Poll: Should We Execute Our Own Generals?

[Graustein]

I know, and I agree with you. But are you going to say we should punish someone for fighting evil? Even if his methods were wrong? Would you criminalize Batman because he went outside of the law?

No, but I fail to see abuse of POWs as anything but sadistic, no matter what the other side is doing. That's my stance and I doubt any discussion on an internet forum will change it. I can understand where you're coming from, I just disagree entirely.

Let's move on.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Its easy to dismiss the views of those not in combat because they aren't the ones 'out there'. But for compliance in a war crime what can we do but punish the offenders? Let them go because they have always done it?

They set out to war to defend our morals and beliefs.

It serves logic then that they be accountable to the morals and beliefs they fight for... or can we really claim a victory for those same morals?

 

[Clairaudient]

As all humans are created equal, I think the conviction should be without prejudice.

All humans are created similar, but that's besides the point.

I'd like to think there is equality on the most basic of levels. We are all deserving of fair judgement and chance at achievement, though more often than not people don't receive what they deserve. Be it by birth into poverty or being raised with radical sadistic beliefs, things are often tilted to be inequal.

 

[Beowulf DW]

I never condemn soldiers. I just feel that it is appalling that while we have sacrificed enlisted men/women and NCOs on the alter of "justice" (or should I say "public relations"), not a single officer has been so much as slapped on the wrist. I hate the game, not the players. But I most especially hate the coaches.

Also, if our country has sunk so low that to defend our values we abandon the same things that seperate us from the scum who threaten us, then this country deserves to burn. If we have reached that point, the Great Experiment has failed.

And to answer the question of that quote, meatloaf: I'd rather have no wall to protect me than a wall patrolled by a monster.

 

[meatloaf231]

Its easy to dismiss the views of those not in combat because they aren't the ones 'out there'. But for compliance in a war crime what can we do but punish the offenders? Let them go because they have always done it?

They set out to war to defend our morals and beliefs.

It serves logic then that they be accountable to the morals and beliefs they fight for... or can we really claim a victory for those same morals?

And that right there is the fundamental problem with war. We send our soldiers off to defend our morals and beliefs, and then when they defend them, we decry their methods. War makes monsters of us all, and no soldier returns the same way he went out. One more quote to agree.

"Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?" -Holly Near

 

[Dommyboy]

"War, war never changes."

If you don't know where that quote comes from, you are not a great gamer.

I would say sentence the generals to jail but not for life (well, depending on the crime committed).

 

[Copter400]

"Beating people up in little rooms...he knew where that led. And if you'd do it for a good reason, you'd do it for a bad one. You couldn't say 'we're the good guys' and do bad guy things. -Sam Vimes, Thud!, Terry Pratchett.

They should be punished. Some time in jail and a dishonourable discharge should do the trick.

 

[BaronAsh]

Well aren't most of these guys convicted terrorist and jihads?

Didn't like before 1994 we would just interrogate and then kill them ?

 

[Copter400]

Well aren't most of these guys convicted terrorist and jihads?

How are they being convicted?

 

[Graustein]

"Beating people up in little rooms...he knew where that led. And if you'd do it for a good reason, you'd do it for a bad one. You couldn't say 'we're the good guys' and do bad guy things. -Sam Vimes, Thud!, Terry Pratchett.

They should be punished. Some time in jail and a dishonourable discharge should do the trick.

As ever, there's a Pratchett quote that sums up my views in any situation.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Its easy to dismiss the views of those not in combat because they aren't the ones 'out there'. But for compliance in a war crime what can we do but punish the offenders? Let them go because they have always done it?

They set out to war to defend our morals and beliefs.

It serves logic then that they be accountable to the morals and beliefs they fight for... or can we really claim a victory for those same morals?

And that right there is the fundamental problem with war. We send our soldiers off to defend our morals and beliefs, and then when they defend them, we decry their methods. War makes monsters of us all, and no soldier returns the same way he went out. One more quote to agree.

"Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?" -Holly Near

I think you missed the point of that quote.

And if war makes monsters of us all, better that we lock up the monsters.

The excuses aside, we cannot claim to be right in any conflict when we fail to punish war criminals for their actions. War may push us to the brink, but its a dark day indeed we don't step back from it and punish those who fell.

And the Pratchett quote sums it up (stylishly), You can beat people up all you want, but you can never again claim integrity once you condone it... And didn't we go to war because of our integrity?

 

[Brett Alex]

That's cool and all because they kill our civillians without carring too. Remember 9/11? You think the terrorists cared who was civillian and who wasn't? Rememebr all them reporters who's families got tapes of them having their head cut off? You think they had a name tag and rank on?

Oh, the old 'Remember 9/11?' Remember 9/11. By that logic Palestinians have a right to blow themselves up in Israeli milk bars.

By that logic Zionists had a right to bomb the King David Hotel.
By that logic Jamar Islamia had a right to devestate Kuta Beach and the Sari Club.
By that logic the IRA had a right to bomb churches.
By that logic Chechen's have a right to hold Russian kids hostage.
By that logic Russia had a right to invade Georgia.

No.
In a war, we have to be held accountable for our actions. Otherwise what separates us from our enemies? That were bigger? That they started it? That its us so we must be right?

Hell, why not join them if were gonna do things the same way as them?

 

[Khedive Rex]

War makes thieves and peace hangs them. George Herbert

War hath no fury like a noncombatant. -Charles Edward Montague

Two of my favorite quotes. People who don't fight in wars always have the say over them. People who do fight get no say, and afterwards are the ones who criminalize the soldiers. The civilians always hate the soldiers for going to war. I wish someone would listen to them, even just to prove a point. If our men did not go to war, then other men would come to war. Necroswanson knows what's what, even if our views don't completely align. I agree with him.

Yay, someone understands me! I love you Meatloaf, and not just because you're named after the greatest food ever, or the greatest rock star of our, and our father's times, and not just because you have an avatar or the single greatest SNES character ever.

@ Necroswanson: Evil does not justify more evil. That's all I have to say.

I know, and I agree with you. But are you going to say we should punish someone for fighting evil? Even if his methods were wrong? Would you criminalize Batman because he went outside of the law?

Alright, it's really late and I don't feel like engaging in a full scale debate but I have to say, I feel like both you and meatloaf have missed the point and are doing so intentionally.

Do I think we should criminalize Batman? No. Does that mean everything a soldier does during a time of war should be completely exempt from oversight or the code of law? No.

Is it a shame that soldiers don't get the respect they deserve for defending our country? Yes. Does that mean we should all shut up and let them get out their frustrations on a few chained up Iraqi civilians? No.

I can agree with the one while still vehemently opposing the other and thats because the issues you bring up are non-topical.

If we're disscussing whether torture is a perfectly legitemate means to an end during war time, batman and troop moral don't mean anything. The question is, is it legal? Despite what many posters seem to think, no. It is not legal the Geneva conventions strictly forbid it. Whether that's fair or not the striking truth remains.

The second (arguablly more important) question, if it's illegal is it worth breaking the law over? Are we likely to get valuable information by shocking the testicles of non-military civilians? What do they know that we want? The location of a really good gyro shop in their home town? If they aren't military, they're worthless to us and breaking the law for shits and giggles probably isn't the best idea.

So in short, I disagree with you. Torturing non-military civilians is a waste of government time and money and moreover makes other countries hate us. Its a lose-lose situation. Now, as for the argument that they did it first so we should to, if nothing ultimately comes from it than the entire point of this argument is "they've pissed us off and we want revenge."

If thats a good enough reason to suspend human rights and break the Geneva Conventions, I really don't know what more to say. Go for it dude.

 

[The Wooster]

Its easy to dismiss the views of those not in combat because they aren't the ones 'out there'. But for compliance in a war crime what can we do but punish the offenders? Let them go because they have always done it?

They set out to war to defend our morals and beliefs.

It serves logic then that they be accountable to the morals and beliefs they fight for... or can we really claim a victory for those same morals?

And that right there is the fundamental problem with war. We send our soldiers off to defend our morals and beliefs, and then when they defend them, we decry their methods.

Or we don't. The majority of the people who decry their methods are people who were against said war in the first place.

There is a bizare belief that the west and particular the states, is surrounded by raving barbaians hordes and only the good ol' Marine core is standing between little Timmy and a reenactment of Red Dawn. Soldiers, relatives of Soldiers and especially those who work and live in the millitary industry need to believe that they're still needed and relevant even if others think they're not.

The argument 'you can only say that because I protect you', is a cheap argument and a fallacy at that.

 

[meatloaf231]

Its easy to dismiss the views of those not in combat because they aren't the ones 'out there'. But for compliance in a war crime what can we do but punish the offenders? Let them go because they have always done it?

They set out to war to defend our morals and beliefs.

It serves logic then that they be accountable to the morals and beliefs they fight for... or can we really claim a victory for those same morals?

And that right there is the fundamental problem with war. We send our soldiers off to defend our morals and beliefs, and then when they defend them, we decry their methods. War makes monsters of us all, and no soldier returns the same way he went out. One more quote to agree.

"Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?" -Holly Near

I think you missed the point of that quote.

And if war makes monsters of us all, better that we lock up the monsters.

The excuses aside, we cannot claim to be right in any conflict when we fail to punish war criminals for their actions. War may push us to the brink, but its a dark day indeed we don't step back from it and punish those who fell.

And the Pratchett quote sums it up (stylishly), You can beat people up all you want, but you can never again claim integrity once you condone it... And didn't we go to war because of our integrity?

No, I'm fairly certain I grasped the quote, but I don't think I was clear on my position: war is crazy. It's confusing, and contradictory of it's own purpose, but it's necessary. You say we should punish those who fall off the brink. Why should we punish those who were dragged down by the ones already plummeting? Should we shun them as well? A man is not the only one with control over himself, there are outside factors that greatly influence him. You may say that it all comes down to the one moment in which he makes the choice to break the rules. The man is not entirely to blame for his failing; in a different situation he could have never made the choice. I'm not saying that the men are innocent of their crimes. They are not. I'm saying that their crimes are the sum of a thousand situations. They are the poor man who steals his food. It's not justification, it's simply acknowledgment of the context of the crimes.

Yes, we are all monsters, some more visibly than others. All it takes to reveal our nature is some provocation.

P.S. I am tired. I will be asleep for a long time now, followed by learning. Can't respond while I'm asleep or learning. Be back about 4 tomorrow.

 

[Brett Alex]

You're out there risking your neck for a coutnry that doesn't care and your job is to watch over prisoners, many of whom have cut off the heads of our civillians or worse, terrorists, and true child killers.... What would you do? Do you honestly think you'd have the mental stability after all that? I know I'd sign myself up for psychotherapy. The issue may not be just simple cruelty, it may be emotional trauma.

How many US children have been killed by Iraqis? How many of our civilians have had their heads chopped off?

Do you honestly believe that the majority of POW's are inhuman psychopathic monsters who deserve everything and anything they get?
More often than not, a POW is a guy wearing the wrong uniform.

 

[Brett Alex]

Let me ask you then, whom still abides by the Geneva convention and reglarly goes to war?

Australia does.
The UK does and the US is meant to and more often than not does. Its only a few higher ups (John Yoo) that call the Geneva convention archaic and seem to think it optional.

EDIT: Cause I hate one word posts.