# Dealing with ethical and/or legal issues in operations



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

This thread was created as a place to discuss general considerations and challenges with the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) with regards to contemporary operations, i.e. where there may be ethical and legal aspects of a situation that are worthy of discussion or debate.  This may include reference to current events, but the intent is not to focus on a specific case, but rather foster a constructive discussion of  considerations within the framework of the LOAC.

Please keep the thread professional and not revert to personalization where opinions may differ on a particular topic.

Regards

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## kincanucks (10 Oct 2010)

_*edit - moved from the Semrau thread in an attempt to channel discussion related to legal/ethical issues in general to this thread.* G2G, Milnet.ca Staff_


_he acted on moral grounds for the dying enemy _

I would like you to explain to me why you think that what he did was moral?  In what world is it moral to shoot someone who is wounded?  Comparing this to the putting down of a animal and to a scene in a movie is asinine.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (10 Oct 2010)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> _he acted on moral grounds for the dying enemy _
> 
> I would like you to explain to me why you think that what he did was moral?  In what world is it moral to shoot someone who is wounded?  Comparing this to the putting down of a animal and to a scene in a movie is asinine.



This world:

States with legal euthanasia:
Montana
Oregon
Washington

Countries with Euthanasia:

Belgium 
The Netherlands
Switzerland (Not legal but doctors aren't punished for doing it) 

Assisted Suicide: 

•Albania 
•Luxembourg


----------



## Gunner98 (10 Oct 2010)

KevinB,

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Afghan+soldier+revelation+sparked+shooting+probe+court+martial+told/2730745/story.html

"I came to the conclusion that there was a real possibility that a crime had been committed," Nolan testified.

During the Helmand operation, Semrau had radioed Nolan to ask what he should do with a wounded Taliban fighter that he had encountered in a cornfield. Nolan said he told Semrau to offer first aid and evacuate the wounded man.

According to Nolan, Semrau came back on the radio five to seven minutes later to say the insurgent had died of his wounds.

Nolan told the court martial that he took the Afghan soldier's allegations about Semrau seriously because it fit with an oblique comment made earlier by an Afghan colonel. During the Helmand operation, the colonel had congratulated him for the actions of one of his men, who had killed a Taliban. Nolan had dismissed the colonel's comments as "bizarre" since none of his soldiers had reported killing an insurgent.

Nolan conveyed his suspicions about Semrau to his superior, Colonel Joseph Shipley, on Dec. 21, 2008, one day after being approached by the Afghan soldier. Shipley ordered Fisher to interview Private Steven Fournier, who had been with Semrau on the day in question. Based on the results of Fisher's "disturbing" interview with Fournier, Nolan said, a full military investigation was ordered.

Semrau's lawyer, Major Steve Turner, suggested on cross-examination that Nolan was once the subject of a probe by the military's National Investigative Service about a possible coverup in the case. Nolan said he underwent a lie-detector test as part of that investigation earlier this year. He has not been charged with any offence.

Friday's cross-examination also hinted at the defence strategy in Semrau's court martial. Turner asked Nolan to review a written log of radio communications made during the Helmand operation of Oct. 19, 2008. Nowhere in that log, Turner suggested, would Nolan find anything to confirm his radio conversation with Semrau, in which he is alleged to have ordered him to offer first aid to the wounded Taliban soldier and to evacuate him.

"No, it's not recorded in the log," Nolan conceded. Nolan noted, however, that radio communications were poor that day and that the soldier making the logbook may not have heard the transmission.

SevenSixTwo,

This is a very gray argument.  There is a fine but important line between legal and criminal offence with exceptions - Example - Netherlands

In 2002, the Netherlands legalized euthanasia. Euthanasia is still a criminal offence but the law codified a twenty-year old convention of not prosecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in specific circumstances. The Dutch Euthanasia Act states that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not punishable if the attending physician acts in accordance with criteria of due care.[1]  These criteria concern the patient's request, the patient's suffering (unbearable and hopeless), the information provided to the patient, the presence of reasonable alternatives, consultation of another physician and the applied method of ending life.[1] To demonstrate their compliance, the Act requires physicians to report euthanasia to a review committee.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands


----------



## kincanucks (10 Oct 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> This world:
> 
> States with legal euthanasia:
> •Oregon
> ...



Well thank you very much for that and now it makes perfect sense to me.  So according to your post if it is legal to euthanize someone, who is dying and all medical help has done nothing to ease their suffering, in some places, therefore it is perfectly acceptable, moral, and most of all legal to shoot a wounded combatant in Afghanistan?


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> This world:
> 
> States with legal euthanasia:
> •Oregon
> ...


Funny, I don't see Canada there.

To illustrate:
It is ok to stone certain criminals to death.  After all, the following nations do so:
Iran
Nigeria
Saudia Arabia
Sudan

another:

It is ok to execute certain criminals.  After all, the following nations do so (among others):
China
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
The United States of America
Yemen
Sudan 
Viet Nam
Syria
Japan
Egypt
Libya
Bangladesh
Thailand
Singapore
Botswana
Malaysia
North Korea


Again, I don't see Canada there...


----------



## SevenSixTwo (10 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Funny, I don't see Canada there.
> 
> To illustrate:
> It is ok to stone certain criminals to death.  After all, the following nations do so:
> ...



What are you saying? Are you saying that other countries in the world have different morals than us? If you are then thank you for proving my original point which, some seemed to have missed. The person originally said in what world can you do such a thing. Well, guess what it may not just be our country that doesn't do it but a lot of the world DOES do it.


----------



## armyvern (10 Oct 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> What are you saying? Are you saying that other countries in the world have different morals than us? If you are then thank you for proving my original point which, some seemed to have missed. The person originally said in what world can you do such a thing. Well, guess what it may not just be our country that doesn't do it but a lot of the world DOES do it.



In the nations that you cited, it may well be good & legal to euthanize persons within that country under certain circumstances; however, if those very same nations were at war (which we are in Afghanistan), that same nation would then have to comply with the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Armed Conflict and the act of euthanizing an unarmed & injured combatant would then be "illegal" according to those international laws to which that country is a signatory. National law is of *no* bearing when other (International) Laws are also applicable to the behaviour given the circumstances.


----------



## Gunner98 (10 Oct 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> What are you saying? Are you saying that other countries in the world have different morals than us? If you are then thank you for proving my original point which, some seemed to have missed. The person originally said in what world can you do such a thing. Well, guess what it may not just be our country that doesn't do it but a lot of the world DOES do it.



There are 195 official independent countries in the world - 6 of them including the US have publicized and specific laws on 'assisted suicide and euthanasia' - that is not a lot.

And I double what Vern said.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

> National law is of *no* bearing when other (International) Laws are also applicable to the behaviour given the circumstances.



Armyvern, I think I know what you mean here, but would you consider my adding some additional detail to your statement above in the form of:

"...national law, while applicable, should not hold precedence over the LOAC when it is less restrictive than the body of international law and conventions governing the conduct of warfare."

Regards, 
G2G


----------



## armyvern (10 Oct 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Armyvern, I think I know what you mean here, but would you consider my adding some additional detail to your statement above in the form of:
> 
> "...national law, while applicable, should not hold precedence over the LOAC when it is less restrictive than the body of international law and conventions governing the conduct of warfare."
> 
> ...



Agreed.

And, if a nation chooses to hold it's national law (or morals) higher ... I'd wager the International Courts would step in to charge the war crime etc. Witness the Balkans.


----------



## kincanucks (10 Oct 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> What are you saying? Are you saying that other countries in the world have different morals than us? If you are then thank you for proving my original point which, some seemed to have missed. The person originally said in what world can you do such a thing. Well, guess what it may not just be our country that doesn't do it but a lot of the world DOES do it.



Don't you hate coming in to the middle of a conversation and not having a clue about anything being discussed but you just have to say something to get noticed?  Yes, what I said in what world is okay to shoot a wounded person.  So in what world is okay to do this? Your world?


----------



## SevenSixTwo (10 Oct 2010)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Don't you hate coming in to the middle of a conversation and not having a clue about anything being discussed but you just have to say something to get noticed?  Yes, what I said in what world is okay to shoot a wounded person.  So in what world is okay to do this? Your world?



You shouldn't talk as if you've exerienced the same thing as 2nd Lt. Semrau. It just makes you look foolish. Oh, hey! Look it's illegal around the world. Are you saying you've been in the same experience? Not to mention your taking things out of context and assuming things about a situation you have no idea about. For all you know this person could have been missing half a torso and still alive (if you can't tell what exaggeraton is then that's just hilarious).

EDIT: To clarify for those who are still misunderstanding: IT HAPPENS around the world. No one said international law agrees with it.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> You shouldn't talk as if you've exerienced the same thing as 2nd Lt. Semrau. *It just makes you look foolish. *Oh, hey! Look it's illegal around the world. Are you saying you've been in the same experience? Not to mention your taking things out of context and assuming things about a situation you have no idea about. For all you know this person could have been missing half a torso and still alive (*if you can't tell what exaggeraton is then that's just hilarious*).



Okay, this is the kind of personalization that we were working to avoid.  No need for this. 

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Another Mom (10 Oct 2010)

In  hospitals across Canada, physicians are faced with  easing the pain of dying people. Do they practice "euthanasia" technically? No.  However,  patients are administered  high levels of drugs to ease their suffering.  Semrau was faced with 2 equally poor choices:  live with the guilt of the man's  pain or break the law. Perhaps officers should be equipped with enough painkiller to render a suffering and dying patient  (for whom treatment is impossible) unconscious until nature takes his course. Would  Semrau have shot the man if he had another choice? I highly doubt it.   Perhaps this was  a systems failure  that can provoke a discussion of  solutions which uphold both humane morality and the letter of the law in these situations.


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Oct 2010)

Only Medical proffesionals are allowed to carry narcotics in CF and they do with a vast amount of training in the proper adminestration of the drugs and do so under a surgeons license. It would be illegal for a non medical pers to carry those narcotics.


----------



## Nemo888 (10 Oct 2010)

Actions such as these (and usually infinitely worse) are synonomous with war. There has not been a war where such things have not happened. 

If you are shocked or surprised you have little imagination. If you want to avoid the cruel truth of war don't have one in the first place. If you do have one expect the murderous rage and icy indiffernce that soldiers treat their enemies with.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2010)

Here is something I found interesting.  During leadership training we had a class on Ethics, morals and the law.  Typical class where the course officer gave us challenging "what would you do" questions. The legal answer was always obvious.

Anyhow, he posed this question.
You're a section commander leading your section in battle against an enemy force. You are in a village clearing small buildings.  

You enter a room and find one of your soldiers with his rifle in his hand, barrel smoking.  In front of him is a dead enemy soldier, clearly shot by your man. The enemy soldiers AK47 is leaning up against a wall on the otherside of the room clearly out of reach.
Laying on the floor is a dead middle age woman with a gunshot wound in her head, looks like an AK bullet.  On the floor beside her is her  young teenage girl who was clearly being raped and then dies herself from a gunshot would, inflicted by the enemy soldier previously.

Question was, what do you do. Report your soldier to your chain of command for the shooting of the unarmed soldier or forget what you saw. As far as you're concerned the enemy soldier was shot while reaching for his gun.

He asked who would report the soldier and out of 40 of us 36 raised their hand, and they were quite adamant about reporting this. 
He then asked who wouldn't report the solider and only 4 of us raised their hand.  The next question was what I found really interesting. He then asked how many soldiers in the room were parents and the same 4 of us raised our hands.
Really made me think.


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Only Medical proffesionals are allowed to carry narcotics in CF and they do with a vast amount of training in the proper adminestration of the drugs and do so under a surgeons license. It would be illegal for a non medical pers to carry those narcotics.



Incorrect - I have seen a number of time and places where 'normal' folks have been issues Morphine etc.

Regarding Maj. Nolan, what had been related before was they he told Capt. Semrau to leave the wounded prisoner.

 Personally from dealing with Afghani's and seeing how they act around the TB and others they dislike, I would find it extremely unlikley that any of them would complain about a CF member shooting up a slew of bound and gaged prisoners, let alone a lone wounded individual.

 Secondly - Lie Detectors/Polygraphs have no legal standing, regardless of the CF's (and others) eagerness to use them, I find it odd that Maj. Nolan felt he had to blurt out he had taken a poly about the lack of comments in the radio log.


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Oct 2010)

Back in your time Yes Kev that was the norm, Current practice is Medics only. No longer are we allowed to carry a morph dose in our IFK's.


EDIT: Spelling


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> What are you saying? Are you saying that other countries in the world have different morals than us? If you are then thank you for proving my original point which, some seemed to have missed. The person originally said in what world can you do such a thing. Well, guess what it may not just be our country that doesn't do it but a lot of the world DOES do it.


Save your thanks.  I am referring to LAWS and not MORALS.  There is a huge gap/void between them.  In short, "laws" are agreed upon by a society/state and then enforced by that society/state.  Morals, ethical codes, etc, are a whole different bowl of noodles.  

I'm pointing out the illogical argument that asserts that if act (a) is legal "somewhere", then it's acceptable to act in that manner.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> You're a section commander leading your section in battle against an enemy force. You are in a village clearing small buildings.
> 
> You enter a room and find one of your soldiers with his rifle in his hand, barrel smoking.  In front of him is a dead enemy soldier, clearly shot by your man. The enemy soldiers AK47 is leaning up against a wall on the otherside of the room clearly out of reach.
> Laying on the floor is a dead middle age woman with a gunshot wound in her head, looks like an AK bullet.  On the floor beside her is her  young teenage girl who was clearly being raped and then dies herself from a gunshot would, inflicted by the enemy soldier previously.
> ...


I would ask the soldier "WTF?"  From what I see, it looks like the enemy soldier had been committing aggravated assault, and the soldier took the only steps available at the time to stop it.  So, not "ratting him out", but trying to find the truth: eg: what happened.  If it turns out that the man was the son of the middle aged woman, and older brother of the dead girl, and had in fact just come into the room when the soldier shot him, or whatever.  But the first act is to find out what happened.  IMHO.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

^ concur.

That people immediately think 'murder' because the dead man's AK-47 is out of reach, does not consider that a combatant trained in close-combat/unarmed combat can be just as lethal to a soldier entering a room, no matter how far an AK-47 may be from the man.  Knife?  Hands?  Maybe a close-quarter snap shot from the soldier's weapon was the quickest action for the soldier's own defence, and the correct action to take.  There is always much in the details provided in the specific scenario, but in this one, initially asking the soldier before jumping to conclusions is the appropriate action -- subsequent action would follow.  People who say "asking for more info" is an ethical copp-out are perhaps seeing things a bit more black and white.

Me own two cents,
G2G


----------



## dogger1936 (10 Oct 2010)

I'd ask him wtf he hasnt called room clear , cover him to check out the badger and woman/ child for vitals. Provide aid where needed and inform higher and carry on. There would be time for debreifs later/AAR. Unfortunately people in these ethical class's seem to forget there usually isnt time/ security to sit around and talk at the time. No time outs can be called.  I would take trust in my troops that they did the right thing (guy was charging at me sarge etc). Give him praise and carry on.

Edit to add the guy would quickly have to spout off what the hell happened anyway. I.E The ****** charged me/ reached for his gun" Call higher inform.


----------



## kincanucks (10 Oct 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> You shouldn't talk as if you've exerienced the same thing as 2nd Lt. Semrau. It just makes you look foolish. Oh, hey! Look it's illegal around the world. Are you saying you've been in the same experience? Not to mention your taking things out of context and assuming things about a situation you have no idea about. For all you know this person could have been missing half a torso and still alive (if you can't tell what exaggeraton is then that's just hilarious).
> 
> EDIT: To clarify for those who are still misunderstanding: IT HAPPENS around the world. No one said international law agrees with it.



Seriously WTF are you going on about? Now we are suddenly in a dick measuring contest?  WTF is your background? Your argument is flawed.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I'd ask him wtf he hasnt called room clear , cover him to check out the badger and woman/ child for vitals.


(slight tangent)
Although I know what is taught on the UOIC, please refer to "people in the battlespace" as friendly, enemy, non-combatants, PWs, detainees, etc.  
(/slight tangent)



> There would be time for debreifs later/AAR. Unfortunately people in these ethical class's seem to forget there usually isnt time/ security to sit around and talk at the time. No time outs can be called.  I would take trust in my troops that they did the right thing (guy was charging at me sarge etc). Give him praise and carry on.
> 
> Edit to add the guy would quickly have to spout off what the hell happened anyway. I.E The ****** charged me/ reached for his gun" Call higher inform.


Agreed.  No time outs, ensure the safety/security of the situation, and when able (after calling consolidation, or as you dudes say, "out out out", but only in a building... ), attempt to find out what happened.  Just with any situation.


----------



## dogger1936 (10 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> (slight tangent)
> Although I know what is taught on the UOIC, please refer to "people in the battlespace" as friendly, enemy, non-combatants, PWs, detainees, etc.
> (/slight tangent)
> Agreed.  No time outs, ensure the safety/security of the situation, and when able (after calling consolidation, or as you dudes say, "out out out", but only in a building... ), attempt to find out what happened.  Just with any situation.


Ahh but you knew what the heck I was talking about back in the TOC either way! I've also called in contact reports using "I got 3!" My radio procedure dissapears under contact.  :nod:


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Oct 2010)

I have had more time to think about it and right now am in a heated dispute via PM with another forum member over this issue. Its between me and him, so don't ask for names.

However I want to point out one thing, for those that feel what Semrau did was absolutely wrong, why was he not convicted of murder? There is an answer and it was not clear cut and dry. Period. For those that refer to the Army ethics program scenarios, there is a reason we do those situations and discuss them (Am I qualified a unit ethics coordinator) because situations are not always clear cut.

The final thing I really want to get off my chest. The comparison between Clayton Matchee and 2Lt Semrau is completely uncalled for. Not in any universe should that ever be made.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> However I want to point out one thing, for those that feel what Semrau did was absolutely wrong, why was he not convicted of murder?


In this case, I don't think that there was sufficient evidence to meet the requirements, or burden, of proof (eg: no body, insufficient witnesses, etc and so forth).

But, I'm not certain if I'm ready to say "right" or "wrong".  That's why in this case, I stick to the law.


So, back on target, for me, ethics has no place in the military.
































































Did I shock you?  I hope I did.  It was deliberate.  All that I expect of my subordinates (other than good performance, attention to detail and all that jazz) is to work within the law.  All applicable laws.  "Ethics" are a personal choice, and no one person can force a set of ethics upon the other.  I realise that a former Army Commander solved what thousands of years of philosophers could not, and that was codify a set of universally applicable ethics.  (yes, that is sarcasm).  So, just as I cannot force anyone to become Roman Catholic, even though I am a practicing RC, neither can I force anyone to adopt my set of ethical values.  I can, however, force my subordinates to comply with the law.  And that's all I can do.
Sure, try to "what if" this to death, but in the end, we don't face moral judgement here on Earth.  You instead face legal judgement, and that's enough for me.


----------



## bdave (10 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Save your thanks.  I am referring to LAWS and not MORALS.  There is a huge gap/void between them.  In short, "laws" are agreed upon by a society/state and then enforced by that society/state.  Morals, ethical codes, etc, are a whole different bowl of noodles.
> 
> I'm pointing out the illogical argument that asserts that if act (a) is legal "somewhere", then it's acceptable to act in that manner.



I thought laws were supposed to reflect the morality and ethical code of whatever society. Society sees killing someone in "normal (civi) life" as immoral, except for special circumstances. As such, they created a law that would punish anyone going against this social construct.


----------



## Gunner98 (10 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> You enter a room and find one of your soldiers with his rifle in his hand, barrel smoking.  In front of him is a dead enemy soldier, clearly shot by your man. The enemy soldiers AK47 is leaning up against a wall on the otherside of the room clearly out of reach.
> Laying on the floor is a dead middle age woman with a gunshot wound in her head, looks like an AK bullet.  On the floor beside her is her  young teenage girl who was clearly being raped and then dies herself from a gunshot would, inflicted by the enemy soldier previously.



When I presented this scenario to my subordinates, the first question they asked was...How can you tell from a gunshot wound that it was an AK bullet, are we suppose to be CSI.  Their second question was...how did you we know he was a dead enemy soldier when in Afghanistan they don't wear uniforms?  The third was...How do you know that the soldier did not shoot everyone?  Therefore, they all said we had better report him so that an investigation could be conducted.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> When I presented this scenario to my subordinates, the first question they asked was...How can you tell from a gunshot wound that it was an AK bullet, are we suppose to be CSI.  Their second question was...*how did you we know he was a dead enemy soldier when in Afghanistan they don't wear uniforms*?  The third was...How do you know that the soldier did not shoot everyone?  Therefore, they all said we had better report him so that an investigation could be conducted.


And therein lies a problem: the original problem mentioned "fighting an enemy force".  It could have been in Bavaria, fighting to retake Ulm from elements of the 28th Army for all they knew.
As for questions 1 and 2, assume that you are just outside the room when the soldier enters, and you hear one gun shot.  You enter right after, and see the scene described earlier, and that dude who's just starting to bleed out is wearing the uniform of the _Nationale Volksarmee_.


----------



## Gunner98 (10 Oct 2010)

TVK,

With young subordinates you need to stick with what they know and whether they were in Bavaria, I don't think the Germans used AK rifles - did they?


----------



## armyvern (10 Oct 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> TVK,
> 
> With young subordinates you need to stick with what they know and whether they were in Bavaria, I don't think the Germans used AK rifles - did they?



I too had the same scenario ... PSTC Kingston - the year was 2000.

Our whole course answered in the affirmative that we'd report him; I too was a parent at that time & so were many others on that course with whom I subsequntly deployed. 

The situation is old and has probably been adapted many times. Even were it Afghanistan specific and AK47 specific - I don`t think I`d change my answer.


----------



## dogger1936 (10 Oct 2010)

One thing I like about ethic breifings is it get's young minds who maybe havent pulled a trigger thinking. And sometimes you are surprised by some of the answers you get! 

One thing you never want is hesitation. I watched a Snr WO in Afganistan get shot at by a recoiless and didnt return fire. He was unsure if a grape hut was too much collateral. He endangered his troops and everyone else around him by questioning if he should shoot. I tried to jockey around to get the taliban myself, however two kiowas took care of it for him with 50.cal.

Again hesitation at a higher level causes hesitation at their subordniates and in the end runs the risk of mission failure/ per's going home in bodybags. 

As for my ethical standpoint on the situation....The next time I see him in civilian land I'm gonna knock him out.


----------



## armyvern (10 Oct 2010)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> As for my ethical standpoint on the situation....The next time I see him in civilian land I'm gonna knock him out.



 :

Nuff said. 

Yep, must be his TI.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> TVK,
> 
> With young subordinates you need to stick with what they know and whether they were in Bavaria, I don't think the Germans used AK rifles - did they?


Now, don't tell any Ulmer that they are in Bavaria: they are in Baden-Württemberg.  _Neu Ulm_ is in Bayern (aka "Bavaria") ;D (They are in fact one city on the border) But just for anyone reading this, get them out of Afghanistan and get them into the problem.  If you have to tell them "the freshly dead person is wearing the uniform of your enemy", and if further explanation is required, tell them that yes, sometimes the enemy DO wear uniforms.

The NVA used the AK series of weapons:


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2010)

In the officers example it was a given that you believed the soldier basically shot an unarmed man that wasn't a threat at the moemnt but commited a henious crime,your soldier acted spur of the moment.

I think the goal of our officer giving us soon to be JNCO's this situation wasn't to get too caught up in the what if's but to;

1.  Show us that the right thing to do isn't always the same as what feels right (depending on the person)
2.  Point out that even a smoking gun isn't always a smoking gun (Enter the what if arguments)
3.  Show us how being a parent can (thought not always of course) make a huge difference in someones views.
4.  Introduce us to the line between protecting your buddies and upholding the laws.


----------



## dogger1936 (10 Oct 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> Yep, must be his TI.



Nope it wasnt anything to do with his TI...It had everything to do with his lack of understanding of the ROE etc which lead him to question himself thus putting more people in danger. I used the rank to point out it isnt the young guys...we personally believe his out of uniform ethics were what kept his barrel cool all tour.

The face punch was uncalled for and I retract that.

Sorry for the anger there.


----------



## wildman0101 (10 Oct 2010)

Captain Sereau was
A) Demoted in rank
B) Dishonourably Discharged
Let's give the man a rest.
He has certainly earned his 
privacy.
Sir  
Scoty B


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> The final thing I really want to get off my chest. The comparison between Clayton Matchee and 2Lt Semrau is completely uncalled for. Not in any universe should that ever be made.



Why,

Because it shows you how morals, and ethics can be sent askew?  Each one of those examples, falls under any argument anyone makes of Semrau.

That is my point.  We do not know what went through the Man's mind, when he did the double tap.  Not one Iota.

So as far as I am concerned, the examples are valid.  Good luck in the PM debate!

dileas

tess


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Oct 2010)

I have made my point and this is the last I am going to say on it. I would not even touch "whats going on in his mind", because in that case we don't know what goes on in anyone's mind. People are not convicted or judged on their thoughts but rather their actions. (Note speaking your mind is an action IMO).

The Facts
-Captain Semrau was NOT convicted of murder but disgracefull conduct. He is being punished accordingly. The Court Martial heard from the witnesses and the people present, and they made a decision based on what they BELEIVED. 


Next arguing morality and ethics is largely an opinion not fact based. What I consider moral in my world maybe different than what someone else considers to be moral.

For example, I may think slapping my child in the back side is a suitable punishment where as another family may be dead set agaisnt any form of physical fitness discipline for a child. One family thinks one way and another family another. So how do we decide who is immoral and who isn't? 

A hungry man steals a can of food because he is famished. He committed a crime, does that mean he is also immoral? Was there a reason for stealing the food?

I will say it again (and expand on it) and I am done arguing with people who think they know best. What is moral to one's beleifs is not always legal. What is legal is not always moral based on said beleifs.

Army Rick out.


----------



## Gunner98 (11 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, don't tell any Ulmer that they are in Bavaria: they are in Baden-Württemberg.  _Neu Ulm_ is in Bayern (aka "Bavaria") ;D (They are in fact one city on the border) But just for anyone reading this, get them out of Afghanistan and get them into the problem.  If you have to tell them "the freshly dead person is wearing the uniform of your enemy", and if further explanation is required, tell them that yes, sometimes the enemy DO wear uniforms.
> 
> The NVA used the AK series of weapons:



I guess my problem with your wish to put present-day soldiers in past conflicts is: they will never face that issue as it was different place and different time and a different reason for the conflict. 

The entire purpose of the ethics package unless you have all forgotten is to teach all soldiers that there is a military decision making process for all issues including ethical ones.  If the doer is comfortable with being judged then he must be prepared for the judgment.  As far as I can remember we do punish people for thoughts and orders and not just actions.  If the officer orders the soldier to go into the room and kill an unarmed man - it is an illegal order which does not need to be carried out.  But what I am hearing is that if he does the deed himself it is a moral decision and we don't care that it is illegal. 

The judge was not able to decide whether Mr. Semrau was or was not guilty of murder, his role was to instruct the panel and determine the punishment appropriate to the finding.  Two very different roles.  So we must remember that this is the way the system works.  The panel decided what he was guilty of, perhaps if the judge had we would be having an entirely different discussion.  Sometimes it is better to be judged by a jury of your peers than one man who knows the law very well.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Oct 2010)

I know I said this before but after reading the court martial report in detail, I will make one final post on this (Semrau ethical issue)

I have one final thing to say about 2Lt Semrau. In the court martial report his Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Cameron testified he would welcome you (Semrau) in his battalion without reservation if you (semrau) were permitted to remain in the Canadian forces (Page 6 of the Cour martial report R vs Semrau).

In that same report, Major Oberwarth, testified he would gladly have him under his command in the future. (page 7)

For those that think they know best. You have two reputable officers who were still willing to see him serve. His actions were illegal and he is being punished as he should. No one is disputing that.

I am not making a hero out of him, but I don't think we should villify him either. I would like to see how any of us would react to a gravely wounded man lying there and knowing we are not going to give him any aid because of the orders given. Go ahead, arm chair quarterbacks and key board commandos, say what your going to say.

He made a call in what most beleived was out of compassion for a fellow human being (and it breached military laws and discipline). Not an easy thing to live with, either choice he could have made. 

Had he knowingly let that man suffer and die painfully, knowing he was not going to be cared for, I can only imagine the demons that would have haunted him inside his head.

I would also ask you please read the court martial report before you make any remarks here.

Before you comment on my post, read it very carefully and don't make assumptions on what I am saying. 

ArmyRick out (for real this time).


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2010)

Did someone mention keyboard commandos?!   :camo:



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I am not making a hero out of him, but I don't think we should villify him either. I would like to see how any of us would react to a gravely wounded man lying there and knowing we are not going to give him any aid because of the orders given. Go ahead, arm chair quarterbacks and key board commandos, say what your going to say.
> 
> He made a call in what most beleived was out of compassion for a fellow human being (and it breached military laws and discipline). Not an easy thing to live with, either choice he could have made.
> 
> Had he knowingly let that man suffer and die painfully, knowing he was not going to be cared for, I can only imagine the demons that would have haunted him inside his head.



On the other (darker) side of the coin. Taking into consideration the methods and tactics that the Taliban use, not to mention their attacks on helpless civilians, I wonder how many soldiers would have looked at the suffering Taliban in pain and said good for ya and walked away.


----------



## Occam (11 Oct 2010)

wildman0101 said:
			
		

> Captain Sereau was
> A) Demoted in rank
> B) Dishonourably Discharged
> Let's give the man a rest.
> ...



A necessary correction - He was dismissed from the CF, but not dishonorably.

Anyone looking for the Sentencing transcript can find it here.


----------



## Occam (11 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> On the other (darker) side of the coin. Taking into consideration the methods and tactics that the Taliban use, not to mention their attacks on helpless civilians, I wonder how many soldiers would have looked at the suffering Taliban in pain and said good for ya and walked away.



Considering that action would also be in contravention of the LoAC, I think it a question best not answered.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> Considering that action would also be in contravention of the LoAC, I think it a question best not answered.



So then Capt Semrau was screwed anyways. He was bound by LoAC to administer aid, and also contravened the LoAC by ending the insurgent's suffering.


----------



## Gunner98 (11 Oct 2010)

In any mass casualty scenario (and no this was not one) there will be people who are left untreated (Priority 4 imminent) who are made comfortable and then the limited medical or first aid assets are committed to those with injuries less severe.  I cannot agree with others in this thread that have professed that we euthanize them with morphine or hard metal to ease their suffering.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So then Capt Semrau was screwed anyways. He was bound by LoAC to administer aid, and also contravened the LoAC by ending the insurgent's suffering.



Good point.
I'm not sure what the appropriate first aid treatment would be for someone who is 98% dead.  Moving someone or touching them at that point would probably only result in more pain wouldn't it?


----------



## Occam (11 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Good point.
> I'm not sure what the appropriate first aid treatment would be for someone who is 98% dead.  Moving someone or touching them at that point would probably only result in more pain wouldn't it?



What is the protocol for administering first aid to someone who is 1% dead, 50% dead, or VSA?  You perform first aid until no longer able, or until professional medical advice tells you not to.  Of course that is tempered on the battlefield with operational considerations, but you're supposed to do what you can.


----------



## wildman0101 (12 Oct 2010)

Regard's Capt Semreau's Discharge
I stand corrected. My Apologie's.
Scoty B


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Oct 2010)

I kind of like this article (which is odd really because there are no pictures  ;D)  and what it tells us about how to fight terror e.g., you can't win by stooping to the level of your opponents, and that will be hard to resist.... very hard. You'll notice that it was published a week after 9/11:

Lessons on how to fight terror

A message from the United Kingdom: Don't torture. Don't shoot boys who throw stones. And don't imagine for a moment that there is any guarantee of success. 

We've learned that terrorism demands a special kind of war, which is more like Sim City than a first-person shooter like Unreal. Just as in Sim City, you win by keeping civilization going. Killing the bad guys is a side effect. And, just as in Sim City, no single strategy works, even when it is right and necessary. 

Violence on its own won't work. 

Diplomacy on its own won't work. 

Gathering intelligence on its own won't work. 

Buying the sympathies of the people who now sympathize with the terrorists won't work on its own, whether you pay in money, blood or effort. 

Any successful democratic operation against terrorism needs a blend of all these four methods, and getting the proportions right is an art: It can't be learned from newspaper columns. 

Another rather counterintuitive consequence of this is that fewer troops are almost always better than more*. Fighting terrorism needs really first-class soldiers. They must be braver and cleverer than their opponents, though not nearly so cruel.* They need to be really highly trained, speak the local language and have medical skills. In poor countries British special forces teams are expected to have medical training so that they can bring immediate practical help to the villagers whose trust they must win. 

Demoralized, lost and nervous soldiers make more recruits for the other side than ever they eliminate. All of the high-flown and complex policy considerations above have to be put into practice by troops on the ground, acting on their own initiative and understanding. Not many, in even the best armies, are going to be much good for that. 


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/19/fighting_terror


----------



## TimBit (13 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Here is something I found interesting.  During leadership training we had a class on Ethics, morals and the law.  Typical class where the course officer gave us challenging "what would you do" questions. The legal answer was always obvious.
> 
> Anyhow, he posed this question.
> You're a section commander leading your section in battle against an enemy force. You are in a village clearing small buildings.
> ...



Good point...but hear this. I`m a parent. If someone willingly hurt my little girl I could, in a moment of rage, very well strangle them myself. I know that because like all parents I feel very protective of my child`s innocence and life. But I would expect the full punishment of law for having done so... why shouldn't I? I'm sure that punishment would be moderate in view of mitigating circumstances, but still. Wouldn't you expect the punishment of the law?

So, why shouldn't you receive the full punishment of the law for killing someone raping and murdering other people than your own family? Because it`s war? That would be absolute balls...

Bottom line: while at war you may see things that anger you more than in the course of daily civilian life. You may feel more prompted to take..."decisive" action in response to these things. That doesn't make your actions less subject to the law.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2010)

Most ROE allow the use of Force, up to and including deadly force to protect non combatants.

 Shooting the enemy who was raping a girl falls under that lawful use of deadly force.

As for reporting, simply that Bloggins shot a enemy who was raping a girl?  Do you report each round fired under contact with the enemy? 

 And this, looking at comments to the above, is why combat is best left to the combat arms, not the hand wringing.

I won't tell people how to change an engine, issue socks, or diagnose the clap, don't tell me how to Close with and Destroy the Enemy.


----------



## armyvern (18 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Most ROE allow the use of Force, up to and including deadly force to protect non combatants.
> 
> Shooting the enemy who was raping a girl falls under that lawful use of deadly force.
> 
> ...



But, in the scenario, the rape is overwith - he is simply leaning over the girl - (did he rape her?? How do you know if you shot first and ask questions later?) and the "enemy" is now unarmed with his weapon resting up against the wall.

Reporting that as "shot a guy who was raping a non-combattant" would be a flat-out lie ... and an offence itself.

That is quite different than what you've laid out above with a rape of a non-combattant in progress by an armed person.


----------



## Brutus (18 Oct 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, in the scenario, the rape is overwith - he is simply leaning over the girl - (did he rape her?? How do you know if you shot first and ask questions later?) and the "enemy" is now unarmed with his weapon resting up against the wall.
> 
> Reporting that as "shot a guy who was raping a non-combattant" would be a flat-out lie ... and an offence itself.
> 
> That is quite different than what you've laid out above with a rape of a non-combattant in progress by an armed person.



Maybe I'm missing something, but in this scenario, the enemy soldier was going for his weapon? If so, is that not fair game?  
(I realize we don't have coresponding ROEs here, but for argument's sake).

In Bosnia, my ROEs would have required at least SOME escalation of force measures, and even with those restrictions, the enemy soldier would probably only have to suceed in reaching his weapon for the Cdn soldier to kill him justifiably. I'm assuming this context is more along the lines of Afghanistan, and although I have not been there, I would expect the ROEs to be a little less restrictive.


----------



## armyvern (18 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing something, but in this scenario, the enemy soldier was going for his weapon? If so, is that not fair game?
> (I realize we don't have coresponding ROEs here, but for argument's sake).
> 
> In Bosnia, my ROEs would have required at least SOME escalation of force measures, and even with those restrictions, the enemy soldier would probably only have to suceed in reaching his weapon for the Cdn soldier to kill him justifiably. I'm assuming this context is more along the lines of Afghanistan, and although I have not been there, I would expect the ROEs to be a little less restrictive.



Nope; read the scenario again (it's posted a few posts ago  ...). Here's the exact quote from the scenario:



> The enemy soldiers AK47 is leaning up against a wall on the otherside of the room clearly out of reach.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Oct 2010)

You could play the what if game forever with scenarios like this. What if he had a knife, what if he was choking the girl, what if he rushed the troop and grabbed his weapon.... etc etc.


----------



## McG (18 Oct 2010)

Under LoAC, an enemy soldier is a legitimate target whether there is currently a weapon in his hands or not.  He remains a legitimate target until he is dead, shows his intent to surrender, or becomes a casualty & stops fighting.  In the scenario presented in this thread (which presents a warfighting situation against soldiers) there is no significance to the fact that the AK-47 is against the wall.  It does not matter if there were knives or if a criminal act was being committed.  The dead guy was a legitimate target - killing him was legitimate.

There may be more considerations in a peacekeeping mission or in an environment where the enemy are un-uniformed irregulars & guerrillas ... but that is not what was presented in the scenario.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Oct 2010)

> You enter a room and find one of your soldiers with his rifle in his hand, barrel smoking.  In front of him is a dead enemy soldier, clearly shot by your man. The enemy soldiers AK47 is leaning up against a wall on the otherside of the room clearly out of reach.
> Laying on the floor is a dead middle age woman with a gunshot wound in her head, looks like an AK bullet.  On the floor beside her is her  young teenage girl who was clearly being raped and then dies herself from a gunshot would, inflicted by the enemy soldier previously.



Actually, there's nothing in that description that states that the dead enemy soldier was the one who raped the girl.


----------



## armyvern (18 Oct 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You could play the what if game forever with scenarios like this. What if he had a knife, what if he was choking the girl, what if he rushed the troop and grabbed his weapon.... etc etc.



You're making assumptions; one must deal with the facts at hand. The "facts" you work with are given in the scenario - we are not supposed to "assume" anything; we are supposed to act based on the facts at hand. There's no choking, no knife, no rushing the troop given. Nada. Given that there was none of those in the scenario ... what would you do using the "facts" of the scenario - that *is* the question.


----------



## armyvern (18 Oct 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Under LoAC, an enemy soldier is a legitimate target whether there is currently a weapon in his hands or not.  He remains a legitimate target until he is dead, shows his intent to surrender, or becomes a casualty & stops fighting.  In the scenario presented in this thread (which presents a warfighting situation against soldiers) there is no significance to the fact that the AK-47 is against the wall.  It does not matter if there were knives or if a criminal act was being committed.  The dead guy was a legitimate target - killing him was legitimate.
> 
> There may be more considerations in a peacekeeping mission or in an environment where the enemy are un-uniformed irregulars & guerrillas ... but that is not what was presented in the scenario.



Right. So we just enter and shoot him?

Where's the escalation of force in your above? Is he posing an immediate threat that would cause the immediate use of "deadly force" against him in this scenario? I don't see any of that in the scenario given. Appropriate escalation of force is also covered in the LOAC and the Geneva Conventions n'est pas - especially with non-combattants present?


----------



## Brutus (18 Oct 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Right. So we just enter and shoot him?



Yes. 

There is nothing I have learned that restricts this fictional soldier from just shooting him. The scenario did not mention ROEs, so one could assume there is nothing relevant there.

What makes you think there would be a problem in killing an enemy soldier? Isn't that kinda the point?


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> What makes you think there would be a problem in killing an enemy soldier? Isn't that kinda the point?



Yeah, you're right, the answer is ALWAYS just fucking shoot him, because it's just a fictional scenario and why would we want to have a serious conversation about ethics on the internet.

 :


----------



## Brutus (18 Oct 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're right, the answer is ALWAYS just ******* shoot him, because it's just a fictional scenario and why would we want to have a serious conversation about ethics on the internet.
> 
> :


What's all the hostility about? The problem is the lack of information, not my response. 

In every situation that I can think of, ROEs would come into play, but if the question is, 'Can you shoot an enemy soldier who is unarmed', with no caveats, clarification, and most importantly, ROEs, then the answer is 'yes' (again, as far as I know). There is no law that I am aware of that absolutley forbids this under any circumstance. 

edit: to correct spelling


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> What's all the hostility about? The problem is the lack of information, not my response.



Then work with the information given.


----------



## Brutus (18 Oct 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Then work with the information given.



I did - and my response was:

'Yes. 

There is nothing I have learned that restricts this fictional soldier from just shooting him. The scenario did not mention ROEs, so one could assume there is nothing relevant there.'

Do you have a response to the scenario, or are you restricting your comments to sarcasm and criticism?


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Oct 2010)

OK, i give up, so when the is no specific explanation of ROEs we can just shoot anyone.

Sorry, I was expecting rational discourse.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> ......... There is no law that I am aware of that absolutley forbids this under any circumstance.





I guess you slept through all those classes on the Geneva Conventions, Laws of Armed Conflict, etc.


----------



## Brutus (18 Oct 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I guess you slept through all those classes on the Geneva Conventions, Laws of Armed Conflict, etc.



Nice cut and paste job. My full reponse, with the relevant bits bolded, was:




			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> What's all the hostility about? The problem is the lack of information, not my response.
> 
> In every situation that I can think of, ROEs would come into play, but if the question is, *'Can you shoot an enemy soldier who is unarmed', with no caveats, clarification, and most importantly, ROEs, then the answer is 'yes' * (again, as far as I know). *There is no law that I am aware of that absolutley forbids this under any circumstance.*
> 
> edit: to correct spelling



Can you shoot enemy soldiers who are not armed and actively engaging you? Yes, provided your ROEs don't remove this option from you. 

If you disagree, please quote me the LOAC/GC article.


----------



## McG (18 Oct 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Right. So we just enter and shoot him?


In a warfighting scenario: absolutely.  That is the infanteer's job.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Where's the escalation of force in your above?


Not required by LoAC in a warfighting scenario.  Snipers don't have to give a warning shot before putting a bullet into an enemy's skull.  Pilots don't have to drop inert warning bombs before putting a missile into an enemy tank/bunker/etc.  The infantreer clearing an objective in war does not need escalation of force prior to killing the enemy soldier on the objective.  If that enemy wants to live, then he kills first, he surrenders, or he hopes for _just a flesh-wound_ and the Geneva protections that come with it.  

The scenario, as described, was an infantry fight through an urban/village objective in a war scenario.  Don't allow over-conditioning for Bosnia type missions to confuse what you are actually allowed to do in war.  The enemy soldier is a legitimate target, and you may kill him baring that he is not _hors de Combat_.  That is LoAC.


----------



## McG (18 Oct 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> OK, i give up, so when the is no specific explanation of ROEs we can just shoot anyone.


It is worth noting that the senario did explicity state "enemy soldier"  -  not just anyone.

This is significant, and it makes it okay to put bullet holes in him.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Oct 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is worth noting that the senario did explicity state "enemy soldier"  -  not just anyone.
> 
> This is significant, and it makes it okay to put bullet holes in him.



No, the scenario leads us to *assume* he was committing a rape when our soldier walked in - it *does not* state that he was actually doing so, was known to have done so, or was acting in any threatening manner.  For all we know he was a medic offering assistance.  What the scenario does not tell us is as important as what it does when we examine what our actions might be.


----------



## Brutus (18 Oct 2010)

I am not sure of the root cause, but I have noticed (here and elsewhere) an expectation that the soldier first attempt to disarm the enemy in battle. I suspect that this started with the advent of peace support ops, and really took hold with the lack of combat missions in the 90's coupled with an enourmous amount of PK work. However, the Infantry soldier (as per the scenario) is not a police officer, and it is his duty to engage the identified enemy (again, as per the scenario). It is not his duty (unless otherwise stated) to first try and capture him.


----------



## McG (18 Oct 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> No, the scenario leads us to *assume* he was committing a rape


It does not matter what he was doing unless it was throwing up his hands to surrender.  He was an *enemy soldier*.  We are allowed to kill *enemy soldiers* in war.  That is what we do.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> I am not sure of the root cause, but I have noticed (here and elsewhere) an expectation that the soldier attempt to disarm the enemy in battle. I suspect that this started with the advent of peace support ops, and really took hold with the lack of combat missions in the 90's coupled with an enourmous amount of PK work. However, the Infantry soldier (as per the scenario) is not a police officer, and it is his duty to engage the identified enemy (again, as per the scenario). It is not his duty (unless otherwise stated) to first try and capture him.



The scenario in question clearly stated that the soldier's rifle is across the room, and makes no mention of other weapons.


----------



## Brutus (18 Oct 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The scenario in question clearly stated that the soldier's rifle is across the room, and makes no mention of other weapons.



And I am questioning the relevance.


----------



## McG (18 Oct 2010)

Soldiers in war are allowed to kill enemy soldiers even if the enemy forgot his weapon on the other side of the room.

Micheal, you have situated the estimate in your mind and placed it in Bosnia with you as the UN soldiers & instead of an enemy soldier the other person was just a beligerant soldier.

We can kill enemy soldiers in war.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Oct 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> We are allowed to kill *enemy soldiers* in war.  That is what we do.



I'm sure that "military necessity" comes into play somewhere in there.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Oct 2010)

I guess I was expecting some SUGGESTION of a threat, rather than just shooting.

Silly me for reading the scenario.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Nice cut and paste job. My full reponse, with the relevant bits bolded, was:



Actually, No.  I cut out and quoted the only important part of your flawed reasoning.  All the rest if fluff.  You are bound by the laws of the land, Canada and whatever nation you may be in; the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict.  ROEs have very little to say about the shooting of any unarmed belligerent, whereas all of the afore mentioned do.  ROEs are derived from these laws, not the other way around.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Can you shoot enemy soldiers who are not armed and actively engaging you? Yes, provided your ROEs don't remove this option from you.



I don't know what your fixation is on ROEs.  ROEs change with every Peacekeeping Msn.  ROEs are a recent invention to put down legal parameters drawn from our existing Laws by which troops would follow on recent Peacekeeping Msns.  I am sure that there were no ROEs during any war prior to Korea, other than to kill the enemy.  We all know how those wars ended with those who did shoot unarmed enemy troops being put on trial.  What makes your interpretation of this scenario any different?  You haven't killed an enemy combatant, you murdered him.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> .........., please quote me the LOAC/GC article.



 Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. 

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 3) 

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: 

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms  and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: 

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;  

(b) Taking of hostages; 

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; 

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. 

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. 

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. 

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. 






Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 130) 

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.


----------



## McG (18 Oct 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am sure that there were no ROEs during any war prior to Korea, other than to kill the enemy.


There were.  Even in the Second World War there were RoE attempting to limit damage as the Allies pushed through France.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> We all know how those wars ended with those who did shoot unarmed enemy troops being put on trial.


There have been trials for shooting pers that were hor de combat, but can you find one war-time example of a trial for shooting an un-armed enemy soldier who was not hors de combat?  Simply not having a weapon in one's hands does not make one hors de combat.  

If you doubt me, check with your legal advisor.  I have had this conversation with mine.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Oct 2010)

A declared, identified  enemy soldier is ripe for a ventilating, threat be buggered.  Does a sniper in concealement wait to come under effective fire before killing an enemy combatant?  Of course not.  Step in the beaten zone, expect to get beaten.


----------



## Brutus (18 Oct 2010)

There is no indication that he 'laid down his arms' (an act of talking oneself out of the fight), but rather that his weapon is not in his hands. There is nothing to suggest that he has surrendered. Your ref does not apply to this enemy soldier.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Oct 2010)

What I took from the question (which I may not have explained very well in hindsight) in the example given to us was that it was a given that your soldier indeed broke the law and your options were to

a. Report the soldier
b. Pretend it never happened.

a was the DS answer.
The temptation for b comes into play in that there was a really big chance if you didn't report it no one would ever know a law had been broken as well the assault/rape was thrown in to give some the suggestion of "good for him he got what he deserved"


----------



## dogger1936 (18 Oct 2010)

I have to agree with MCG. There is a soldier in a room and you got the drop on him (his back is to you) plug him till he dies. Regardless of where his weapon is/ who raped who he is your enemy ...why give him the chance to do anything?

Now if the story played out during a OP Harvest in yugoslavia you walked in on a serbian soldier doing this yes roe /esclation up to deadly force would be used.

however in this scenerio plug him report and carry on. No questions asked.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Oct 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You're making assumptions; one must deal with the facts at hand. The "facts" you work with are given in the scenario - we are not supposed to "assume" anything; we are supposed to act based on the facts at hand. There's no choking, no knife, no rushing the troop given. Nada. Given that there was none of those in the scenario ... what would you do using the "facts" of the scenario - that *is* the question.



Of course if I was investigating this scenario I'd never lead the soldier in question as to what "could" have allowed him deadly force. Just simply stating for arguments sake that there are other conditions that could have existed outside of the given information that may have occured.


----------



## Cdnleaf (19 Oct 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't know what your fixation is on ROEs.  ROEs change with every Peacekeeping Msn.  ROEs are a recent invention to put down legal parameters drawn from our existing Laws by which troops would follow on recent Peacekeeping Msns.  I am sure that there were no ROEs during any war prior to Korea, other than to kill the enemy.  We all know how those wars ended with those who did shoot unarmed enemy troops being put on trial.  What makes your interpretation of this scenario any different?  You haven't killed an enemy combatant, you murdered him.



From a historical perspective, it would be interesting to see if there are any declassified ROE or cards if they existed for Korea/WWII.  Must ask that question next time I'm at the War Museum.  It would be a great question to ask some of the vets at The Perley Rideau if the relationship was there to talk about it.  Unfortunately both my Grandfathers / WWII Veterans have passed, though I still have a greatuncle who was a pilot during WWII.  Thanks.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2010)

I cannot beleive this scenario is still being discussed.

It is okay to shot the enemy.

It is not okay to knock him out, tie him up and use a blowtorch on his testicals.


 Heck note it in your mission log and put Bloggins in for a CDS commendation if you want, it does not bear NIS/MP/CoC Investigation, unless Bloggins dick was out of his pants.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Heck note it in your mission log and put Bloggins in for a CDS commendation if you want, it does not bear NIS/MP/CoC Investigation, unless Bloggins dick was out of his pants.



Then again if you're force protection in Afghanistan there is an  "investigation" by the NIS/MP if you fire a pen flare in the air as an ROE escalation..


----------



## Brutus (19 Oct 2010)

I'd be interested in knowing why George and Michael felt this was not a legal act. I'd also really like to know why the ds of the OP felt this was illegal...perhaps the actual scenario did not state that the man was an enemy soldier, but just 'a man'.


----------



## Brutus (19 Oct 2010)

If you were manning the C6 in a raid, would you not put a burst into the outhouse? The barracks/sleeping quarters? Clearly any enemy soldiers in either of these locations are not currently a threat at that exact moment, but we kill them anyhow...right?

How does the OP's scenario differ in principle or ethics?


----------



## McG (19 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> What I took from the question (which I may not have explained very well in hindsight) in the example given to us was that it was a given that your soldier indeed broke the law ...


While your instructor may have presented an effective ethical lesson & discussion, he unfortunately reinforced a bad lesson in the laws of armed conflict.  Is it possible that you forgot to provide some background on RoE in the scenario you described, or that the "enemy soldier" was less certainly a combatant?

We haven't fought *enemy soldiers* since Korea, and this thread is showing an unfortunate result.  Over the last decades we have operated under RoE in theatres where we are conducting peace operations around _belligerent_ *soldiers*, or where we are conducting combat operations against an _irregular/guerrilla_ *enemy*.  RoE are always more restrictive than LoAC and they incorporate such other things as political considerations, command control measures, risk mitigation, and desired military effects.  Unfortunately, many are now confusing past RoE restrictions (based on peace-support mandates or designed to protect civilians where it is difficult to distinguish the enemy from the population) as being something more than RoE - these past RoE are being confused as the overarching LoAC that governs all conflict.


----------



## dogger1936 (19 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Then again if you're force protection in Afghanistan there is an  "investigation" by the NIS/MP if you fire a pen flare in the air as an ROE escalation..



That is sad.Glad my tour wasnt like that. However implication of micromanagement usually means things are getting slow/ safer. If not the snr NCO's arent doing their jobs.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Oct 2010)

Time for my out spoken opinions (like it or not).

How about comparing this to some other "off" situations (by off, I mean outside the box). In Generation Kill (Evan Wright's book), they mention how the marines asked for a change in ROE to engage unarmed enemy soldiers using cell phones because they were suspected of being spotters. The change was approved. A tactical action is a tactical action. Period. Those spotters were not armed but they were performing a vital task to allow mortars to engage the marines.

What about the sniper who has been tasked to kill an enemy general? What if that general was unarmed? Does the sniper in his OP go "damn, he is not armed". No he goes with his mission and takes him out. That general may never carry a weapon through the war/battle but by his being their and making decisions, he is enabling tactical action.

How about thinking about stuff like that instead of really gay 90s scenarios about peacekeeping?

Food for thought.

"The role of the infantry is to close with and _destroy_ the enemy"


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Oct 2010)

Thinking .....

Like inventing scenarios that have nothing in common with the example to "prove" your point?

Yeah, thinking, got it.

Sorry, I thought it was an ethics question.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Oct 2010)

This thread deals with ethical and legal issues in ops, right? I am just trying to get people to look at things from different angles. BTW, I am qualified unit ethics coordinator  :

If I said to a typical young soldier "Would you ever shoot an enemy soldier between the eyes who is completely unarmed and poses no immediate threat to you? You and I know, Mike, they would probably say no never, etc, etc.

But then look at my sniper scenario who mission it is to kill that enemy general. Or US Marines shooting unarmed spotters.

Both the general and the spotters are very legit targets, right?

I wanted to give troops something to think about. Legal and ethics are involved here.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> "The role of the infantry is to close with and _destroy_ the enemy"



That is the role of the Infantry.  

Is it the role of the "sniper"?  

Is the General wearing a side arm not carrying a weapon? 

Is the radio not a 'weapon' used by us to call in Fire?  Is a Cell phone nothing more than a radio?

I don't see any similarity between an infantry soldier entering a building and finding a enemy soldier without a weapon in his hand and a sniper tasked with more precise orders to terminate targets.   I would say a sniper is disciplined in his/her targeting of an enemy more so than a infantry soldier just spraying rounds in a room.  Two totally different scenarios.  Two different reactions by the soldiers involved.  Two different emotions involved in the events.  One a more calculated and planned and the other most likely an instantaneous reaction of fear and a hasty assignment of guilt to the enemy.  

Is there really a correct answer to this question, as there are so many factors that are not stated in the given scenario to clarify the situation?  What were the orders given to those entering the building?  Why where they entering the building?  Who was the 'enemy' (Regular troops, Terrorists, Irregular troops, Farmers with sticks, etc.)?  What was the unit involved?  What was their training and discipline?  Too many questions leaving the scenario too vague to accurately decipher a clear answer.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Oct 2010)

Mike, George,

I am not talking one iota about the damn entering the building scenario its been discussed to death. Bury it and move on, it was a gay scenario lacking in enough background info.

I am trying to shift the conversation. Think combat ethics and legality. Its like asking someone if a tree falls in the woods and no is there to hear it, does a tree make a sound. Your not looking for an answer, your giving someone something to think about.

Again, read what I said in my first of the two very recent post. I am not even looking for a response, just stimulating thinking in people's brains.

BTW, I said the general was unarmed (meaning he has no side arm). But I mentioned that by him giving orders he is enabling tactical action. 

The radio or cell phone or any other communication device is a "weapon" or weapon enabler when used in spotting for mortars, arty, air, etc, etc.


----------



## dogger1936 (19 Oct 2010)

Army rick. The scenerio is the same. Kill the general. 

edit to add: these as you call "gay" ones from the 90's are actually more difficult.War is war unless they are surrendering you kill em. Add in a civilian steals your tccs manpack and is running away with it during IFOR...a whole differnt bag of worms.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Oct 2010)

I have done IFOR/SFOR tours. I remember the scenarios involving the ROEs and thank goodness the only engagement most people (like me) expirienced was with bouncers at bars while I was hammered in Budapest or Split.

That was a different generation and we were doing a different gig than Afghanistan. We might find ourselves our doing those missions again. Or we may be storming the beaches under intense fire in ten years. Who knows?


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I have done IFOR/SFOR tours. I remember the scenarios involving the ROEs and thank goodness the only engagement most people (like me) expirienced was with bouncers at bars while I was hammered in Budapest or Split.
> 
> That was a different generation and we were doing a different gig than Afghanistan. We might find ourselves our doing those missions again. Or we may be storming the beaches under intense fire in ten years. Who knows?



Well tough guy,

The Seven Rounds that slammed into my body, as I was a Peacekeeper in the Gay '90's, caused the same damage as the gang in this Afghanistan "Gig".

You just don't know when to shut yer yick, and considering you are the "Ethics Watchamacallit" for your unit, I advise you re-read your notes from your 2 hour course.  All through out this thread you have been a rash, and that includes the PM exchange we have had.

dileas

tess


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Oct 2010)

I know what happened to you, John. You want to explain why your jumping all over me? I am stating very simply that NATO tours in Bosnia had next to no action. The UNPROFOR tours were a far cry different. IFOR/SFOR was NATO.

BTW, some of the training and scenarios we had dealing with ETHICs in the past were pretty far fetched and in some cases right out of 'er.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (19 Oct 2010)

Shoot, even I'm weighing in on this one....and the only thing I am SME on is sammiches and cig'rettes.

48th, if you think at all that _anyone_ is denegrating UN service, you have the super wrong, ultra-ghey sickness of disease, man. 

As an example....98% of my knowledge regarding Canada's role with the U.N., and roles played, has been delivered to me by this site...and that being said, the descriptions of these roles have been expanded exponentionally  from you providing your experience, 48th....

My little brain thinks that .....

QUOTE"Well tough guy,

The Seven Rounds that slammed into my body, as I was a Peacekeeper in the Gay '90's, caused the same damage as the gang in this Afghanistan "Gig".

You just don't know when to shut yer yick, and considering you are the "Ethics Watchamacallit" for your unit, I advise you re-read your notes from your 2 hour course.  All through out this thread you have been a rash, and that includes the PM exchange we have had."END QUOTE

Seems a little much.

I may be 31, fat, and useless, but I still maintain the right to have heroes, who I choose as I see fit.

I like Spiderman, Jonas Salk....and cats like 48th.

Don't lash out on a challenge that wasn't made, man. 

I really don't think that guy attacked you.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Oct 2010)

Folks, let's keep it on topic, please, and  stay away from personalizing the arguments.

Thanks.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

G2G:
Thank you.

Now, an interesting point was raised earlier.  There are those, perhaps imbued with the whole "Bosnia" experience where Butrous-Butrous Ghali himself had to authorise using deadly force were now presented with scenarios in which they failed to make the mental leap that using cellphones or waving flags or whatever constituted military action by an enemy.  But that's not really the point.


The point is this, and I'll state it again.  Ethics does not apply during the conduct of operations.  Soldiers *will  * conduct themselves in accordance with applicable regulations, or else they will face the fury of the law.  Case closed.  "Ethics" is all about personal beliefs, etc, and as such, I don't give a rat's ass what you believe.  Instead, I care very much what you do.

And for anyone concerned about "credentials", not only do I have 21 + years regular force service, most as an officer in The RCR, but I also have an Honors Degree from The University of Western Ontario in German Language (not applicable in this case) and Philosophy (VERY applicable).  Yes, it trumps unit ethics officer, which in my professional and informed opinion, is as waste of effort.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes, it trumps unit ethics officer, which in my professional and informed opinion, is as waste of effort.



There was a time when the terms 'Ethics' and 'Officer' were synonymous and not, unfortunately, the job title of a single person. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere... underneath that pile of Diogenes' stuff that they dumped on me when I wasn't looking


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> There was a time when the terms 'Ethics' and 'Officer' were synonymous and not, unfortunately, the job title of a single person. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere... underneath that pile of Diogenes' stuff that they dumped on me when I wasn't looking


That Diogenes' "stuff" drives me insane.


----------



## KevinB (20 Oct 2010)

John, that tangent is derailing the commentary on operations.

   Damn way back in Cyprus we still had the right to use any force up to deadly force to defend our lives, members of the UN and Civilians under threat.


----------



## McG (20 Oct 2010)

George, 
You need to take-up my suggestion to have this discussion with your legal advisor.  You don't seem to understand your (and your soldiers') obligations under LoAC.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is the General wearing a side arm not carrying a weapon?


The general would be a legitimate target if he were wearing a side-arm or not.  If the sniper could identify who he was, he would still be a target if he was lounging in a bathrobe.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is the radio not a 'weapon' used by us to call in Fire?


Not by law.  But, an unarmed enemy soldier talking on a radio is a legitimate target because he is an enemy soldier.  Further, even a non-soldier would be considered as participating in hostilities if here were coordinating military efforts by radio – in war, he too would be a legitimate target under LoAC.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is there really a correct answer to this question, as there are so many factors that are not stated in the given scenario to clarify the situation?


There is sufficient information to conclude that the friendly soldier acted legally.  There is not enough information to determine if the chosen act was the most appropriate (ie - best suited to achieving higher comd's & superior comd's intents), or even if other courses of action were open to the soldier.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Who was the 'enemy' (Regular troops, Terrorists, Irregular troops, Farmers with sticks, etc.)?


The enemy, as already clearly stated, was a soldier in this scenario.  An enemy soldier is a legitimate target.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That Diogenes' "stuff" drives me insane.




Careful, you might hurt someone's feelings!

"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?" 
Diogenes


----------



## pbi (20 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The point is this, and I'll state it again.  Ethics does not apply during the conduct of operations.  Soldiers *will  * conduct themselves in accordance with applicable regulations, or else they will face the fury of the law.  Case closed.  "Ethics" is all about personal beliefs, etc, and as such, I don't give a rat's *** what you believe.  Instead, I care very much what you do.



I disagree. Ethics most definitely apply during the conduct of operations: that is the ultimate reason for their existence.

In a thinking human being, their actions, (other than immediate reflexes) are a product of their thoughts and, ultimately, their beliefs and value systems. As an organization, we have a collective value system: our military ethics. If professional military ethics don't inform a soldier's judgement and decision process, especially when we are speaking about officers who may have dozens, hundreds or thousands of people under their command, (coupled with the legally sanctioned power to use sometimes massive lethal force), then what guides their actions?

The power of the law (or "regulations") alone? If that is true, how is a soldier (of any rank) equipped to reason out whether or not he has received (or is about to give...) an unlawful command? Acting without ethical judgement, or "just following orders" was destroyed as a legal defence for war crimes over half a century ago. 

How does one act in a situation where the law, or orders, are not clear? Some kind of a decision will have to be taken, by somebody, and in making that decision a reasonable person will consider their professional military ethical standards to help them make that judgement. This is why ethics can't merely be somebody's random collection of "personal beliefs": they are more like a code, collectively agreed upon,taught and practiced throughout the organization/profession, that we expect all members will adhere to in making decisions, and in acting on those decisions.

This is why I believe that the whole business of unit ethics representatives is not only ineffective but is a violation of the responsibilities of command and leadership. The ethical education and guidance of a unit is the overall responsibility of its leaders, not of some poor junior officer or NCO stuck with it as a secondary duty. Wall posters and wallet cards, and banal little discussions with textbook answers don't really cut it either. You either live it every day, or it's window dressing.

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> I disagree. Ethics most definitely apply during the conduct of operations: that is the ultimate reason for their existence.


I am the person proof of how wrong you are.  Here's why.

I advocate the use of nuclear weapons in our war in Afghanistan.

I am apparently a f*ckwad who believes that marriage is a "bond" between one man and one woman, who are not related, who are both of legal age, who are both of sound mind and that bond is recognised by the state.

I believe that torture, used by skilled professionals, is justifiable in many cases.


I do not act on any of these beliefs, however, because it is against the law to do so.  For example, even if I had access to nukes, I still wouldn't use them, because I recognise that I am not the authority for their release.  Second, I recently congratulated someone on getting married, and I meant it.  (Yes, it was a same sex marriage).  Thirdly, were I to be presented with a situation in which torture could be used, I would not do so, and I would stop anyone from doing so, because that is the law.

"Ethics" is personal.  In the straw man cases where the law isn't clear, then clarify.  It's your duty to do so.  Anyway, the whole "UEO" thing is nothing more than window dressing.  I don't give a rats ass what "they" tell me to believe is right or wrong, because they can go to hell if they think that can alter my belief structure.  And I will make no attempt to alter any one else's belief.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I "Ethics" is personal.  In the straw man cases where the law isn't clear, then clarify.  It's your duty to do so.  Anyway, the whole "UEO" thing is nothing more than window dressing.  I don't give a rats *** what "they" tell me to believe is right or wrong, because they can go to hell if they think that can alter my belief structure.  And I will make no attempt to alter any one else's belief.



I do not think that ethics are personal.  I don't get to make up the ethics of my profession, nor those of humanity.  

Laws don't tell me everything, but ethics can provide guidance when the situation is not clear.  

You are entitled to your belief structure, but you can't just decide that you are ethical because you follow your personal beliefs.  Ethics cut across individuals and encompass everybody. I suggest that congratulating your same-sex friends on their marriage was not about obeying the law, it was about being ethical.  Are we obligated by law to congratulate people on their marriage? I don't think so.  Perhaps you felt some other obligation that took priority over your beliefs?  That other obligation might just be you being ethical.


----------



## pbi (20 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I am the person proof of how wrong you are.



Actually, I'd say that you're the person proof of how right I am, because you have argued strongly that you act in a way that you believe is correct. In other words, that it is important for an individual to subscribe to society's code of behaviour (put down in writing as "The Law") even if it conflicts with personal convictions. 

If serving in the military (especially today, and especially as a leader) were as simple as just following orders ("obeying the law"), then maybe the requirement for soldiers to be capable of ethical judgement wouldn't exist.

Perhaps (and I say that as a HUGE perhaps), we could accept that maybe a Private, under certain circumstances, could function with no ethical judgement, provided he was under adequate supervision.(I'm not picking on Ptes: you could probably say the same for OCdts) 

The problem is that Ptes don't stay Ptes. They grow up into leaders (we've had several Generals, including at least one CLS, who started at the bottom...), and if they grow up into leaders who have no functioning ethical standards, and thus are incapable of ethical judgement, I suggest that we are in trouble.

It's great if your internal beliefs happen to already match the Army's code of ethics. If not, then you accept that these military ethics guide your actions, or you get out, or you're heading for trouble at some point.

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Oct 2010)

OK, "ethical".  Are we talking Utilitarianism?  Kantianism?  Egoism?  Consequentialism?  Hedonism? Stoicism? Deontologicalism?  

I would offer that the CF model is "virtue ethics", which emphasises the character of the moral agent, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethics.  Think Aristotle and Jesus of Nazereth as two proponents of virtue ethics.  Deontological theory talks about duty, and some may argue that the CF model is in that vein; however, the lessons have all been on being good.  From that, good actions will follow.  Well, they should follow (we all make mistakes).  But if you act virtuously, then all is good.


Or is it?  Look at the recent trial of former Capt Semrau.  Could one argue that he was acting virtuously?  Maybe he was (or he believed that he was).  It went counter to the laws of armed conflict and our own laws.  For that, he was punished.  So, again, ethics has no place.  Obey the law or suffer the consequences.  Period.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (21 Oct 2010)

I suppose I am Kantian.  

You can't just decide that you are ethical because you are following a personal code if that personal code clashes with ethics.  I'm not saying that everybody argrees on everything.  There is debate and disagreement, and even when there is agreement on behaviour different people may have different reasons for coming to the same conclusion.  There is a level of common understanding, however, that gives us ethics.  Ethics goes beyond one person.

If laws were perfect and all-encompassing then perhaps we would not need ethics.  But those perfect laws would have to come from somewhere, and that would be somewhere would be ethics.  I also don't think that we are there.


----------



## pbi (21 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> OK, "ethical".  Are we talking Utilitarianism?  Kantianism?  Egoism?  Consequentialism?  Hedonism? Stoicism? Deontologicalism?



Not really uniquely any of the above, IMHO (not having a Philosophy Degree...). Military ethics may draw elements from other sources, but as befits a set of professional ethics they are unique to us. The best explanation I've read of what military ethics are, and how they function in action, is found in great detail in the book "_The Warrior's Way_", written by Dr Richard Gabriel (available from CDA as a CF publication). (You are probably familiar with him: a former US Army officer, he has been writing and lecturing on the subject of military ethics since the Vietnam era. I first heard him speak at a Bde Officers Study in Wainwright back in the 1980's. I've since heard him speak several times at CFC when I was working there, and had the pleasure of chatting with him. He is quite far from an airy-fairy intellectual, or an ivory-tower philosopher) I think this series of extracts lays it out pretty much the way I understand it to work (author's italics):

"...It is also clear that different professions require different precepts to guide ethical behaviour. _A list of precepts of what one ought to do as a military professional would differ significantly from a list of precepts of what one ought to do as a member of the legal or medical profession_...One of the primary characteristics of a profession is that it requires the observance of special values and behaviour not generally sharetd by the larger society or even by other professions...Ethics is, therefore, a _social enterprise_ more concerned with what a soldier does (actions) than what he or she is (character) and inevitably concerns what one does or fails to do to another person or group of persons...But neither consequences nor intentions are, by themselves, sufficient to make an action ethical or unethical. Thus, a soldier may resort to torture in order to obtain information that he/she believes might save lives. In doing so, the soldiers intentions might be good, but the _means_ chosen and the _consequences_ of his/her actions are not..."

So, ethics is not just about what you think or believe: it's about what you do, especially when you find yourself in a situation in which regulations are lacking, unclear or conflicting, or personal beliefs clash with how you understand the situation.  I joined the Army about a decade before you did, and I've served continuously since then. I don't know about your experience, but I'm very sure that in my time I've seen people do wrong things, counsel (or order) others to do wrong things, and I've done things that I knew then or that I realize now, many years later, were unethical. If the people involved (including me), had a more strongly developed sense of professional military ethics I believe that most of these things would never have happened. I don't need to be convinced of the value of professional military ethics, even if I lack the academic background to fully appreciate the philosophical derivation of some aspects of them.

We need them, we've got them, and we should live by them.

Cheers


----------



## Greymatters (24 Oct 2010)

I would note that some people in this discussion are confusing the three terms of 'legal' 'ethical' and 'moral'; legal means to abide by the written (and unwritten) laws of society (or organization); ethics refers to societal and personal beliefs in the differences between 'good' and 'bad'; morals refers to your own personal belief system and choices (actions) of what is right and what is wrong. 

i.e.
Cannabalism
- its illegal  to eat someone (and against food and health regulations)
- its bad  to eat people, and most religious belief systems echo this sentiment 
- we choose not to eat people as part of our moral beliefs, unless we're really starving on the top of a mountain in Chile, in which case you arent worried about ethics or laws


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2010)

Ethics/Morals are pretty well interchangeable.  Right/Wrong, Good/Evil, it's all pretty well the same.  But you make the point I am trying to make: just behave in a legal manner, subordinating your moral code to the Law, just as I do.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> So, ethics is not just about what you think or believe: it's about what you do, especially when you find yourself in a situation in which regulations are lacking, unclear or conflicting, or personal beliefs clash with how you understand the situation.  I joined the Army about a decade before you did, and I've served continuously since then. I don't know about your experience, but I'm very sure that in my time I've seen people do wrong things, counsel (or order) others to do wrong things, and I've done things that I knew then or that I realize now, many years later, were unethical. If the people involved (including me), had a more strongly developed sense of professional military ethics I believe that most of these things would never have happened. I don't need to be convinced of the value of professional military ethics, even if I lack the academic background to fully appreciate the philosophical derivation of some aspects of them.
> 
> We need them, we've got them, and we should live by them.
> 
> Cheers


You make a very good argument, pbi, but I suppose my problem with the CF saying "do the right thing", I only ask "what *is* the right thing?"  For some ethical codes, intent plays a part of deciding what's "right/good".  For others, it's the act itself.  For still others, it's all about the consequences.  In the lack of such clarity on the part of the CF, I argue that in spite of their effort to focus on ethical behaviour (eg: the acts), we should focus instead on obeying the law.  Period.
I too have seen some things in the past that were "wrong/evil", but in every case, an argument could be made that they were also illegal.  At least that was my experience.

I agree on a philosophical level that there is "something", but I am not a fan at all of this effort by the former CLS to tell us what's right and what's wrong.  This is why I instead say "Obey the law".  Yes, there are times when the law isn't clear, but that's when you have to trust your gut,  based on experience.  Is that applying a certain "code"?  Maybe, but how to codify it?


----------



## Greymatters (24 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Ethics/Morals are pretty well interchangeable.  Right/Wrong, Good/Evil, it's all pretty well the same.  But you make the point I am trying to make: just behave in a legal manner, subordinating your moral code to the Law, just as I do.



Well we'll disagree on that one point - ethics and morals may be interchangable in your work environment, but they do have distinctly different meanings in my environment...


----------



## McG (24 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> You make a very good argument, pbi, but I suppose my problem with the CF saying "do the right thing", I only ask "what *is* the right thing?"  For some ethical codes, intent plays a part of deciding what's "right/good".  For others, it's the act itself.  For still others, it's all about the consequences.  In the lack of such clarity on the part of the CF, I argue that in spite of their effort to focus on ethical behaviour (eg: the acts), we should focus instead on obeying the law.  Period.


Obeying the law does need to be the primary guiding principle.  But, there are many cases where soldiers may have multiple paths open and all of which are legal.  Ethics is one of the tools for them to answer your question which I have underlined.  In LoAC, sometimes it is not even clear what is legal, and soldiers must be able to rationally weight acts, consequences, risk, objectives, etc.  Necessity and Proportionality are not prescriptively defined, but the exercise of due diligence in appling ethical principles will make decisions legally defensible.  Soldiers cannot do this if they don't know or understand any ethical decision making model.  They will be in an even better position to decide what is right (and thus what is also legally defensible) if they understand a few decision making models and the trade-offs of each.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Well we'll disagree on that one point - ethics and morals may be interchangable in your work environment, but they do have distinctly different meanings in my environment...


From my copy of The Concise Oxford Dictionary:
"ethics n.pl (also treated as sing.) 1  the science of morals in human conduct.  2 a moral principles; rules of conduct.  b a set of these (medical ethics)."

"moral philosophy: the branch of philosophy concerned with ethics".


So, those two definitions, and that scrap of paper hanging on my wall, tells me that they are the same and interchangeable.   



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Obeying the law does need to be the primary guiding principle.  But, there are many cases where soldiers may have multiple paths open and all of which are legal.  Ethics is one of the tools for them to answer your question which I have underlined.  In LoAC, sometimes it is not even clear what is legal, and soldiers must be able to rationally weight acts, consequences, risk, objectives, etc.  Necessity and Proportionality are not prescriptively defined, but the exercise of due diligence in appling ethical principles will make decisions legally defensible.  Soldiers cannot do this if they don't know or understand any ethical decision making model.  They will be in an even better position to decide what is right (and thus what is also legally defensible) if they understand a few decision making models and the trade-offs of each.


This is all well and good, and I understand the need for "something" more than the law; however, given the CF's piss-poor attempt (IMHO) to tell me what to think, well, as I stated before, it's none of their business what I think or believe.  I'm certain, however, that the CF does care very much about how I act.

But you raise the very issue: how to deal with a dilemma, which the current "Diogenes" program doesn't even define *that* correctly.  Perhaps I am having more issues with the issued program vice the need for us as professional military members to act, no, to BE good.  (And I don't mean "perform well", but "be good", and from us "being good", we will "do good" with "good" consequences.)
In nothing else, they could have gotten someone with a degree in philosophy to draft their program.  And no, I'm not volunteering to do so.  But I will expand my thoughts in a subsequent post.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2010)

I think that our "code of conduct" is sufficient as a guide:



> 1.Engage only opposing forces and military objectives.
> 2.In accomplishing your mission, use only the necessary force that causes the least amount of collateral civilian damage
> 3.Do not alter your weapons or ammunition to increase suffering, or use unauthorized weapons or ammunition
> 4.Treat all civilians humanely and respect civilian property
> ...



Stuff like this, however, are just dangerously confusing:


> Leaders respond quickly and aggressively to signs of illegal or *unethical * behaviour. *Ethical violations are not just mistakes, they are fundamental failings in our profession of arms * - Canadian values and our Army values are not negotiable. If we lose our moral purchase and our operational legitimacy, we will lose public trust.



So, I ask, what are "ethical" violations?  As a group, we need those spelled out for us.  If I go by what my priest says, then any sexual activity outside of marriage is "unethical".  (aka "a sin").  

So, I offer that the Code of Conduct as a guide, and the NDA, Criminal Code, unit orders, etc are the specifics.  In dealing with ethics, you are assigning value to acts/intents/consequences (depending on the ethical philosophy applied).  We don't all share those same values.  That's my problem.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Oct 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I would note that some people in this discussion are confusing the three terms of 'legal' 'ethical' and 'moral'; legal means to abide by the written (and unwritten) laws of society (or organization); ethics refers to societal and personal beliefs in the differences between 'good' and 'bad'; morals refers to your own personal belief system and choices (actions) of what is right and what is wrong.
> 
> i.e.
> Cannabalism
> ...



Your own definitions of ethics and morals do not make a distinction between the two.  Is "good" somehow different from "right?"  Is "bad" somehow different from "wrong?"  You have included personal beliefs in both morality and ethics.  

My read of the literature suggests that the most theorists use the two terms interchangeably. 

p.s. editted for grammar  :-[


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> My read of the literature suggests that the most theorists use the two terms interchangeably.


They do.  Things are "Right" because they are "Good", etc.  There are minor and subtle differences; however, those are so minute, that the terms ought to be used interchangeably.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Oct 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I would note that some people in this discussion are confusing the three terms of 'legal' 'ethical' and 'moral'; legal means to abide by the written (and unwritten) laws of society (or organization); ethics refers to societal and personal beliefs in the differences between 'good' and 'bad'; morals refers to your own personal belief system and choices (actions) of what is right and what is wrong.
> 
> i.e.
> Cannabalism
> ...




As an aside, with regards to Cannibalism. In my religion, Catholicism, we devour the Body and Blood of our Lord.   We even go so far as to use the method of his Murder as a symbol of our faith.

Just a thought, on my part, when you mentioned cannibalism.

dileas

tess


----------



## Greymatters (27 Oct 2010)

I was going to mention that in my post, but deleted it as I thought someone might take it the wrong way.  Its an interesting point that a lot of people dont consider...


----------



## pbi (31 Oct 2010)

Technoviking: I begin to see that you and I are not so very far apart in our views. Maybe not as close as a "heated agreement", but not polar opposites, either.

You stress that you are guided by the law (in this case military law and regulations, which have their roots in the law of Canada), and that this is sufficient.

I agree that in many cases (in fact, for lots of us, in most cases...) this is in fact sufficient. But I would go further to say that the decision to follow rules: to "obey the law" is in itself an ethical decision when we speak in the military context. After all, unless a gun is being held to your head, anybody can break any rule they like. There might be consequences, true, but you can still choose to break the rule. The ethical course of action is (normally) to obey the rules. As you pointed out, it is difficult to think of too many situations in the military in which actig unethically is not also acting illegally.

But there lies (IMHO) the danger. You would admit, I think, that what soldiers are called on to do can sometimes be confusing, frightening and at times seemingly without a clear guidance in rules. Usually, it isn't: most of what we do falls within rules, SOPS, routines, etc.  If it were just a question of having rules, then we would never have the disgraceful events we have in the records of all of the world's significant militaries at some stage in their respective histories. IMHO we need a bit more: we need the collective agreement that it is right to follow the rules in the first place. Not just expedient, because if disobedience looks like being more expedient, rules get broken.

Either way, what you and I are both looking for in terms of end results should look almost the same.

I state again that I agree fully with your view of the miserable way "The Centre" pitched the ethics program, especially in execution. I thought it was so superficial that it was almost juvenile: "_Check this box here and you are ethically good for another year_" It reminded me at times of the sickening way we were given Diversity training. I find the idea of "ethics coordinator" to be particularly insulting: IMHO that is totally a leadership task that can't be delegated.

Fortunately, I have seen things greatly improved in the hands of able, experienced commanders who take the subject seriously and lead the ethics program themselves, making sure the tenets get across, but in a way that makes sense to soldiers. 

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> I state again that I agree fully with your view of the miserable way "The Centre" pitched the ethics program, especially in execution. I thought it was so superficial that it was almost juvenile: "_Check this box here and you are ethically good for another year_" It reminded me at times of the sickening way we were given Diversity training.


I agree 100%.  And I agree that pretty well anyone can recognise when something is "good" and when something is "bad".  I guess the presentation soured me to the whole approach, especially when "that guy" said that "x % of our MWOs believe that torture is warranted in some situations.  That is wrong".  No, torture is illegal, but whether it's wrong or not in every and all situations...and whether or not x % of MWOs believe that, is irrelevant.  If they torture someone, however, irrespective of the situation, that is illegal.  I guess that's indicative of my frustration with the whole program.  I would accept it if it were put together couched solely in terms of ethics, vice that piece of poo they put out.


----------



## KevinB (31 Oct 2010)

Define torture? 

 If someone had knowledge of several low yeild dirty bombs being placed in North America, does it not follow that certain methods to extract the information would be justified to locate those?


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Define torture?
> 
> If someone had knowledge of several low yeild dirty bombs being placed in North America, does it not follow that certain methods to extract the information would be justified to locate those?


Morally, I would say yes; however, the law is clear on torture.  And your example is the perfect example of how it can be reasoned to be the right thing to do in certain cases.  

I look at the law.  For some odd reason, criminals are excused their crimes if the police are called into question vis-a-vis procedure.  Some cocaine dealer in NB was let off a couple of years ago, because the cop didn't ask him if he wanted english or french, or didn't have just cause to find the thousands of dollars of dope in his car, or whatever.  So, in the case of some jerk with some low yield dirty bombs, I can see the asshat being let off because "some man was mean to him"....


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2010)

The _principle_ is as simple as it is important. The state, HM the Queen and, especially, all her minions, is imperfect; it (they) make terrible mistakes, usually at the expense of the individual. Left to its own devices the state will lie, cheat and steal because its minions are usually lazy (as are most humans) and, too often (but not always) stupid and venal. The individual who is confronted, in a court of law, by the state and all its power needs to be sure that the state acts correctly, within all the laws and regulations, because experience teaches us that if we (the Queen's judges, actually) are not vigilant in protecting the individual's rights then the state will act in a slipshod and illegal manner.


----------



## CombatDoc (31 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Define torture?
> 
> If someone had knowledge of several low yeild dirty bombs being placed in North America, does it not follow that certain methods to extract the information would be justified to locate those?


This is exactly the premise of the movie "Unthinkable", which examines in graphic detail the methods that a democracy will use to prevent WMD use.  More importantly, it asks the question whether the ends justifies the means (or not).  As we have seen with events in Guantanamo Bay, once we start infringing on human rights it's a slippery slope downwards.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/


----------



## pbi (31 Oct 2010)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> This is exactly the premise of the movie "Unthinkable", which examines in graphic detail the methods that a democracy will use to prevent WMD use.  More importantly, it asks the question whether the ends justifies the means (or not).  As we have seen with events in Guantanamo Bay, once we start infringing on human rights it's a slippery slope downwards.
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/



And that, for me, is the problem. At what point do we "become what we behold"? We used to say, at one time, (perhaps in our innocence) that torture, questionable trials, "special prisons",  etc. were the things that "The Bad Guys" did. 

Now, it seems to me we can argue a very long time about whether or not the ends justify the means (think about Bomber Harris and the targeting of the German civil population in WWII), or whether we can apply "civilized" rules to an "uncivilized" enemy who cuts prisoners' heads off and splashes acid on children, but the fact is that it appears that in the "Good Guy" camp, all of those things we once thought would never do have been done, to some degree. (And I'm not saying Canadians did them, BTW-I'm using "we" as the collective West that we like to think of as "good")

How far can we go in doing things until we reach a point at which the ethical fences go down between us and the people we fight and there is no longer any moral high ground? Or does that concept even matter? Is it really all just Apocalypse Now: who can use fear most effectively?

If torture of a suspect could be guaranteed to save my family's life from a terrorist attack, I'd  probably say "go ahead". But, once we've tortured somebody in one situation, and it seems to work, what's to say that we'll stop? You could say_:"oh-but he is the enemy, and therefore bad and it doesn't matter", _ but I might answer that any Govt (including Canadian Govts) can (and have...) designate any individuals or groups as "the enemy" without much real grounds. Do we torture them, too?

And, if we say "it doesn't matter" if we torture the enemy, then on what grounds do we complain about him torturing our soldiers if he captures them, or torturing/killing/mistreating his own citizens? 

What happens to "right" and "wrong"? Or do they matter, either?

Cheers


----------



## ArmyRick (31 Oct 2010)

I would say we are talking about some tricky and very "grey" issues. It is very easy to say "we would never and should not allow X action to ever take place..."

But then what happens when the situation becomes very complicated? Look at the "We don't torture" principle and then if we are ever in a position where torturing one person may save the lives of many more, do we justify it?

We would justify other forms of sacrifice in other situations. Lets say there is a rescue boat, they only have time to save 1 of 2 boats sinking. On boat A, is 10 people and Boat B, is 1 person. The obvious answer is to say, lets rescue the many and if at all possible, rescue the one after that. In my scenario, we will just say that if you rescue Boat A, Boat B has sunk and the person has drowned. So in that sense, we have had to make a decision to allow one person life to end but we saved many more. To quote Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one".

So in one sense it would be OK, to sacrifice someone and save others. But in a torture scenario, its a really risky idea to impede one's rights to potentially save many others. Although if your Jack Bauer, torture is a skill set not a forbidden act.

On the flip side, if we do torture one to save many, when we do stop justifying torture (Do you set a trend?) and what are the standards/limits for it? 

Kind of a tricky way to look at it? My head hurts thinking this much. I would also add in that life is rarely black and white but it is many shades of grey.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Oct 2010)

I'm glad the _Maple Leaf_ isn't afraid to tackle the BIG ethical issues.

Check this zinger out.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6513


> Ethically, what would you do?
> Not everyone speaks the same language
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ArmyRick (31 Oct 2010)

I says "pardon?" Huh? What the??? Seriously, this is the ethical issue they come up?


----------



## pbi (31 Oct 2010)

I'm sorry-this isn't an "ethical question". This is what I was explaining to Technoviking about the puerile nature of what passes for "ethics education" in the minds of some people at "the Centre".

 I've worked at  both CFC and CLFCSC where as bilingual staffs we struggled with the best of intent to meet the mandate to be _bilingue_ in presentation. The truth is that many of the most valuable, current and topical speakers don't speak French, especially Americans and Brit, but including several other nationalities. Sorry, but there you go. So what do you do-go for second rate speakers just to meet the language requirement? Or (in an age of increasing penny-pinching...) pay a whole hell of a lot more to fly somebody from France/Belgium (assuming that the right speaker is even available there?) You can try simultaneous translation, but again you have to have the people and the headset system.

And as for translation of material..._puh-leeez_! The translation system is a backlogged mess. Although the translators that I have known and worked with are very dedicated, hard-working people, there are not nearly enough of them. At both CFC and especially at CLFCSC we frequently had to issue course material "French to follow" because these good folks could not keep up with the volume, and much of it had to be contracted out.

This has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with ethics, and everything to do with practical matters. This, IMHO, is asinine.

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2010)

> From a defence ethics point of view, what would you tell these two groups of people?


I'd tell both groups to sum the fuck up.  Yes, Ottawa is a bilingual city, and yes, the CF has TWO official languages, but given that we have people getting shot at daily, blown up, etc, it is imperative that we get our work out on the street as fast as humanly possible, and worry about Bill 101 after the fact.  So, if the TF/Flotilla/Squadron in question is French, then we do it in French first, and let the English follow in a less hasty manner.  If you don't like it, sum up your career and then make some PY space for people who matter  :rage:


Anyway, there is a ton of good discussion in this thread.  I'm not going to sully this one post with good discussion because that stupid "example" is just that: stupid.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I would say we are talking about some tricky and very "grey" issues. It is very easy to say "we would never and should not allow X action to ever take place..."
> 
> But then what happens when the situation becomes very complicated? Look at the "We don't torture" principle and then if we are ever in a position where torturing one person may save the lives of many more, do we justify it?
> 
> ...


First of all, this is an awesome post: MilPoints to follow.
So, "never do 'x', because 'x' is wrong: always!" is something that Immanuel Kant would say, and there is some merit to it, for the very reasons you illustrate.  If you allow 'x' once, well, who's to say that we can't do it again?  Therein lies that dangerous and slippery slope.
As for the Spock Principle, this is more commonly known as Utilitarianism.  There are many "versions" or "takes" on it, but the quick and dirty is that the greater good for the greater number is how things "ought" to be.  Our nation is definitely not "utilitarian", for we are a liberal democracy, where "numbers" don't matter as much as individual justice.  If we were a utilitarian society, then whenever there were a choice between the will of the majority vs that of the minority, the majority would win every time.

That slope is dangerous, indeed, and once you start down it, it's hard to return!


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Anyway, there is a ton of good discussion in this thread.  I'm not going to sully this one post with good discussion because that stupid "example" is just that: stupid.


Just pointing out there seems to be a difference of opinion on what important ethical debates are


----------



## KevinB (31 Oct 2010)

At the end of the day to me it comes down to a mathematical formula

 We can do X if Y = Z

The Israelis have a number of non combatants that can be killed in a strike for a HVT.   If non combatants = greater than the number, then the strike as aborted.

When your national identity is at stake, there are things you must do to survive, the balancing act is ensuring you do not become the enemy while destroying him...


----------



## Greymatters (1 Nov 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> I'm sorry-this isn't an "ethical question". This is what I was explaining to Technoviking about the puerile nature of what passes for "ethics education" in the minds of some people at "the Centre".



Agree with PBI, this is not an ethics question.  If your top experts is the field are English speakers then you go with English, if the top experts speak French then they go with French.  Thats supposed to be the advantage of being bilingual, the ability to be understood in more than one language.  This example makes bilungualism look more like an anchor, with subtle and pitiful moaning about 'why isnt it in French?'  If anything Im surprised they didnt include a complaint in the example that at least 25% of the conference speakers should have been women and visible minorities.  

What is sad is that this example is very true in life.  I encountered several cases where it didnt matter how important the Intelligence you provided was - the recipient refused to look at it or listen to it unless it was in their primary language, even though they had adequate secondary language skills, or that a person was standing by willing to translate anything too complicated.  This was true not only of language, but also of elements, where Army types didnt want to hear from Air Force types, and Navy types didnt want to hear from Army types.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Nov 2010)

I would offer that the ethical dillemma in this case isn't "how do I make sure I put shit in the right language", but "is it ethical to delay critical information/refuse to work because it's not in my choice language"?


How's that for a spin, because it's true.  If I am presented something in French (which I am often), I don't stamp my feet and demand it be "anglicised", instead, I read it and ask for clarification if there is doubt about whether or not I correctly understand it.


----------



## TimBit (1 Nov 2010)

> What is sad is that this example is very true in life.  I encountered several cases where it didnt matter how important the Intelligence you provided was - the recipient refused to look at it or listen to it unless it was in their primary language, even though they had adequate secondary language skills, or that a person was standing by willing to translate anything too complicated.  This was true not only of language, but also of elements, where Army types didnt want to hear from Air Force types, and Navy types didnt want to hear from Army types.



Both of which are pathetic and sad. But then, if your mission goes to poop, you can always mull from your early retirement how that "Chair Force" guy might somehow still have gotten the intelligence right... (not laughing at the Air Force just underlining the irony here...)


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I would offer that the ethical dillemma in this case isn't "how do I make sure I put crap in the right language", but "is it ethical to delay critical information/refuse to work because it's not in my choice language"?
> 
> 
> How's that for a spin, because it's true.  If I am presented something in French (which I am often), I don't stamp my feet and demand it be "anglicised", instead, I read it and ask for clarification if there is doubt about whether or not I correctly understand it.



My pea brain tells me that critical information that may effect the outcome of an operation must go to the decision makers ASP, whether its in English, French or Martian.


----------

