Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For me, information control is more important than having clean hands. Essentially, I see bans on certain conduct as more of a means of vetting by necessity.

For example: you ban torture, but your people can use torture if it produces results. If it it produces results, and is made public, you try them and make them disappear in a non-violent way. If it doesn't produce results, you stick it to them quietly. If it doesn't produce results, and its found out, you throw them to the wolves. The net effect is to make people think long and hard about morally questionable actions.

I want my security personnel to have options, but not options without appropriate consequences.

No it's not. If it works, and if it ISN'T found out, then it's all fair game then? Morals and 'Rules of War' (which are held so highly in the Western World) really do mean nothing then...

The world is a really fethed up place, but that in no means makes it inherently bad. It is obviously 'bad' in general, to take advantage of peoples field of view, but it is inherent to global politics, local politics, etc...

I do not condone, but I cannot disagree entirely.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No it's not. If it works, and if it ISN'T found out, then it's all fair game then? Morals and 'Rules of War' (which are held so highly in the Western World) really do mean nothing then...

I am quite sure that many people of power, are not oblivious to these facts, but limiting actions to what is and isn't moral, limits progress. What I do not want, is people getting it into their heads, that their tiny little worlds, are anywhere near as important as the entire world. I can't argue this point very effectively, without offending people.

I am sitting here looking at posts DEFENDING the actions of a man who shot a newborn baby point-blank range, along with one hundred other civillians (might I add that no resistance was offered, nor were any questionable supplies found.)

This sickens me. I thought you better men than that. I really hope your arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I am sitting here looking at posts DEFENDING the actions of a man who shot a newborn baby point-blank range, along with one hundred other civillians (might I add that no resistance was offered, nor were any questionable supplies found.)

I think you may be missing the point here. I am not explicitly arguing that actions such as your example, are in any way acceptable. Nor am I arguing that specific example, benefits anyone at all. The point here is that the stream runs deep, and some of those monsters are much more than, most are less than (acceptable or beneficial).

This sickens me. I thought you better men than that. I really hope your arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Trust me mate, logic, and consequence, disturbs me occasionally as well. I am also not a fan of being entirely utopian in my views, through the necessity of others.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I am sitting here looking at posts DEFENDING the actions of a man who shot a newborn baby point-blank range, along with one hundred other civillians (might I add that no resistance was offered, nor were any questionable supplies found.)

I think you may be missing the point here. I am not explicitly arguing that actions such as your example, are in any way acceptable. Nor am I arguing that specific example, benefits anyone at all. The point here is that the stream runs deep, and some of those monsters are much more than, most are less than (acceptable or beneficial).

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

A simple example.

Do people commit various crimes, and get away with it for reasons that are almost purely logistical? Of course they do.

If your car is stolen, the police are not going to be focused on your case as if it is the most important thing on their plate. Thus, they do something that many would feel is wrong, by basically ignoring you entirely. This is not entirely acceptable, but it is a necessity of the current system.

A persons vehicle, can be the difference between them feeding their family, and not doing so.

There are many 'real-world' examples of this, and you can look towards your government programs for that. I am not saying our problems in the U.S. are the same as yours, just that those problems exist, and there is little in the way of effectively dealing with them. Aside, ignoring you entirely, which is 'killing' you.

The point here is that the stream runs deep, and some of those monsters are much more than, most are less than (acceptable or beneficial).

The monsters are the problems in the world. Some are walls blocking our success, others are not (generally speaking). Some problems deal with other ones, and in basic terms, benefit us collectively, though some individually will be harmed. That is the point of society, and in it's various forms, these problems take different shapes, and have different effects.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No it's not. If it works, and if it ISN'T found out, then it's all fair game then? Morals and 'Rules of War' (which are held so highly in the Western World) really do mean nothing then...

Essentially yes. I've never claimed to be a moral person, or someone who values ethics as anything other than a tool. I talk about everything in terms of utility, and consequence. Granted, that's a form of ethic, though a minimal one.

I'm not entirely sure how that example is comparable to a mass-murder/literal baby-killer being giving a paltry 3 years under house arrest. Why? In your example, the police may have bigger things to worry about such as homicide, and simply can't spare the manpower to investigate. How is this similar to a mass murder that is found guilty of the cold mass-murder of civilians being swept under the rug?

Emperors Faithful wrote:I am sitting here looking at posts DEFENDING the actions of a man who shot a newborn baby point-blank range, along with one hundred other civillians (might I add that no resistance was offered, nor were any questionable supplies found.)

This sickens me. I thought you better men than that. I really hope your arguing just for the sake of arguing.

His actions achieved nothing, and he should have been thrown to the wolves, along with anyone who ordered him to take the action without cause.

I think you're looking at my instrumental comment, and missing out on the net effect of it.

Then why wasn't he, dogma? Why wasn't he?

Becuase in the end, he was an American Soldier, and they were just a bunch of [see forum posting rules].


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops. (I meant from their point of view, not mine.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, the word rhymses with 'spooks'.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm not entirely sure how that example is comparable to a mass-murder/literal baby-killer being giving a paltry 3 years under house arrest. Why? In your example, the police may have bigger things to worry about such as homicide, and simply can't spare the manpower to investigate. How is this similar to a mass murder that is found guilty of the cold mass-murder of civilians being swept under the rug?

In one word: Morale.

If the government agencies committing various 'moral crimes of necessity', feel they can better deal with various problems through them. They may be correct, and I am not in a particularly strong position to dispute their tactics. I can disagree with them, through my personal opinion, but I will generally lack the information required to logically defeat their reasoning. These are professionals on the front line, and I am still not referring to boots on the ground, more along the lines of eyes in the sky.

To be entirely clear, and I will say this again, I do not attempt to say that your example is what I am arguing for.

Soldiers of any nation have committed atrocious acts, and I personally feel every single one of them should be locked up in concrete boxes for the rest of their lives. When it comes to the dynamics of those situations, and the consequences of those soldiers actions, I do not have the option to take action myself.

I understand it being delayed until the war was over (which it was, in fact it was forgotten until one lowly soldier demanded it be brought to court) but even AFTER the public outrage and full judicial hearing, the man is THEN let off the hook via a presidential order?

God damn that fether Nixon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway's...slightly OT, yes?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Then why wasn't he, dogma? Why wasn't he?

Racial prejudice, stupidity, unfamiliarity, the list goes on.

Also, and more importantly, the lack of digital media to levy public opinion.

But hey, Nixon is my favorite President. Smart man.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

There have been a significant number of incidences of child death at the hands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, several of which involved errors on the point of the families to respect checkpoints. One such soldier attended my school last year. Innocent people being killed extrajudicially for the sake of security, hence "Outside of wartime" implying it occurs in wartime. There are also several cases of mass killings in vietnam at the hands of american soldiers.

Goop point. Currently reading up about some famous military trials. Some Lt. or other almost single-handedly killed a whole village numbering 100 men, women and children. He even shot point-blank a baby, claiming in court that he thought it was a 'small man'. Disgusting. He claimed that he had been ordered to wipe everyone out, but the higher ups denied this. (Even though there was a very real attempt to shush the case up at least until the war was done)

In the end, he was found guilty, but only served 3 years under house arrest. There's some western justice for you.

Can you provide a link and evidence for this story? That is a pretty horrendous thing to claim with no substantiation.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

There have been a significant number of incidences of child death at the hands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, several of which involved errors on the point of the families to respect checkpoints. One such soldier attended my school last year. Innocent people being killed extrajudicially for the sake of security, hence "Outside of wartime" implying it occurs in wartime. There are also several cases of mass killings in vietnam at the hands of american soldiers.

Goop point. Currently reading up about some famous military trials. Some Lt. or other almost single-handedly killed a whole village numbering 100 men, women and children. He even shot point-blank a baby, claiming in court that he thought it was a 'small man'. Disgusting. He claimed that he had been ordered to wipe everyone out, but the higher ups denied this. (Even though there was a very real attempt to shush the case up at least until the war was done)

In the end, he was found guilty, but only served 3 years under house arrest. There's some western justice for you.

Can you provide a link and evidence for this story? That is a pretty horrendous thing to claim with no substantiation.

It's from a book of Famous Military Trials (I should also point out that I forgot to mention that this was in the Vietnam War, not the Gulf War. Not that it really makes it that much better.)
I'm looking for an internet link now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/03/98/mylai/65065.stm

If you consider the BBC reliable.

http://socialistworker.org/2003-1/446/446_09_MyLai.shtml
(300 may be more accurate, since only the Lt. was ever found guilty of the killings. Court Records state that only one other soldier actually followed his orders to kill civilians.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

dogma wrote:To be fair, a lot of unsavory stuff is necessary in the course of war. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't drop the hammer on people that can't keep it discreet.

I question that philosophy.

Most people do, though once you run it through all potential consequences it doesn't turn out all that bad.

dogma wrote:Most people do, though once you run it through all potential consequences it doesn't turn out all that bad.

Elaborate.

Consequences force people to consider their actions more carefully. If you remind people that failure is punishable to the public extent of the law, say 30-40 years in prison for torture, they will think long and hard before they use torture; thereby minimizing its use. This is further hedged by the punishment implicit in the discovery of effective uses of torture; even quiet disappearance is quite the punishment. Not many people would be happy about being forcefully relocated.

Its the best of both worlds. Minimal use of torture, and flexibility in intelligence gathering.

Yet when it 'works', you still find torture permissable?

Yes. Consequentialism is your friend in this case.

My foreign policy is somewhere between neo-conservatism, and neo-internationalism. Neo-liberalism is a crock.

So 'Anything goes, as long as it works.' then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's a lot of Neo's there...

I imagine that Dogma and I agree on much more then anyone might guess...

And so long as it isn't discovered. Though that is a form of function. It doesn't do away with the rules of war, it just changes their meaning.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I imagine that Dogma and I agree on much more then anyone might guess...

Yeah, I think we agree on a lot of points. Our only differences seem to stem from differing areas of academic grounding.

dogma wrote:And so long as it isn't discovered. Though that is a form of function. It doesn't do away with the rules of war, it just changes their meaning.

IMHO, and in the kindest way possible, that is a crock of .

Especially this.

It doesn't do away with the rules of war, it just changes their meaning.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
That's a lot of Neo's there...

That's sort of how political theory works, now anyway. If you want a non-neo term, then I would call myself of a constructivist. Though even that isn't fully accurate. I see myself as a realist of the purest sort; ie. willing to discard ideology when facts interrupt it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
IMHO, and in the kindest way possible, that is a crock of .

Especially this.

It doesn't do away with the rules of war, it just changes their meaning.

You do love your absolutes. Yes and no don't command the majority of logical responses.

No, the fact that you're cliaming that torture doesn't do away with the rules of war. I understand that morals and such are not universal (though I do believe there to be some things which CAN be seen as universally wrong, or right, in an unquestionable way) however that statement there is really...something.