Poll: Should We Execute Our Own Generals?

[Intellectual.Osmosis]

Morbid Correction: Execution is the only sure way to make sure the perpetrator never does it again. Or anything, for that matter.

Not trying to be an ass or push in either way on the belief, just stating a fact.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

Execute them! Warhammer Commissar Style!

If it leads to the creation of the Chainsword I believe we should do it now. RIGHT NOW, I wanna chainsword dammit!

 

[Stalington]

Or give them a Glasglow Smile, like they did in Pan's labyrinth!

 

[KSI Hellboy]

All is fair in love and war.

 

[Kagrath]

If you're prepared to kill and die for your beliefs, you had damn well be ready to be tortured for them. However if civilians are involved someone needs to have their ass kicked, all it does is make our bloodthirsty country look worse.

 

[Stalington]

Im telling you man, stick em in the gallows and throw tomatos at em.....and then put a lot of stock in tomatos.

 

[Intellectual.Osmosis]

Nothing is fair in Love and War; that's why all the biggest tragedies involve one, the other, or both in someway.

 

[Brett Alex]

2. I've forgotten your name, forgive me, as the day has worn me out, but whoever keeps doing the "Stalin Game" bs is being a sarcastic child. So he quoted Stalin; though a madman, tyrant, and murderer, his words can still ring true to people who are not also madmen, tyrants, or murderers. It looked to me like a keen observation of people; if one person dies, a nation mourns, examines their lives, and does numerous TV specials. If a ship sinks, a general condolence is given, as well as maybe a lifetime movie... but I've drifted off point.

That would be me.

No, it wasn't bait, I just felt the thread was getting far too serious, what with all the suggestions of genocide and racial extermination.
That and I simply love tag-lines. I went crazy with them in the election thread here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/362.66425?page=54#647622].

EDIT: Personally I also thought it less childish than "neutron bomb the fuckers"
To address the body of your argument:
First off, you're a soldier over there (still over there? I'll assume you are) so whatever you do, good luck and don't die.
None of this argument is directed at you for being a soldier, you didn't start the war, you just signed up.
Despite this, the claim that what you are doing is what gives us the right to have opinions is not really correct. I have heard more cases of Westerners being censored by westerners than by any terrorists.

I'd just like to say... if it came down to torturing a man for information, to save even one life that would have been lost, I would take it and all the blame and criticism that came with it. The insurgent forces understand the power of one man who's willing to give up everything for what they believe; their culture has even given them near holy status. Yet the path of our civilization is one of Damnation.

See, this is where it gets sticky. Rights and responsibilities.
As the largest democracy, the US has the right to protect its citizens if it deems (correctly or incorrectly) them in danger.
As the largest democracy, and a signatory to the Geneva convention, the US has the responsibility to stick to the rules and to not become the very thing it set out to destroy.

So, you torture a prisoner to save lives.
Job well done, he was guilty anyway.

That works in my opinion, but someone earlier summed it up best when they quoted Pratchett:

"If you can do it for a good reason, you can do it for a bad one,"

 

[Beowulf DW]

No, thats just messed up. Not all of them are as gulity as each other.


And if we kill them what makes us diffrent?

Oh thats right we played by the rules, that washes the blood of.

EDIT, your poll doesn't have a "no", thats wrong.

My poll assumes that they are found guilty in a war crimes trial. In that context, there is no "no" option.

But perhaps you're right.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Great Topic, terrible poll.

 

[Beowulf DW]

All right, I've been doing some thinking since last night, and I figured that the poll was a bad idea. It's far to biased.

I know I can edit it, but is there a way to delete it?

 

[Anton P. Nym]

If the United States military wants to be seen as anything but yet another band of thugs, then it has to do a serious shake-out and start treating the UCMJ as iron-bound law and not a set of handy hints. Courts-martial for the leaders at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would be a good start; at least it'd air out the abuses, and exonerate those who did abide by the Code.

Canada's military had a similar scandal in Somalia, I believe, with one atrocity (the torture-murder of a prisoner) casting light on what turned out to be a series of abuses within our elite Canadian Airborne Regiment. In a controversial decision, the government of the time decided that the leadership of the regiment just wasn't up to fixing the toxic culture of brutality that had grown within it and the regiment was disbanded in disgrace. I opposed the move at the time, thinking we needed the Airborne for overseas work, but as it turned out that motivated the other regiments to clean house so perhaps it was the right decision after all.

If you're fighting terrorism, there's no point in becoming terrorists; that's how you lose, because then the choice becomes "our terrorists" vs. "their terrorists" and people root for the home team. You win the "war" against terrorism by letting the terrorists show themselves to be the horrible people they are while a) thwarting their plans, and b) showing that you can do more for their people than the terrorists can.

Abu Ghraib (and, arguably, the whole shoddy mess of lies used to excuse the conquest of Iraq) cost the US the moral high ground they needed... now comes the choice between a hard fight to regain that moral high ground or an eventual victory by the very forces this war was (mistakenly, in my opinion) intended to suppress.

-- Steve

 

[Alex_P]

And the last moral quandary here; does torture beget torture? Is a man shaped by the cruel reality that he is thrust into? I'm torn here, by my ideals and the harsh truths I've come upon. No, I have not seen torture, and I believe it to be fundamentally wrong... but I've seen what happens when we let vital intelligence slip away due to taking the moral high ground. People die, and the people ask US what we did to stop it? As if we, those sworn to protect, let it happen... almost like we were accomplices.

It seems more like a problem of filtering. US military and intelligence services have access to technology that can generate a lot of data. But there's still a huge need for systems that effectively turn that data into knowledge and actionable intelligence.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

See, this is where it gets sticky. Rights and responsibilities.
As the largest democracy, the US has the right to protect its citizens if it deems (correctly or incorrectly) them in danger.
As the largest democracy, and a signatory to the Geneva convention, the US has the responsibility to stick to the rules and to not become the very thing it set out to destroy.

So, you torture a prisoner to save lives.
Job well done, he was guilty anyway.

That works in my opinion, but someone earlier summed it up best when they quoted Pratchett:

"If you can do it for a good reason, you can do it for a bad one,"

That's why I think the best position is to categorically criminalize torture.

If you're doing it for the right reasons, you should be willing to risk your career and freedom. Otherwise you're not really doing it for the right reasons anyway.

-- Alex

 

[Intellectual.Osmosis]

Armitage: True, it was more mature than Neutron Bombing Fuckers. Sorry about that, it just rubbed me the wrong way, as yours seemed more thought out, and the other more of a "wait... what?" kind of statement. However, my statement about fighting to make sure people can say what they want still holds valid due to the fact that their IS allowed opposition to leadership and the war in general in media. I couldn't fight for a nation that silenced all opposition... after all, just because I'm a conservative doesn't mean I agree with all conservative views.

As for the Terry Pratchett quote, that one always gets me weird. I somewhat agree and disagree at the same time...

Oh, and I'll do my best about not dying

Alex_P: As we're trained, the best intelligence gathering system is a Soldier. All the computers and such in the world can be beat to the source every time by keeping your eyes and ears open, as well as asking the right questions.


This is a good debate, guys, thought provoking even. That Terry Pratchett quote is going to get re-rolled around in my head for a while.

 

[Sardonac]

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

But tried for their crimes? Of course

This man speaks truth.

It's been proven time and time again that an eye for an eye is not an applicable or effective punishment. What can be done however is to remove certain freedoms from criminals. In this case I don't think their prison sentence will be based on reform as much as dishonouring them.

 

[Duskwaith]

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."

Thats why war has changed.

Well modern soldiers are pretty much mentaly broken down then rebuilt to follow orders from thhe generals so there not entirely of the hook there and the fact soldeirs are disillusioned these days also adds to the problem.

I personnaly think the traditional Japanesse way is best live with it or take your life if the shame is too much.

 

[Beowulf DW]

I think that a big part of the morality of this discussion is the viability of torture as a means of attaining information.

Every study I've ever seen on torture points to the conclusion that it doesn't work as an interrogation technique. Prisoners will tell their torturers what they think the torturers want to hear. For example, during torture a high ranking Al-Quaeda member told his interrogators that Saddam Hussein had provided chemical warfare training for Al-Quaeda soldiers. I'm given to understand that Colin Powell announced to the United Nations our intent to target Iraq shortly there after. Later, the CIA deemed the Al-Quaeda member's information was a lie.

The FBI's techniques have produced far more reliable results. The FBI treats the (suspected) terrorists humanely, as they would with a suspect to a crime. The extremists don't expect such merciful treatment and actually spill the beans, as the saying goes. The FBI's method has another benefit: enemy POWs realize that we aren't the monsters they thought we were. Their desire to fight us disipates.

If torture was proven effective, then I'd admitt that in certain situations it is morally ambiguous. However, every piece of information that I've seen has pointed to torture being ineffective. Perhaps there's some other study that I haven't seen on the subject that produced different results, but I've never heard of it.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I don't really think I understand the question. Are you asking if we should go so far as to execute officers? If so, then I say yes, why not? If they're found guilty, the fact that they're an officer doesn't mean they didn't do it, and it certainly doesn't mean they can get away with it.

Though addressing the question of if generals are responsible for the actions of their troops, I say that depends. If the generals knew about crimes being committed by their soldiers and allowed it, or even worse, ordered it, then yes they should be guilty of it. Obviously more so if they ordered it than just condoning it. But, if they don't know about it, they might or might not be guilty. If the general was incapable of having found out about or preventing it, then it's not their fault. But they could be responsible because they failed to maintain control of their soldiers. So, basically, I don't think laws about this can be so generalized. The judgements would have to be made individually for each situation.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I wish I could remember that quote from the Art of War..Something along the lines of Being a grateful conquer, Or not one at all.

Also quite a few of the Abu prisnors, Were actually not soldiers but people at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anyways, Just because they behead one of us does that mean we should stoop down to their level?

Also another quote, "There are things far worse then death.."