 hours I've spoken to four senior officers and one
junior of
I have a couple of questions raised by the 18 reservests that refused an
order.
1) Is there any way that an order can be foolhardy enough to not qualify as
a legal order? If so, are there criteria? For example, if someone know's
the captains orders will endanger the ship, like hard left at full
