Poll: Should We Execute Our Own Generals?

[Beowulf DW]

I'm assuming that everyone knows about the Abu Ghraib Prison and the despicable events that took place there. Low ranking American soldiers were found guilty of abuse of prisoners. However, there was evidence that high ranking military officers and other American officials had knowledge of and encouraged the torture of enemy POWs at Abu and at another prison in Afghanistan.

My question to you, my friends, is whether or not the high ranking officers of the American military and American civilian officials should be tried as war criminals. If they are found guilty, should they receive a life-time in prison, or should they be executed?

 

[Graustein]

Since I do not support the death penalty, I'm going to say no to the question.

However, a general should be held responsible for the actions of his men. HOWEVER (again), if, through no fault of his own, he did not know, then blame does not lie with him. Men who perform despicable of their own volition should be punished. If their superiors fail to punish them, then those superiors also should be punished by their respective superiors, and so on and so forth. You cannot however blame someone for not preventing/punishing what they did not and cannot be expected to be aware of.

I'm speaking in general (lolpun) terms here, I am in fact not acquainted with the incident in question, but I have a vague idea of what it entails from the OP (abuse of prisoners where those in charge were both aware of and encouraged such abuse, right?)

 

[Ultrajoe]

Well, given i'm not a fan of the death penalty... no.

But tried for their crimes? Of course

 

[Clairaudient]

I don't know if execution is really the answer. There was a big thread a few days ago debating capital punishment and such. There definitely should be SOME punishment, I mean, they are breaking the law in an immoral and heinous way.

If they were torturing American citizens this wouldn't even be a question. As all humans are created equal, I think the conviction should be without prejudice. To do so effectively however, there would need to be substantial evidence, and the American government seems likely to turn a blind eye or alter recollections of events by legal loopholes or illegal means.

Stuff like this makes me lose a little faith in humanity. I just read earlier about a teenager who was attempting suicide by jumping off a public building while a crowd of teenagers below cheered him on to do so. Despicable in my opinion, I can't fathom how their minds function.

 

[jim_doki]

i am not touching this one.

this is a far too complex issue involving concept like "sins of the father", military rights and foregn policy. im staying FAR away

i will say in general I am apposed to killing

 

[Jobz]

I believe they should be tried for their crimes. If found guilty I believe they should be given they should be subjected to the treatment they supported. But because torture is against the law, true justice will not take place. So I believe they should be sentenced to life in prison, because compared to that, death is getting off easy.

 

[Graustein]

For torturing POWs? Why? The opposition is doing it to us and there's no way of stopping it. Geneva convention was shirked off years ago, by about 2003 we were the only ones still playing by the rules.

Just because your enemy breaks the rules doesn't entitle you to do so. It's not Iraqi PoW #3746's fault that Iraqi guard #278 is a sadistic bastard

 

[sneakypenguin]

Eh no one should of been tried in my opinion but then I see it as hey they behead our guys(and journalist,diplomats etc.) so making prisoners wear pantys on their head or sitting naked or sleep deprivation is not that big a deal compared to how the other side treats their captives.
I don't care if it looks bad, violence is all that is understood in the middle east so whatever works.

 

[Brett Alex]

For torturing POWs? Why? The opposition is doing it to us and there's no way of stopping it. Geneva convention was shirked off years ago, by about 2003 we were the only ones still playing by the rules.
To quote Snake, "War, has changed."

Yeah, no-one in the world abides by that stupid document. And a good thing I say, it was only holding us back from spreading enlightenment to all corners of the globe.

EDIT: They should be tried for crimes but only if there is reason for it. What i mean is, they shouldn't be treated any different because they are high ranking officers. Blame shouldn't rest with them because troops under their command may have done it without their knowledge, but by the same admission, they shouldn't be immune to prosecution.

 

[Beowulf DW]

Just to clarify:

I don't support the death penalty. "Should we execute our own generals," is just easier to type than "Should our generals be sentenced to life in prison," and it gets people's attention.

 

[Graustein]

The point is, is that certain rules no longer apply. POWs are still our enemy, and you can't expect every soldier to have a clear and uncruel mind 100% of the time. War is war, and it's horrifying no matter what front you're on. Anyone who says differently is a moron.

I agree with your last statement while staying by my own. Atrocities committed by individuals on one side does not entitle individuals on the other side to commit their own atrocities.

You can't expect every soldier to have a clear and uncruel mind, that is true. But you CAN expect punishment for said soldier.

 

[Graustein]

Just to clarify:

I don't support the death penalty. "Should we execute our own generals," is just easier to type than "Should our generals be sentenced to life in prison," and it gets people's attention.

"Should our generals be tried for war crimes?"

 

[Ares Tyr]

Well, given i'm not a fan of the death penalty... no.

But tried for their crimes? Of course

Indeed.

 

[Maet]

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.

While warfare has changed, the type of personal honour and integrity involved is still present and individuals should do their best to uphold that standard. Just because every other general is above displaying concern for their prisoners doesn't mean I should be too (if I were a general, of course).

The thought that because a general was ignorant to the actions of the men he is responsible for does not absolve him of responsibility for those actions. He is a poor general if he can't keep his troops in line, and is absolutely responsible.

While I support execution of the generals by a personal predilection, the consequences of such actions in modern times is devastating. Definitely, an example must be set, just not a lethal example. Tried and punished, etc.

 

[Beowulf DW]

For torturing POWs? Why? The opposition is doing it to us and there's no way of stopping it. Geneva convention was shirked off years ago, by about 2003 we were the only ones still playing by the rules.

Just because your enemy breaks the rules doesn't entitle you to do so. It's not Iraqi PoW #3746's fault that Iraqi guard #278 is a sadistic bastard

The point is, is that certain rules no longer apply. POWs are still our enemy, and you can't expect every soldier to have a clear and uncruel mind 100% of the time. War is war, and it's horrifying no matter what front you're on. Anyone who says differently is a moron.

There's just one problem: some of the prisoners who were tortured, as well as one who was killed at the prison in Afghanistan, were innocent civilians.

Only about 10% of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were actually captured by Coalition Forces. The rest were turned in by civilians or local warlords for a bounty with little to no solid evidence to suggest that they were ever enemy combatants.

 

[meatloaf231]

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 the non-combatants 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.

To quote A Few Good Men:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

 

[Graustein]

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