Why do you follow?

[Kirkhill]

The "only following orders" defence was discredited by the Nazis.  Its death was hastened by the citizen armies of the west where citizens joined to support the cause.

Can an army, can a government exist in the absence of soldiers that "only follow orders"?

If the individual exercises free thought and declines to follow orders is the CDS justified in refusing to follow the orders of a democratically elected government because he/she doesn't believe it is right?

Is the nation best served by an army of patriotic citizens following the cause - so long as they believe in the cause? Or by an army of "mercenaries" for whom the career is a job and an order is an order?

Conflicts of conscience in both instances are resolved by the followers following as long as the leaders are leading towards places the followers wish to, or more broadly are willing to go.

I see a role for both types of soldier.  Are they best melded into one organization or is it appropriate to counter-balance a "well-regulated militia" of patriots with a standing army of professionals whose first loyalty is to the chain of command?

 

[Gunner]

Why do you follow?

Curiosity? 

Seriously, there is a very large difference between what constitutes a lawful order from your superior and what constitutes an unlawful order.  The use of "just following orders" during the Nuremburg trials was not a viable defence due to German acceptance of various International laws, conventions and protocols and moreover, their actions were often in violation of German law.

Do not confuse following your superiors orders with blind obedience, there is a huge difference.  Canada, as well as most western militaries, do not want automatons in their military, they want professionals.

 

[Chimo]

All orders, to be lawful, must be morally, legally and ethically proper.

 

[Gunner98]

QR&O, CFAO provide clear definitions:

A command, in order to be lawful must be one relating to military duty, i.e., the disobedience of which must tend to impede, delay or prevent a military proceeding. A superior officer has the right to give a command for the purpose of maintaining good order or suppressing a disturbance or for the execution of a military duty or regulation or for a purpose connected with the welfare of troops or for any generally accepted details of military life. He has no right to take advantage of his military rank to give a command which does not relate to military duty or usage which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end.

Usually there will be no doubt as to whether a command or order is lawful or unlawful. In a situation, however, where the subordinate does not know the law or is uncertain of it he shall, even though he doubts the lawfulness of the command, obey unless the command is manifestly unlawful.


An officer or non-commissioned member is not justified in obeying a command or order that is manifestly unlawful. In other words, if a subordinate commits a crime in complying with a command that is manifestly unlawful, he is liable to be punished for the crime by a civil or military court. A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal; for example, a command by an officer or non-commissioned member to shoot a member for only having used disrespectful words or a command to shoot an unarmed child.

 

[reccecrewman]

I have to agree to that. I can't think of any reasonable NCO or Officer that is going to go around issuing illegal orders thereby putting their career at risk.  An order given to a Pvt./Cpl. by an NCO should be followed without question unless the soldier doesn't know exactly how to go about it, then he/she should ask clarification.  That said, if you are given an unlawful order (you should be able to differentiate lawful from unlawful) then by all means, refuse the order and take the appropriate actions to report it up the chain of command.  Don't become outright belligerent to the NCO who gave you the order, but there are avenues open to you to pursue the matter properly.

 

[Chimo]

I have to agree to that. I can't think of any reasonable NCO or Officer that is going to go around issuing illegal orders thereby putting their career at risk.  

Actually, I can think of many examples where NNCOand Officers have issued illegal orders. The Nazi war crimes, genocides in Bosnia, and aallowing subordinatesto torture prisioners are all illegal acts. Too often, the response from the subordinate is ' I was only following orders." Having stated this, I can not think of a specific Canadian example.

I was involved in a very animated ddiscussion about the responsibilities of NCOs/Officers at the National Holocaust Memorial in Washington, D.C. this spring. I was shocked when a very senior NCO from an Allied nation, defence for actions of German Guards was that they had only been following the orders of their superiors.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

An order given to a Pvt./Cpl. by an NCO

Tell me you didn't mean that!