Mutiny

ericd · #1 10-20-2004, 07:02 AM

I was wondering why the story of the supply unit refusing to obey orders has died down. I think there is a good chance the military PR department is trying to come up with a way to soften the blow to the public when they announce they all those involved with be charged with Mutiny.

I'm no lawyer but I've read and reread Article 94 of the UCMJ

I don't know if irony is the right word but those in the group who figured there was safety in numbers may come to rue that decision.

hutz · #2 10-20-2004, 09:14 AM

I am a lawyer (don't hold it against me) but I haven't read the UCMJ. I do know one thing, though -- they won't be charged with mutiny.

P.S. Where's Wrong Forum Man?

ericd · #3 10-20-2004, 09:41 AM

The UCMJ seems pretty clear to my untrained eye. But, I will defer to your judgement.

As to the wrong forum, I see I screwed up. I only read the sub-topic heading and not the topic. Sorry, I'll get it right the next time.

drewjustdrew · #4 10-20-2004, 09:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. Where's Wrong Forum Man?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me step in:

Wrong forum, man!

hutz · #5 10-20-2004, 09:47 AM

Unless they were on a ship in the desert, they won't be charged with mutiny.

thomastem · #6 10-20-2004, 12:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am a lawyer

[/ QUOTE ]

Shocking.

snakehead · #7 10-20-2004, 12:41 PM

sigh...

PokerNoob · #8 10-20-2004, 12:52 PM

I think its going to hinge on whether the order was lawful. It seems pretty negligent to me to put fuel type A into trucks that just hauled fuel type B without using the proper procedures to purge the tanks or whatever. I just can not imagine the breakdown in communication that must have occured in the chain of command for this to happen. It sounds like the work of some dumbass junior officer that the senior noncoms couldn't end run. I really think we will probably never hear about this again, and some officer careers are over.

hutz · #9 10-20-2004, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Shocking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another pointless/devoid of content message from one of the kings of spam? Shocking.

ericd · #10 10-20-2004, 02:09 PM

My understanding of the correct military procedure is that the seniormost member of those who refused to follow orders should have:

1. Tried to convince his superior that the order was wrong
2. Failing that, request to go up the chain of command seeking a solution (the chain goes all the way to the President).
3. Inform his direct superior that he was ordering his troops not to go on the mission.

Where it appears everything fell apart is when the aforementioned senior person became involved with organizing his command to refuse the order from his superior. To protect his troops he should have issued them a new order directly from him which they would have been required to follow. Instead he made a bad situation much worse.