Reported for inappropriate punctuation.I have to admit . . . you are very funny, and inventive . . . and I honestly enjoyed the reading, if not the roasting . . . sincerely . . and to keep the tone up I should now saY f*** off . but I don't want to encourage you . . . so will just say keep safe . . but you were right about the cat . .
Does that mean it's the Army Brians that have stockpiled all the bog roll and pasta?Type One, generally middle-aged with a refined sense of responsibility, both to themselves and those they love . . . they can often be seen staring into the middle distance, silently mouthing “F**** , I better batten the hatches . . . I better get more stores in .
Thanks - yes, this chimes in with an aphorism I read about not to give an order, if disobedience is possible but enforcement isn't.
A soldier has an obligation to refuse an order that violates the Law of Armed Conflict - e.g. an order to harm a prisoner of war, or to treat him unfairly. That's the only lawful exception as far as I can recall.I hope you'll excuse me for intruding on the conversation, as a mere civilian. But I wonder what happens if you're given an order by your Commanding Officer, and you perceive immediately that the order is stupid, and would lead to disaster if carried out.
From what I've read in books, the best procedure is for you NOT to refuse the order. Because that would lead to you
being court-martialled for "refusing to obey an order". And you'd be convicted.
Instead, you should just say "Yes Sir", salute, and go away - and then not carry out the order.
Then the most you can be charged with is failing to carry out an order. Which is not as serious as direct refusal.
And in fact, you might not get charged even with "failing to carry out", because when your CO has had a chance to think about it, he'll probably realise that his order was stupid, and would've led to disaster. Therefore he'll be glad you didn't try to carry it out. And so he'll not take any action against you, and just let the matter drop.
Is this how it works, and does it happen often?
When you mention the "Law of Armed Conflict", I don't remember having heard of that before, is it the same as the "Geneva Conventions"?A soldier has an obligation to refuse an order that violates the Law of Armed Conflict - e.g. an order to harm a prisoner of war, or to treat him unfairly. That's the only lawful exception as far as I can recall.
An SNCO or a commanding officer is always right, even if s/he is wrong.
Yes I believe they are roughly the same, though the term 'Law of Armed Conflict' was used more, probably because there's more involved than just the Geneva Conventions.When you mention the "Law of Armed Conflict", I don't remember having heard of that before, is it the same as the "Geneva Conventions"?
Also, is there a safe, tactful way to query an order if you think it's wrong?