Memo to Army Chief of Staff

[Knife]

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?

Minus the kids, yeup. It also depends on exactly what info you're asking. Your senario is not exactly a good example of what I would do, but if you capture a POW or a enemy combatent, you can make inquiries that relate to your saftey.

Some what like a cop asking you if you have any buddies or weapons on you or near you. The combatent is not really in your custody, iirc, until he is secure and he is not secure until the immeadiate area is secure.

So in a nut shell, if you catch a guy you can and should grill him (if able too, launguge) about any immeadiate threats.

On a different point, the cative, wasn't he a Iraqi cop or something? If the guy was a cop or in a cop uniform but shown to be operating against US forces, he is not afforded the rights of a POW because he is not in proper uniform. IIRC, it puts him in the realm of illegal combatent.

I'll have to re-read the article.

[Darth Wong]

Minus the kids, yeup. It also depends on exactly what info you're asking. Your senario is not exactly a good example of what I would do, but if you capture a POW or a enemy combatent, you can make inquiries that relate to your saftey.

So if you were captured by the enemy, you would accept that he is willing to threaten your life in order to get classified information out of you which might help in his war effort?

Some what like a cop asking you if you have any buddies or weapons on you or near you. The combatent is not really in your custody, iirc, until he is secure and he is not secure until the immeadiate area is secure.

So in a nut shell, if you catch a guy you can and should grill him (if able too, launguge) about any immeadiate threats.

I'm afraid I'm a little fuzzy on this; in an ongoing war, aren't there always immediate threats somewhere?

On a different point, the cative, wasn't he a Iraqi cop or something? If the guy was a cop or in a cop uniform but shown to be operating against US forces, he is not afforded the rights of a POW because he is not in proper uniform. IIRC, it puts him in the realm of illegal combatent.

I'll have to re-read the article.

I don't think the article goes into enough detail to come to any firm conclusions about this particular incident; I was just having a problem with the general logic that actions which might normally be unethical become ethical if you think the resulting information will help your side's war effort.

[Knife]

So if you were captured by the enemy, you would accept that he is willing to threaten your life in order to get classified information out of you which might help in his war effort?

Yeah. In fact a lot of training goes on for our troops on how to act and react to probable enemy attempts to gain infomation. I had no dellusions when I was in the military, that if I ever got captured, I'd be pumped for infomation and pumped not all that nicely.

I'm afraid I'm a little fuzzy on this; in an ongoing war, aren't there always immediate threats somewhere?

Immeadiate as in area not as in time. You don't take a POW just because you walk up to him in combat. There is an issue of custody and when it takes place. This doesn't seem to be an issue though with the original topic.

I don't think the article goes into enough detail to come to any firm conclusions about this particular incident; I was just having a problem with the general logic that actions which might normally be unethical become ethical if you think the resulting information will help your side's war effort.

I don't know, I guess if every one played nice and followed the rules, the way the GC was originally envisioned, then I'd be with you on this. But what the hell good are ethics when nobody else is using them and the ethics are getting you killed. There has to be a middle ground there some where.

Again, I don't think the Colonel should get a medal or anything, but he shouldn't be made an example either.

[Vympel]

I don't think the article goes into enough detail to come to any firm conclusions about this particular incident; I was just having a problem with the general logic that actions which might normally be unethical become ethical if you think the resulting information will help your side's war effort.

These laws (and I think they're very ethical) clearly don't care about the war effort- and rightly so. What are we talking about here? This is about the conduct of soldiers- if they want to save their lives, they should go home (these are laws regarding the treatment of POW and civilians by the occupying power, after all).

[Dahak]

Laws and rules exist for a reason, their the foundation of modern society.
If you start sawing at them, because they deny you the "easy" way, then something is wrong. And arguing the morality of law is moot point...

[Beowulf]

Laws and rules exist for a reason, their the foundation of modern society.
If you start sawing at them, because they deny you the "easy" way, then something is wrong. And arguing the morality of law is moot point...

Arguing the morality of a law is never a moot point. Or have you never heard of Jim Crow Laws?