A tweet states that National Guard or Active Duty military ordered to violate constitutional rights can call the GI Rights Hotline for support, with the number 1-877-447-4487 provided.

  • arrow74@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    If someone shoots an officer ordering war crimes that is justice, and probably why they don’t allow military members to be tired by public courts. They would almost certainly be acquitted.

    Honestly I like how the constitution says everyone without exception is allowed a jury trial, but we just pretend that it’s okay for the military to not follow that. Like sure now they are volunteers, but conscription has a long history. It’s kinda fucked up when you think about it, and definently unconstitutional

    • Wilco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      12 hours ago

      No. You are 100% WRONG. Shooting an officer ordering a war crime is not justice … it is actually criminal behavior. It is not how it is done.

      Source: The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)

      • arrow74@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Because the UCMJ has done such a great job of preventing war crimes and punishing war criminals…

        Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it unjust and vice versa.

        After all according to the German military the holocaust was legal. If soldiers then murdered their officers they would have been seen by the world as heros.

        Legality should not be the basis of your morality

        • Wilco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Dudes are saying that soldiers should shoot their officers if they give a “bad” order … that’s not how things work. Anyone that thinks it is has watched way too many movies.

          • arrow74@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            Nobody said that, I certainly didn’t.

            What I said was if your CO orders you to kill civilians it is absolutely moral to ignore that order and if necessary go beyond the law to prevent it even if that includes killing your CO.

            There is a huge difference between a “bad” order and being complicit in war crimes and killing unarmed civilians in your own country.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The military is told when they enlist that they are signing away their rights as a citizen until the term of enlistment, or their commission, is fulfilled. Personally I appreciated being bound by a much smaller, but somewhat more restrictive, set of rules that they gave each of us a copy of to read and learn. Turns out it’s much easier to just do what you want to do, if you know how to do it within the rules.

      • arrow74@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I understand that’s what we say, but it’s not in the constitution and courts have ruled that you cannot sign away your rights as they are inalienable. Yet, it’s allowed for the military to do so

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          Military kinda has to operate under its own jurisdiction. They have to be able to tell the president, “no.” The founders didn’t think we would have a standing military, so they didn’t put provisions in the Constitution itself, but once it became clear that we were going to have to have a standing army and navy at all times, we changed the laws.

          Also it can be argued that a court martial is better than a jury trial. Because the jury is made of JAG, so they actually know what the UCMJ says, and what precedents apply.

          • arrow74@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I get what you’re saying, but historically the military does not tell the president “no” (at least to our knowledge) and has constantly committed war crimes with little to no repercussions