Should you kill someone from a different country you are at war with, while you are in the Military because your superior ordered you to. Is it right?

Comments

Comments

• Exactly this way the US and British handle things.
  What a British or American superior tells you to do, is always right and just.

  • Report
  

  by Frederik on October 23rd, 2009

• Yes. Basically if you don't approve, don't join the military. It's not compulsory.

  • Report
  

  by downtide on October 23rd, 2009

• The US army and the British army are a quite different world to any other army in the world and so they have an extremely unique and extremely different opinion to the rest of the world.
  So, I never would even think about joining one of these two armies because my pov and education is completely controversal and so I could not find anything common with those people.

  • Report
  

  by Frederik on October 23rd, 2009

• @Frederik -It's not always right or just. The members of the military are not automatons. We do know how to differentiate between lawful orders and illegal orders.
  Oath of Enlistment for the US Military.
  "I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
  Notice that it says "according to regulations and the Uniform code of Military Justice."

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on October 26th, 2009

• Good comments. +6 Also see my answer.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 26th, 2009

• No Frederik, that is not the way the British do things. It is illegal to intentionally kill a person who is not a combatant (using the widest possible definition of combatant), and it is illegal to order the killing of someone who is not a combatant. Soliders are taught the laws of war, and must know who they can and cannot intentionally kill.

  • Report
  

  by Jadey - Vive la difference on October 26th, 2009

• Very good, Jadey. :-)

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 26th, 2009

• The British did things this like and therefore no further comment.
  There are many things written on a paper and theory and reality are different.
  But I for myself can confirm that I never had to kill anybody and I am educated by my country that I only can kill somebody in a military conflict when I am defending myself or other people.
  I am also educated that I have to treat an enenemy or opponent the same way as I want to get treated in such a situation.
  It's probably completely stupid after the Anglo-American pov but this is my pov and my attitude.
  I just remember the Bloody Sunday at Londonderry and I just remember the different actions in the Iraq.
  And I do not want to talk of those many Abu Ghraibs with all that nice pictures.
  I could see most of them them and I can tell you they only gave the most harmless ones to the public.
  On all Arab channels you see these pictures by day and night with the suitable comments.
  America was doing a lot for its reputation with these pictures.

  • Report
  

  by Frederik on October 27th, 2009

• Frederik, those atrocities were committed by rogue elements, not by policy. Even Bush/Cheney did not endorse what went on in Abu Ghraib. It's the duty of military commanders, like myself, to control the tendency of troops to overreact.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 27th, 2009

• In this point I completely agree with you.
  I am doing a quite similar job as you do.
  In regard of our special history we take these things much more serious as anybody else.

  • Report
  

  by Frederik on October 27th, 2009

• My great-uncle was an SS General. Something I'm not terribly proud of.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 27th, 2009

• I can understand. I would not like to have such an uncle.
  I think you can't be proud of that.
  But thank you for your open statement.

  • Report
  

  by Frederik on October 27th, 2009

• Major Tom, I have listened to a lecture given at Stanford University by Gerald Gray as part of their Human Rights series called "Torture Policy at Abu Ghraib: Military Use of Science for the Control of the Country". He was uniquely placed to give unrivaled evidence, out of the reach of the average citizen. He claimed that torture is part of US policy and has been since Vietnam. It was very interesting and his credentials and evidence seems so strong that I really do not know what to make of it.

  • Report
  

  by Jadey - Vive la difference on October 28th, 2009

• I know about this opinion and I only can confirm that not all Americans are backing what is going on.
  The right way would be to start an investigation at the International Court at the Hague. But I think there would come out that the US government and very high officials were involved and this is probably the reason why Obama refuses to open the files.
  If the US are doing a favour to themselves this way, I may really doubt. The reputation of the USA is extremely damaged and I think Al Quiada will thank the US for this great public success.

  • Report
  

  by Frederik on October 28th, 2009

• I do think that the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have created extremists that may otherwise have not existed.

  • Report
  

  by Jadey - Vive la difference on October 28th, 2009

• Jadey ,if that is the case,I've never seen documentation. That doesn't mean that the policy doesn't exist, since my duties never involved prisoner interrogation. If it was official policy, then I would have to state that I was ashamed to wear the uniform of a nation that ordered such practices. I agree with you that such practices, when publicized, actually create more resistance to the military forces. I was taught that information obtained by torture is of little value, since a person under such treatment will tell the interrogator whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 28th, 2009

• Well exactly. This is what made me doubt the truth behind claims that it is policy. Why have a policy which is proven to be ineffective at best and counter productive at worst? If I remember rightly though, Gray said that it is mostly not done to extract information and intelligence at all. Saying that the US may torture one person to gain info which may protect national security is, he claims, a lie. He said that by allowing, and guiding, the public to debate whether torture is morally permissible in terms of intelligence acquisition, we are distracted from debating the real issue - is it right or wrong to torture at all? I don't want to believe that what he says is true. I would want that even less if I were American.

  • Report
  

  by Jadey - Vive la difference on October 28th, 2009

• That's exactly correct,Jadey.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 28th, 2009

Comments

• good answer Jadey. +6 In practice, we take into consideration that a junior enlisted soldier may not know all details of the UCMJ and international agreements. The superior officer is therefore held more accountable in cases of doubt. In many of the current conflicts, enemy combatants do not wear uniforms and sometimes are very young. This makes it very difficult to distinguish combatant from civilian, even for a very experienced soldier such as myself. A combatant could take a shot at you, hide the weapon and claim "civilian" status. It's happening daily. Muslim women transport arms, ammo and explosives under their burqas. Very complex situation. That does not relieve the soldier of responsibility though, merely a mitigating factor.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 26th, 2009

• How'd your job interview go, Jadey? :-)

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 26th, 2009

• Thank you =) Definitely, which is one of the reasons that I believe there must be a new Geneva Convention, to properly codify new laws borne from the developments of modern wars, but I believe the legal process already allows for these complications and there are many mitigating factors. Also, when it comes down to it, in reality junior soldiers would rarely be tried for such things - its always up at the highest levels and mostly for graver violations I believe.

  • Report
  

  by Jadey - Vive la difference on October 26th, 2009

• I had a second interview with them today... still waiting to hear back! =) I have another interview for a not so great job at the end of the week.

  • Report
  

  by Jadey - Vive la difference on October 26th, 2009

• Unfortunately, in practice, some organization "scapegoat" the most junior soldier to cover for the unlawful order of a superior, Shouldn't happen but it does :-(

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 26th, 2009

• Keeping my fingers crossed for you!

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 26th, 2009

• That's a real shame, I guess thats the way of the world though.
  Thanks =)

  • Report
  

  by Jadey - Vive la difference on October 26th, 2009

Comments

• But winning them in a morally correct way. Otherwise we are no better than the terrorists. +6

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 26th, 2009

• The morality of the war is left up to the politicans. Some would argue that the morality of WW2 was suspect. Would you? Was the final act that brought about the surrender of the Japanese morally correct?

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on October 26th, 2009

• The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved at least half a million American and Allied lives. They also saved the Japanese as a nation, since a ground invasion would have had genocidal consequences. As a professional soldier, I go where the politicals send me, but I conduct myself and lead my troops according to my ethical principles.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 26th, 2009

• As a veteran myself, I conducted myself according to the laws of war.
  Proving my point, the morality of bombing Hiroshima and Nagaski was a moral decision left to the politicians, not the troops. You should know that the art of war on the ground is a dirty, bloody business and sometimes morals go right out the window when it comes down to saving your ass from being killed.

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on October 27th, 2009

• I understand. Been there, done that, 2 clusters on my Heart. My remarks related to the wanton killing of civilians such as occurred in Iraq. Troops lose a comrade in an ambush, wipe out a village in retaliation. UNSAT conduct. Failure of leadership.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 27th, 2009

• If you're talking about the "alleged" Haditha incident, you're a little off. Everyone involved has been found not guilty except two. Charges were dropped against one and another is still pending (after 4 years).

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on October 27th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments