Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 30

= July 30 =

Mutiny
(NB: I am not a member of any armed forces and ask this purely out of idle curiosity) If a member of an armed force's commanding officer mutinies, what is that member supposed to do? In most cases of military coups and similar it seems to be taken as read that soldiers will follow their officers (people only ever talk about convincing generals or other senior officers to their cause, never their soldiers), but it seems unlikely that the regulations would agree with that. Is someone (knowingly) following the orders of a mutinying officer also committing mutiny? Is so, would the fact that they were following orders be taken into account during a court martial? --Tango (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the military either, or ever have been, but I can tell you my first thought is that if I were the mutinying officer I would probably leave my subordinates in the dark as much as possible about that and let them think it's business as usual until we've already gone too far to turn back. When they figure it out I'd simultaneously threaten them with punishment or their lives and try to convince them that I'm right and the whole world is wrong. If they were ever questioned about it later they'd say they were ignorant until there was little they could do, and they were threatened. I'd also probably spread some misinformation around the unit so that the solders don't trust eachother enough to try to take me down. -LambaJan (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd try to convince them and I'd only threaten them if they didn't buy it. But you get the point, right? There's a lot that goes in these situations that would have to be sorted out. About using 'following orders' as an excuse, I think many situations would allow them to skirt around it much as I just did, but if really confronted on that point... I couldn't say. I guess it would depend on what particular action they're using that as an excuse for. -LambaJan (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the U.S. army, you'd better not obey orders you know to be illegal. (To Obey or Not to Obey, United States v. Keenan). At the end of World War II, the Germans also found out that it is no defense to say, "I was only obeying orders." (Nuremburg defense). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're ordered to commit war crimes, then yes, certainly. What if the orders aren't inherently illegal, they're just contradicting the orders of a more senior officer? --Tango (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How is not obeying the lawful orders of a higher ranking officer not illegal? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If your officer, Officer Q, says "Go to point A" when the actual order from Q's superior, Officer X, was "Go to point B". This, as opposed to Officer Q saying "Kill all civilians", when (hopefully) Officer X did not encourage civilian-killing. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between an order being illegal because it's given by the wrong person and it being inherently illegal because it's an order to do something which the law says you're not allowed to do. International law is very explicit in saying that follow orders is not an excuse for war crimes. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a soldier in most armies, you won't know what your superior's orders are. So you won't know that what he's telling you to do is contradictory to what he's been told to do. FiggyBee (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "I was only obeying orders" reason works quite well in most occasions. Only in extreme cases does it not work. Search around; I bet you will find plenty of cases where the accused was absolved because of it. Of course if your country lost the war and surrendered unconditionally then all bets are off. In most occasions only high ranking officers can refuse orders from a higher ranking officer and still get away with it. A low ranking officer, or god forbid a common soldier, which refuses any direct order from in a superior officer in a war zone will be truly lucky not to be shot on the spot (depends largely upon the circumstances and the army's discipline). This means that the highest ranking officer on the scene will be held accountable by a court of law, while those obeying his orders tend to avoid any blame or punishment. Flamarande (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that apply even when the soldier knew the orders were mutinous? While in many cases they won't know, I can imagine there would be plenty of cases where they would - if you're ordered to invade the royal palace you would probably be somewhat suspicious, however convincingly your CO tried to explain it. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it is the soldiers' sole duty to obey orders as best as he can. Read 23-F, a failed coup. In the end only 30 ppl were convicted, and I'm betting that none of the were common soldiers. For a more recent case read 2006 state of emergency in the Philippines. Read the list of the ppl who were subject to a court-martial, all of them officers and not a single soldier. It is simple logic: a soldier is there to obey the orders of his superior officer, nothing more. Basicly he is a military tool, and the wielder is held accountable. Jesus no army in which everyone questions the legality of the given orders would ever work. To be very clear: a soldier may choose to defy "unlawful" orders (depends upon the order and the circumstances) if he truly believes that they are against the rule of law. But if he chooses to obey these orders he will not be punished in a fair court of law. He is a soldier, and not a officer. The standards and rules concerning officers are (or should) higher precisely because he is a officer and therefore has some latitude of choice. Authority comes with the stripes, higher pay, and the years spent at the military accademy and so does responsibility. As it should. Flamarande (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to state that if a soldier obeys an unlawful order he or she will not be punished. That may be the case if the order is not clearly unlawful - as in a mutiny or coup, for example, where the situation may be unclear. However, most soldiers are taught at least the rudiments of the laws of war and the provisions of the Geneva Conventions (at least, soldiers in nations that are signatories to the Conventions are supposed to be taught them). Violations of these conventions by NCOs and soldiers - such as the abuse of prisoners or murder of civilians - will be prosecuted, and the fact that they were obeying orders will not be a defense. - EronTalk 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The first example you present is IMHO a red herring: the guards couldn't prove that they were obeying clear orders from a superior officer at all (still they got away with very light sentences). AFAIK the whole environment was poisonous and they were encouraged to do what they did by the chain-of-command. However no superior officer gave them a direct order to torture the prisoners. There is a major diff between ordered or encouraged to do something in the military. I'm not going to speculate if they would have been found guilty if that were the case. The fact that they were dumb enough to take pictures of their actions and the public outcry (which translates into political pressure) just might have something to do with it. The second example you provided is even more ambiguous (was he using the "I was only obeying orders" reason" at all?) The trial of the My Lai Massacre shows my point: of the 26 men initially charged (God knows how many participated), William Calley was the only conviction. He was the officer who was found guilty of ordering the massacre. Notice that not a single soldier was found guilty of obeying the order. Flamarande (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think My Lai is a good example - the US has never been known for realising that international law applies to it. I think the Nuremburg precedent takes precedence over a US court martial. --Tango (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My Lai is the perfect example (and the schema works for nearly every army). The officer in charge gave an order and the soldiers obeyed. The order was later considered illegal and unlawful by the military court. The officer was found guilty of giving an illegal order and punished accordingly. The soldiers obeyed as they are trained and indoctrinated to do, and therefore were not convicted (there were probably internal punishments - mainly to please the public and internal opinion). If I understand you correctly in your opinion the soldiers should have been charged and convicted of obeying the order? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in the military (and even less in a war, and especially not in a combat zone). To charge a soldier of obeying orders given by his superior officer simply makes no sense. Officers give orders and soldiers obey, and that's the way it works.


 * You're certainly free to think what you believe its true but on a pure legal point of view International law still plays second fiddle to national law. We are supposed to follow national laws and we are judged by national courts (only the powerless and ppl who lose wars answer to international courts). The Nuremberg trials are an exception which confirm the rule. And even there: How many common soldiers were convicted in the Nuremberg trials? Flamarande (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are ordered to shoot young children, yes, you should disobey that order. Being human takes precedence over being a soldier. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that all of us should disobey such orders (and preferably arrest the officer who gives such orders, just be really sure that you have a ton of evidence and/or witnesses or you will be convicted of mutiny), but I know that in an ugly full-scale war many of us would simply obey such orders. War simply has a way of bringing the worst out of us. The Military trains and indoctrinates soldiers to obey orders, and not to argue against them. We have a very strong instincts of survival and in order to cope we adapt ourselves to the brutal environment (in other words: in times of war many of us become beasts). In wartime, and in especially in a combat zone, soldiers will obey their orders in order to survive. It's way too easy to say : "such things should never happen, and if they do happen everyone must be held accountable". If someone wants to avoid such cases then he must hold the officers responsible for their orders and punish them accordingly. All things being equal the officer is the person in charge, and not the soldier. The soldier receives a special training designed to turn him into an obeying military machine (Of course, it isn't as easy as that. A soldier is a human being and he isn't a machine (thank God for that) but the trend is definitely there). Flamarande (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not certain countries, conducting trials under national laws in national courts, choose to hold NCOs and soldiers responsible for war crimes committed in obedience to higher orders, does not mean that there is a blanket immunity for that sort of behaviour. Several low ranking individuals have been tried for war crimes during the Holocaust. Looking at the example I provided earlier, considering all the efforts that Demjanjuk and his lawyers went through to obtain an acquital, I expect that if "I was only following orders" were an acceptable defense, they would have used it. There are other examples - the trials at Dachau related to the Malmedy massacre included both senior officers and many enlisted men. (While a number of the sentences in that case were later reduced or overturned, that was as a result of prosecutorial misconduct; there were no acquitals for following orders.) - EronTalk 23:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're grasping at straws. We don't know of what crimes Demjanjuk was charged and we don't know if he used the "I was only following orders" argument at all. Therefore you shouldn't use his case as an argument. Furthermore in such cases the accused has to provide evidence and/or witnesses to the court proving that he was in fact obeying direct orders given by a superior officer or it simply won't be considered an acceptable defence. If the information in the article Malmedy massacre trial is correct the whole trial was highly irregular. Flamarande (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Command_responsibility sheds some light on this issue. GreatManTheory (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

World trade
IN THE NEWS on the main page a report of the World Trade discussion breakdown is provided. Have we found the motive for 9/11 or is Chavez wrong? Julie Dancer (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The US, China and India failing to agree on agricultural trade in 2008 (which, if you read the history of the WTO, is hardly something new) is a motive for a terrorist attack in 2001? I'm not seeing the connection. FiggyBee (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * World Trade Center serving as a symbol of first world nations exploiting third world nations like Afghanistan before 9/11 with an even more horrific agenda than the one now being used to exploit more developed nations in 2008? Just a thought. Julie Dancer (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Julie Dancer; I'm not sure what your specific question is. If you want to enter into a complex debate about these events, a discussion forum might be a better venue.  If you have a specific question, please clarify and I will see if I can help you.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 12:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we are not on the same page. I thought everyone was still trying to figure out the real reason why Al-Qaeda (Bin Laden) did it. Besides what is there to debate? Julie Dancer (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Julie, you are asking a Reference Desk to speculate on a possible connection between 9/11 and current US-India/China economic policies, right? If so, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. Do you have a factual question? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asking the reference desk for a list of Wikipedia or other resources where I might find the answer. I would never ask a reference librarian about subject matter but only where I might find it because I know she would not have a clue. Julie Dancer (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case you might look at some of the following for the articles which contain summaries of what is hopefully verifiable commentary on the matter: September 11, 2001 attacks, Collapse of the World Trade Center, and of course there is a mention in World Trade Center itself. I am sure there are other relevant articles, they are probably linked at most one or two steps away from one or more of these.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of people wondering why Bin Laden "did it". It's pretty clear that he was attempting to attack symbols of American finance, military, and politics. It's fairly explicit. I doubt he cares much about the economy of Afghanistan. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the point to make here is that WTC and WTO are not related. Philc 0780 19:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed not - the World Trade Center existed in other buildings long before the twin towers were built, while the World Trade Organisation was known as the 'General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade' until the 1990s. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FiggyBee, China (the PRC) wasn’t a member of the WTO during previous rounds, so their stance today is something entirely new. Julie Dancer, it was the USSR that abused Afghanistan, not the “first world nations.” DOR (HK) (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe then it was what Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban told the people of Afghanistan as an excuse for attacking WTC and the US. The question is whether economic deprivation of the poor throughout the oil rich Arab world was blamed entirely on trade agreements that made a few people rich like a King or Sultan but enslaved everyone else, meaning the lower classes, meaning anyone who was not royalty. I mean this pattern repeats itself in whatever country happens to strike big oil. Those at the top and who can control a military are by trade agreement made rich while the poor are left to suffer. (I'm not trying to make a point, just expressing thoughts that come to mind.) Julie Dancer (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Al-Qaeda or Osama even got permission from the people of Afghanistan to attack the WTC and the US. From what we know, he didn't even get permission from the Taliban. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that the Taliban or the Afghani people were in any way aware of or supported the plans, the Taliban simply refused to hand over Osama. (At first they said they would be willing to try him in Afghanistan if they had sufficient evidence, then after the bombings started, they said they would hand him over to a third party Muslim country, again if they had the evidence .) As for why the people who did take part in the attacks did it, well no one knows each one's individual motive that well. Definitely their religious beliefs and brainwashing had a big thing to do with it. And I suspect also their perceived imbalance and unfairness in the world, including I suspect for some of them, the trade situation and suffering of the poor. I do think their motivations, particularly higher up ones, are a lot more complicated then a lot of people like to think. But I don't think think everyone will ever know precisely how big a part each issue was in their minds. (This guy for example Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is an 'interesting' person, a hypocrite, change of heart?, or perhaps his motivations and beliefs are a lot more complicated then simple Pious Muslim=good; everyone else especially the US & Israel=bad people like him are often shoeboxed in) Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the main point about trade agreements is that Afghanistan wasn't party to the WTO. I have never heard anyone claim that any country's WTO membership (or lack thereof), or any other trade agreement, was instrumental in terrorism. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assumption. May I ask how you came to this notion? DOR (HK) (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope it's not a conspiracy because I went to that article and a list and Bin Laden can't be found there. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I may have misunderstood but I don't think Julie is arguing that membership (or lack thereof) of the WTO or any specific trade agreement was instrumental in terrorism. I think what Julie is saying is that the WTO is just another one if the instruments the (rich) developed world uses to take advantage of and oppress the (poor) developing world world. While there is wide disagreement on what creates the imbalance in the world, and whether the WTO or any other specific trade agreement is at fault and whether there is oppression, I think there are quite a large number of commentators who will agree the imbalance in the world, whatever creates it, and the perception of oppression (whether valid or not) is a contributing factor in the spread/use of terrorism (although again, how big a factor is hotly disputed). I don't think any of this is really a suitable question for the reference desk and won't be discussing it further, simply pointing out as poorly explained as Julie's question may be, parts of it appear to have a valid premise (even though other parts of it appear completely out of wack since as I've already explained, Afghanistan's and particularly the Afghani people's direct involvement in September 11th appears to be minimal) in the hope that she accepts that what she is saying is understood but likely not suitable for the RD.. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all the patient volunteers who tried, in good faith, to answer this question. Unfortunately, I have strong doubts that Julie Dancer is a good faith editor. See this thread as well as Suspected sock puppets/Julie Dancer and also note the familiar 71.100 IP addresses there. Of course everyone is free to continue this discussion on World Trade, just thought it warranted a note. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A brief comment about your obsession with alternate user names. Some people choose to live entirely in the present. Your requirement that they also live in the past by forcing them to have the same user name for the rest of their life as in the real world is wrong. You think the Wikipedia will one day break out into the real world and everyone's user name will be their real name but the reason that this is unlikely is because all of the wiggle room would be gone. College students, for instance, that are provided an opportunity to be wrong in an environment not subjected to the scrutiny and demands of the real world would be unable to have any wiggle room which is essential in order to learn. Instead they are forced to turn to drugs in order to get the wiggle room they need. I've witnessed users who have tried from the start to use their real name and they end up having to skip, disregard or deny most of the things they would otherwise learn. They end up being empty shells instead of whole and complete persons. Your denial of any wiggle room is what forces them to take drugs. You are worse than a drug dealer since he only provided for a need you have created by your obsession against alternate user names in an online environment where they are required in order to survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.14.83 (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to determine about the current deadlock in world trade agreements is the whether in accordance with the idea that WTC was the result of "bad" prior trade agreements with rulers of third world countries for their country's resources which left the country' people uncompensated and in a state of anger what might then China and India do in absence of a WTC to attack. Also the question was posted in good faith while it seems it was not taken in that light do to rules which pretend to make the Wikipedia a reliable and trustworthy resource which is not possible with open edit resources due to th fact that vandalism may have occurred a moment prior to downloading or an update may have occurred a moment after downloading. Besides that the RD is not a forum and should not treat the askers of questions as if it were. On that note I will close by saying that references rather than commentary was what I sought but thanks for the commentary anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.14.83 (talk)

Queen's Gold Medal for Poetry
In recent years, the Queen's Gold Medal for Poetry has usually been awarded on April 23rd. However, on the British Monarchy web site there is nothing to be found concerning the 2008 award. Was there no award in 2008? Has it been delayed? Why? I'm just wondering... -- 84.160.15.65 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it just hasn't been awarded yet for some reason. It seems the April 23rd date is only a tradition, due to the Shakespeare connection, so it may not be significant.  I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 13:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A psychological phenomenon ?
It would be appreciated if someone with psychology knowledge would look at this.

Thesaurus request

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The disputed garment in the Talmud
The Talmud has a ruling about a disputed garment that if one man claims all the cloth and the other half, then the first gets 3/4 of it and the other 1/4. This has come up as part of cooperative game theory for me. Does anyone know, is there a corresponding ruling about where there are only two claimants and they have a total claim less than the total. Does it just specify a proportional division or is it more complicated than that? Thanks very much Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are lots of different ways of dividing things up like that, each with different pros and cons. The method you mention divides it so that everyone gets the same amount less than they asked for (1/4). Another obvious method would be to do it so each person gets the same proportion of what they asked for (in this case, that would be the first getting 2/3 of the cloth and the second 1/3). This kind of decision comes up all the time when resolving bankruptcies. --Tango (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I probably wasn't clear enough. What I'd like would be anything they say for situation where more money is available than the entitlement. For instance if a person was obligated to give 100 and 200 zuz to two other people and then somehow left 400 to pay off the obligations, or can something like that not happen? I noticed something saying the equivalent of wills are phrased as obligations and the total amount obligated should be more than would be available - maybe that's to avoid problems with having bits over? Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The original owner would just keep the extra. If they weren't there, I think the honourable thing to do would be to make every effort to return it to them, failing that give it to charity. There is probably a legal answer as well, but I don't know what it is (it probably depends on jurisdiction) - you might find something useful in Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property. I think a will usually has a specific person named as getting everything not explicitly accounted for. If it doesn't, I guess it's similar to the person dying intestate (without a will) and the law says what happens to it. --Tango (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I think you're right. They would try giving any extra back to the original family or if unable to give it to community work. I tried reading some bits of the Talmud in this area, quite a bit about things like the difference between dyed and bleached wool and cows that are stolen and give birth to a calf. Much more than I wanted to really :) I certainly get the impression they would not give anything more to people with a claim other than what they are entitled to and a standard interest. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just read a bit more in Kethubot 93a. If two people contribute to a fund one 100 zuz and the other 200 then they share equally in the profit. This appliesfor instance if an ox is bought for ploughing and used for that purpose. However if the ox is bought for ploughing and instead is killed then any profit is distributed in proportion to the people who contributed. So two different rules and I'm not altogether certain why. Dmcq (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)