Memo to Army Chief of Staff

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:33pm

Fuck this. I give up. Go ahead and conedm a man who didn't do a god damned thing wrong. I see the convention everytime I go in the TC's office, which is multiple times, daily. What you are posting is summaries and interprations, not the actual letter of the law. Letter of the law, he did nothing wrong, and is getting hung out to dry.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:33pm

The Kernel wrote:
LOL, I really shouldn't take people at their words so much.

Ender's 'interpretation' thing was based purely off the fact that it was on Yale's website- a straight google search reveals it was merely a copy of the Geneva Convention.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:35pm

Ender wrote:Fuck this. I give up. Go ahead and conedm a man who didn't do a god damned thing wrong.

No, he did do a god damn thing wrong- he violated the laws of war. They exist for a reason. If you don't think he should be held up to that standard, say so. But don't come crying the next time the OPFOR brutalizes one of your men to get him information so he can supposedly save his men's lives.

I see the convention everytime I go in the TC's office, which is multiple times, daily. What you are posting is summaries and interprations, not the actual letter of the law. Letter of the law, he did nothing wrong, and is getting hung out to dry.

Bullfuck. The Geneva Convention is available all over the goddamn internet, that's what Article 13 (in the convention relating to POW's) says in every single one, and your ridiculous wall of ignorance in this regard is pathetic. If you think that's not what it says, PROVE it.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:39pm

SirNitram wrote: I am not referring to the legalities, you irrelevent turd. I am arguing entirely morally. That you don't get that one man's right to be in comfort in his interrogation is not more important than several other individuals rights to continue being alive doesn't make this any different.

Since we were arguing about a specific case, I don't see how you suddenly moved this into a strictly moral debate. Regardless, I can see that we won't gain anything by continuing this discussion.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:40pm

Jesus H. Christ Ender, just concede the damn point and move on. Unreasonable justifications just make you look foolish.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 08:40pm

The Kernel wrote:
SirNitram wrote: I am not referring to the legalities, you irrelevent turd. I am arguing entirely morally. That you don't get that one man's right to be in comfort in his interrogation is not more important than several other individuals rights to continue being alive doesn't make this any different.
Since we were arguing about a specific case, I don't see how you suddenly moved this into a strictly moral debate. Regardless, I can see that we won't gain anything by continuing this discussion.

I have always been arguing on strictly moral grounds. I was interested to see where someone is guaranteed to not be scared, but that does not change the crux of my argument: One man's right to not be intimidated does not, will not, and should never come before multiple other individual's rights to continuing living. All the pithy sayings in the world will not shift that from being the case in the referred to incident.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:43pm

SirNitram wrote: I have always been arguing on strictly moral grounds. I was interested to see where someone is guaranteed to not be scared, but that does not change the crux of my argument: One man's right to not be intimidated does not, will not, and should never come before multiple other individual's rights to continuing living. All the pithy sayings in the world will not shift that from being the case in the referred to incident.

...in your opinion.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 08:46pm

The Kernel wrote:
SirNitram wrote: I have always been arguing on strictly moral grounds. I was interested to see where someone is guaranteed to not be scared, but that does not change the crux of my argument: One man's right to not be intimidated does not, will not, and should never come before multiple other individual's rights to continuing living. All the pithy sayings in the world will not shift that from being the case in the referred to incident.
...in your opinion.

Let's simplify it. We'll assume at worst, one man would have been killed in the ambush(A ridiculous low end estimate, but it will show my point). It is a simple equation: Which is more important? One man's right not to be intimidated, or one man's right to survive? That you choose the former is a profoundly disturbing look into how you think.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:47pm

SirNitram wrote: Let's simplify it. We'll assume at worst, one man would have been killed in the ambush(A ridiculous low end estimate, but it will show my point). It is a simple equation: Which is more important? One man's right not to be intimidated, or one man's right to survive? That you choose the former is a profoundly disturbing look into how you think.

Nitram, let ME simplify this. There will be nothing gained by arguing our respective positions on this topic. If you want to conduct a moral discussion about this, go start a thread in SLAM. This discussion will not improve THIS thread in any way.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:48pm

SirNitram wrote:
I have always been arguing on strictly moral grounds. I was interested to see where someone is guaranteed to not be scared, but that does not change the crux of my argument: One man's right to not be intimidated does not, will not, and should never come before multiple other individual's rights to continuing living. All the pithy sayings in the world will not shift that from being the case in the referred to incident.

While I would tend to agree in principle, how is this standard supposed to work? For example- if a commander hear's a rumor that he's going to be ambushed, and that X has information regarding said attack, and so he intimidates X- how do you know there was actually going to be an attack? As I said before, when intimidated/tortured, a prisoner is likely to admit to anything to save his own life. Furthermore, what about torture? Does one man's right not to be tortured not come before the rights of other individuals to continue living? The answer would seem to be no- after all, he's still alive, right? Even if the shit has been kicked out of him. There is such a thing as too far, and simply taking this case and saying "well, he saved his men's lives" (of which I have seen no evidence) just isn't good enough for me. It is inherently dangerous to allow soldiers free license to do whatever they want with the blanket justification that it MIGHT save their men's lives. War is not arithmetic.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-11-05 08:49pm

of course if this was that war that we fought over thirty years ago, such behavior would be somewhat tolerated, as long as TV cameras weren't present. After all we drew so much flak over that life magazine photo of one of our allies summarially executing the terrorist who killed his wife and kids.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 08:49pm

Vympel wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
I have always been arguing on strictly moral grounds. I was interested to see where someone is guaranteed to not be scared, but that does not change the crux of my argument: One man's right to not be intimidated does not, will not, and should never come before multiple other individual's rights to continuing living. All the pithy sayings in the world will not shift that from being the case in the referred to incident.
While I would tend to agree in principle, how is this standard supposed to work? For example- if a commander hear's a rumor that he's going to be ambushed, and that X has information regarding said attack, and so he intimidates X- how do you know there was actually going to be an attack? As I said before, when intimidated/tortured, a prisoner is likely to admit to anything to save his own life. Furthermore, what about torture? Does one man's right not to be tortured not come before the rights of other individuals to continue living? The answer would seem to be no- after all, he's still alive, right? Even if the shit has been kicked out of him. There is such a thing as too far, and simply taking this case and saying "well, he saved his men's lives" (of which I have seen no evidence) just isn't good enough for me. It is inherently dangerous to allow soldiers free license to do whatever they want with the blanket justification that it MIGHT save their men's lives. War is not arithmetic.

I will always consider someone's right to be left free of intimidation to be subordinate to other's right to be left alive. So yes, I will allow intimidation to try and flush out such. Are there flaws? Yes. Better than having no chance at all to uncover such. As for the escalating scale, it is a slippery slope. At no point do I condone torture or worse.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:50pm

Vympel wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
I have always been arguing on strictly moral grounds. I was interested to see where someone is guaranteed to not be scared, but that does not change the crux of my argument: One man's right to not be intimidated does not, will not, and should never come before multiple other individual's rights to continuing living. All the pithy sayings in the world will not shift that from being the case in the referred to incident.
While I would tend to agree in principle, how is this standard supposed to work? For example- if a commander hear's a rumor that he's going to be ambushed, and that X has information regarding said attack, and so he intimidates X- how do you know there was actually going to be an attack? As I said before, when intimidated/tortured, a prisoner is likely to admit to anything to save his own life. Furthermore, what about torture? Does one man's right not to be tortured not come before the rights of other individuals to continue living? The answer would seem to be no- after all, he's still alive, right? Even if the shit has been kicked out of him. There is such a thing as too far, and simply taking this case and saying "well, he saved his men's lives" (of which I have seen no evidence) just isn't good enough for me. It is inherently dangerous to allow soldiers free license to do whatever they want with the blanket justification that it MIGHT save their men's lives. War is not arithmetic.

I wouldn't bother Vympnel. I tried this logic on him and he cried:

"SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY!! SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY!!"

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:56pm

SirNitram wrote:I will always consider someone's right to be left free of intimidation to be subordinate to other's right to be left alive. So yes, I will allow intimidation to try and flush out such. Are there flaws? Yes. Better than having no chance at all to uncover such. As for the escalating scale, it is a slippery slope. At no point do I condone torture or worse.

Why not? You clearly advocate a prisoner having their life threatened and being beaten by two soldiers at the order of their officer ("physical agress")- why is the trauma from that allowed and that of torture isn't? Contrary to the pishh-poshing, what this man did was fucking serious- he wasn't kidding around. Also, how are you supposed to codify such a distinction into the Law of War, so officers know where they stand? Intimidation such as this is allowed, but torture is not? Sure, rough em up and threaten to kill them, but by gods don't torture them? Doesn't work.

Furthermore, thin about the ramifications of this: I will always consider someone's right to be left free of intimidation to be subordinate to other's right to be left alive. So yes, I will allow intimidation to try and flush out such- would that make soldiers tromping through a village and threatening every civilian there AOK, because it might save their lives? These are the Laws of War, and they relate to the conduct of soldiers, whoose lives are always at risk. The civilians sure as fuck aren't responsible for those soldiers being there. They have a duty not only to themselves, but to the people they are occupying.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 09:00pm

Vympel wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I will always consider someone's right to be left free of intimidation to be subordinate to other's right to be left alive. So yes, I will allow intimidation to try and flush out such. Are there flaws? Yes. Better than having no chance at all to uncover such. As for the escalating scale, it is a slippery slope. At no point do I condone torture or worse.
Why not? You clearly advocate a prisoner having their life threatened and being beaten by two soldiers at the order of their officer ("physical agress")- why is the trauma from that allowed and that of torture isn't?

Because mental trauma, while real, is easier to overcome than the potential outcome of torture, which is death. To claim that because I advocate one thing, it must lead to another is the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Contrary to the pishh-poshing, what this man did was fucking serious- he wasn't kidding around. Also, how are you supposed to codify such a distinction into the Law of War, so officers know where they stand?

I don't know. As I said, I am not arguing the legality. Nor will I say the man should be free of any consequences. I do not agree with the extent of the consequences he is suffering, but.

Intimidation such as this is allowed, but torture is not? Sure, rough em up and threaten to kill them, but by gods don't torture them? Doesn't work.

As I said, I'm not going to touch the legality. It's a thorny, sticky issue.. As is any law.. and I don't know enough to make a call on how to proceed or enforce such.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 09:02pm

Then we more or less stand around the same- the only difference is that in order for these standards to be practically useful, there must be a codification of them.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 09:07pm

Vympel wrote:Then we more or less stand around the same- the only difference is that in order for these standards to be practically useful, there must be a codification of them.

The practicality of anything legal and moral is always difficult. Realistically, I suppose the only means would be to enforce it on the Court Marshal level, so that some consideration is made. As I said, consequences should have come down, but I would not go much beyond reduction in rank and getting parked in front of a desk until retirement.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 09:16pm

SirNitram wrote:
The practicality of anything legal and moral is always difficult. Realistically, I suppose the only means would be to enforce it on the Court Marshal level, so that some consideration is made. As I said, consequences should have come down, but I would not go much beyond reduction in rank and getting parked in front of a desk until retirement.

We know very little on the facts of the case, and I'm always in favor of getting a court or tribunal of some sort to sift out the material facts and decide the gravity of punishment in light of them- he shouldn't be locked up or anything like that, I agree.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 09:18pm

Vympel wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
The practicality of anything legal and moral is always difficult. Realistically, I suppose the only means would be to enforce it on the Court Marshal level, so that some consideration is made. As I said, consequences should have come down, but I would not go much beyond reduction in rank and getting parked in front of a desk until retirement.
We know very little on the facts of the case, and I'm always in favor of getting a court or tribunal of some sort to sift out the material facts and decide the gravity of punishment in light of them- he shouldn't be locked up or anything like that, I agree.

I agree. From what has been reported, he shouldn't be punished hard. What can I argue except what information that I have? It seems we have consensus, though, so I'm going to go look at porn.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 09:37pm

SirNitram wrote:
I agree. From what has been reported, he shouldn't be punished hard. What can I argue except what information that I have? It seems we have consensus, though, so I'm going to go look at porn.

ROFLMAO ... I'm going to go look at the scintilating topic of the Trade Practices Act 1974 Merger regulation system.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-11-05 10:19pm

The article mentions the worst that could happen to the Col. and not whether that seems likely.

Considering the two men he had physically "agress" (???) the prisoner were only fined (by whom?) I'm not sure that Col. West is in as much trouble as the article seems to imply.

Normally as an enlisted man if you do something very wrong they do a whole lot more than fine you although that's an option. There's losing rank, loss of pay (usually separate and different than plain fines), extra duty, brig time on up to a real prison sentence. If they were only fined that to me seems like a very light punishment coming from the military.

As an enlisted man I'd be very glad that my C.O. was so concerned at looking out for me that he was willing to put his own neck out there for me and my compatriots.

As a civilian, thinking if I were in the captive's shoes, what the colonel and his men did concerns me because I don't like the idea of any type of authority running roughshod over my personal rights, for any reason.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-11-05 11:23pm

OK, so we have established that according to some people, it's OK to threaten someone's life with a gun as long as you don't actually kill or maim that person.

Hypothetical scenario: you are captured by another country's army. They also capture your son. They hold a gun to his head and tell you to talk. Since they are "only" using a gun in a threatening manner, that's OK, right?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 11:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:OK, so we have established that according to some people, it's OK to threaten someone's life with a gun as long as you don't actually kill or maim that person.

Hypothetical scenario: you are captured by another country's army. They also capture your son. They hold a gun to his head and tell you to talk. Since they are "only" using a gun in a threatening manner, that's OK, right?

I don't think the argument is that it isn't wrong, but that these kinds of actions can be justified if it people's lives are on the line.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-11-05 11:28pm

OK, the enemy soldier who's captured you wants to know about your army's offensive and defensive plans. That information can save his mens' lives. Therefore, it's OK to point a gun at your head (or capture your children and point the gun at their heads) in order to extract the information, right?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 11:31pm

Darth Wong wrote:OK, the enemy soldier who's captured you wants to know about your army's offensive and defensive plans. That information can save his mens' lives. Therefore, it's OK to point a gun at your head (or capture your children and point the gun at their heads) in order to extract the information, right?

I say no, but everyone else seems to think I'm a dumbass so I don't think my opinion is worth much.