MIL Direct order & lawful order

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Dementio, Apr 17, 2006.

  1. Dementio

    Dementio OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    I'm doing a small presentation on the differences between a lawful order and a direct order and I can't seem to find any information anywhere.
    Anyone know anything about this?
     
  2. brackac

    brackac Fuck all of this. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    105,352
    Likes Received:
    149
    All orders can be direct orders if given by the appropriate authority, but not all direct orders are lawful orders.
     
  3. brackac

    brackac Fuck all of this. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    105,352
    Likes Received:
    149
    Vague enough? :fawk:
     
  4. Dementio

    Dementio OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    Well, from what I understood, a direct order can only be given by an officer, being as it comes from the President. But, I have to give a 5-7 presentation on this, and can't find crap.
     
  5. Rodthrower18

    Rodthrower18 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas
    I'll talk to a JAG friend of mine, when do you need the info ? Oh and dont blame me if I post some shit thats all legalese.

    edit: I also posted it on another board I go to for additional opinions.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2006
  6. Dementio

    Dementio OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    I have to give the presentation Thursday
    gotta love the military and it's short notices :hsugh:
     
  7. ManinCamo

    ManinCamo I wear big boy pants.

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    4,670
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    '01 OG
    An order to kill a bunch of civilians is not a lawful order.

    An order to kill a bunch of insurgents trying to kill you is.
     
  8. brackac

    brackac Fuck all of this. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    105,352
    Likes Received:
    149

    Lawful orders are also based upon ROE, LOAC, and the Geneva Convention.
     
  9. brackac

    brackac Fuck all of this. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    105,352
    Likes Received:
    149

    An order to kill civilians could be a lawful order depending on the situation. An order to kill a insurgent could also be an unlawful order depending on the situation.
     
  10. Dementio

    Dementio OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    This I understand, but I'm trying to find what a Direct order is. I can't seem to find an actual definition or any references pertaining to the differences.
     
  11. ManinCamo

    ManinCamo I wear big boy pants.

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    4,670
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    '01 OG
    direct order - being direct about an order.


    instead of a 'I wish *someone* would blow the bridge up'

    it would be "Sgt Fluffy, blow that bridge up now"

    thats my take
     
  12. i_is_surf

    i_is_surf New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The LDS Republic of Mormony
    Here is your quick answer as I research this for you:

    Direct Order - Given by a superior to do x, y, or z.

    Lawful Order - Rules set forth in the UCMJ, ROE, LOAC, directives, policies, as well as directives given by NCO's, sentries (USAF SF/MP/SP/Augmentee/Watch), and Military Criminal Investigative Organization (MCIO) Special Agents (NCIS/AFOSI/CID)

    But I'll give you the UCMJ and case law in a second.. I'm a bit rusty on this one. .
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2006
  13. i_is_surf

    i_is_surf New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The LDS Republic of Mormony
    Alright...

    So...

    You are dealing with 3 articles of the UCMJ. All are puntive articles (Listed in the UCMJ as Art. 77 - 134) which means they are enforceable "laws."

    The article depends on the circumstance. But first, you get the direct/lawful conflict depending on the context of the statement. The laws will remain the same but, depending on the prosecuting party, the jargon will differ. (Is that making sense so far?)

    So you have the following Articles:

    Article 90- Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.

    Article 91- Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.

    Article 92 - Failure to obey order or regulation.

    So now that we have that out of the way... From my personal experiance, I have only seen people charged and prosecuted under Art. 92, UCMJ, and not under the other articles.

    So here is what it comes down to:

    Art 90 - Disobeying orders given by superior Commissioned Officer in SUBJECT's chain of command (where the direct order comes from...)

    Art 91 - Disobeying orders given by a Warrant Officer or NCO in which SUBJECT knew the person giving the order was a Warrant Officer or NCO, that the order was lawful and that SUBJECT had a duty to follow the order (In other words, an MP can't be ordered to let someone pass a checkpoint because that person ordered the MP to do it.)

    Art 92 - Easiest one.. Everyone knows about GO-1 right? General Order 1 - No personnel shall consume alcoholic beverages while in CENTCOM AOR unless given express consent from COMCENTCOM..etc..

    Resources: Manual for Court Martial

    Caveat - I'm just a Federal Agent and not a JAG. In other words I enforce the laws, I don't interpret them.
     
  14. Dementio

    Dementio OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    Surf, your info is great, but I'm confused

    According to what has been said, it seems that there is no difference between a lawful order and a direct order. Is this just me?
     
  15. i_is_surf

    i_is_surf New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The LDS Republic of Mormony
    No, no difference, only the context of the allegation and how the Commander relays it or the JAG presents it on documents/in court.
     
  16. Dementio

    Dementio OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    well crap, that just screws my whole presentation :wtc:
     
  17. Rodthrower18

    Rodthrower18 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas
    My Jag friend finaly got back to me and had this to say

    " A "direct order" and "lawful order" really can't be compared. They're not the same thing. The UCMJ does not define what a "direct order" is. It commonly refers to an order as a 'general order,' meaning anything your superior tells you to do. But, while the UCMJ also fails to define what is a "lawful order," it does so implyidly:

    Articles 77-134 of the UCMJ are often referred to as the "punitive articles." In other words - the punishment articles - listing the things you can be punished for in the military. UCMJ Article 92(1)(a) provides that in order for a subordinate to violate a general order, there must be a legal order present. In other words, your superior can not order you to do something that is not legal; such as commit murder or traffic drugs overseas. If your superior does give you an order to do something illegal, you are absolutely unbound by the order. In fact, the UCMJ prohibits officers and other superiors from making illegal orders, subjecting them to punishment if they are found to have done so. If a subordinate knowingly accept the order to perform an illegal act, then you are also liable for your actions. But, if the order is legal, it is then considered a "lawful order," within the legal and ethical parameters of your superior's authority, and you must obey. Failure to do so may lead to a court martial.

    So, only a "direct order" that is also a "lawful order" is an order you must obey. "

    and another tossed me these links, sry it took so long man, hope this helps at least a little

    links:
    http://www.tpub.com/content/advancement/12024/css/12024_31.htm

    http://www.tpub.com/content/fc/14097/css/14097_49.htm
     
  18. Dementio

    Dementio OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle
    thanks for the help, it may actually be more than enough (i can get long winded)

    on a side note, i may not need it after all, as i found out TODAY that i will probably be going to wlc FRIDAY
     

Share This Page