December 8, 2011 A Comparative Critique of “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror” and “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism” The subject of obedience to authority to the point where a human would cause physical harm to another human has been greatly debated among modern critics. In his article “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror”, Crispin Sartwell suggests that the average ordinary citizen will participate in mass genocide. In contrast, “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism” by Marianne Szegedy-Maszak focuses on the response of soldiers in the military to their superiors. Both articles cover ground dealing with man’s response to social consensus and obedience. In contrast, however, Sartwell’s article focuses primarily upon the civilian aspect of obedience, whereas Szegedy-Maszak focuses more upon the military aspect.
(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation; (b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and (c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation. (2) Failure to obey other lawful order. (c) Duty to obey order. (i) From a superior. A member of one armed force who is senior in rank to a member of another armed force is the superior of that member with authority to issue orders which that member has a duty to obey under the same circumstances as a commissioned officer of one armed force is the superior commissioned officer of a member of an-other armed force for the purposes of Articles 89, and 90.
This type of leadership is strictly base on the fact that the Leader (warden) knows the it should and will be done under their watch, they also do not expect or trust any other employees to take on the responsibility, because they lack ambition the place that this type of leadership is best suited in a environment for prisons and military. In those
The Appellee was able to show that the Appellant prior record displayed a history of disobedience to authority. The military judge found the Appellant guilty of three separate charges: failure to go, willful disobedience of the order of a chief warrant officer, and dereliction of duty, and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge and reduction in rank to a Private E-1. Issue: Whether the use of prior conviction history of a defendant denies them of a fair and impartial trial. Whether a judge must give instructions
In result, they deserve respect. In a way, you cant just go up to a General and ask him what he thinks you should do about getting a TSP account. It just doesn’t work that way, it cant work that way. Otherwise, nothing would ever get done. The higher rank you have, the more responsibilities you have.
Working in an area that has nothing but oil, grease, and other hazardous materials in it is a guarantee stain on a uniform. No matter what you do you have to be in a uniform that is correct and presentable to you chain of command. It is important that you look the best you can because you never know who will becoming to see you while you are working or even in a
For my violation I fell under Article 91. and could have lead to lesser charges, in which I would be sentenced thru UCMJ which is the uniformed code of military justice. What I am going to talk about is Article 91 in which I violated by disrespect to a NCO. Article 91 is as follows insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, NCO or Petty Officer. Any warrant officer or enlisted member who strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of
If a Marine see’s you doing something that you would normally deem worthy of a ticket or a written warning then you’re setting a bad example and making yourself and other military police officers look like bags of ass. This is an unforgiving job, leading marines is not debatable, policing them should be one of your main priorities. You should be making sure that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing at all times. There should be no conflict with the rules and regulations, if there is then you might as well call yourself a
It is widely recognised that the military and the soldiers individually are part of a community that would demand of them to put their personal and professional values aside to serve the moral good. It is not believed to be the responsibility of the military to assess whether or not a war is just – certainly not down to the individual soldier. Wolfendale argues that each soldier has a duty to familiarise his/herself with the principles of just war theory to be able to assess themselves, whether they are partaking in a just war. Arguments Wolfendale supports her claim by first identifying the military as a profession, which in itself demands professional integrity, i.e. a way of determining the best way to conduct the work as a soldier and where the moral limits to that service is – when the soldier should stop fighting the war.
Orders are called orders because that is exactly what they are, not suggestions. In the heat of battle, following orders saves lives. There is no time to think it through or suggest other options. Your sergeant gives an order and he expects it to be followed as well as when you might give an order to your subordinates. That is one reason why basic/boot seems so scary to some people because they know they will have a power struggle with the drill sergeants.