Collateral damage: self defence or murder?

[sebbysteiny]

Hey guys,

 

I wanted to start a debate on what is and is not acceptable conduct in war.

 

Particularly:

 

1) Is a soldier in a firefight with militants who kills an innocent civilian the same thing as a person who is a suicide bomber from a militant group who walks into a coffee shop trying to kill as many people as possible? Particularly, is the soldier guilty of murder in the same way as the suicide bomber is?

 

2) Is the commander charged with the responsibility of stopping militants who orders such an operation as in 1 guilty of murder?

 

3) Is the government who makes the decision to stop militants guilty causing the situation in 2 guilty of murder?

 

4) If some soldiers in the army commit war crimes, are the commanders or goverment ministers also guilty of war crimes?

 

5) Is the decision to use the armed forces a war crime?

 

6) Is the decision to go to war with another country a war crime?

 

7) What military tactics are legitimate tactics in asymetric warfare in which the enemy regularly use suicide bombings? In particular, checkpoints, road blocks, and anything else.

 

 

I have found that 90% of debates often come down to differences in point of view on these issues. Further, people often have different views on these tactics depending on the state that chooses to use them. I am not intending to debate any one particular conflict. However I am intending to debate a general sense of morality that can be applied to all conflicts and particular examples from any one or other conflict will therefore be useful to consider here.

[Edella]

Excellent Idea for discussion sebbysteiny.The Geneva Conventions might be a good start for for what many countries agree are "the rules of War."http://www.genevaconventions.org/ Of course this is not the final say on the matter and there are many other treaties recognized by different countries.

[ronthepon]

Here are my foremost and flexibly changable opinions.

 

1- No, the soldier is not as guilty. It is not his wish, or intention to hurt the civilians.

 

2- He is not at all guilty of murder. It is negligible action he is guilty of, at the worst. He may not even know about the risk.

 

3- This is to a large extent the same as the second question, except that it is on a higher level.

 

4- I will never be guilty, if my subordinate opposes my orders and does such a thing. Neither am I guilty if he does it without my knowledge.

But If I order him to, I am fully guilty.

 

5- It may or may not be a mistake or crime. But from what I've learnt of religion, the first attack is the biggest 'sin' of all.

 

6- That will depend on wether it's attack or self-defence for the country.

 

7- The seventh question stated is very difficult, and definitely has no generic answer. I am sure that this will be the biggest question of them all.

[sebbysteiny]

Glad there's been such a good response to an important topic.

 

I disagree that the starting point is the Geneva conventions. Why should a deal between nations 60 years ago make a difference about what is the morally correct approach. Surely the law is supposed to conform with morality. If the law differs from morality, then it is the law that must change, not our sense of morality. I think these topics must be approached from first principals.

 

 

I suggest the following principles might be relevant (although there might be others): The right of the individual (the right to life [including self defence], the right to freedom of movement, the right not to be tortured etc.); the rights of the state (the right to self defence, the duty to look after it's citizens)

 

1) In my opinion, murder is a very strong charge which describes not just killing somebody, but intent to kill. Therefore I think the soldier is morally blameless for killing innocent people if he was trying to kill militants and avoid civilians. This is his right to defend himself. A miltant who walks into cafe's to kill totally innocent people is, however, a disgusting crime against humanity.

 

2) The commander is different, because he knows full well that giving an order to confront militants will almost certainly lead to innocent deaths. However, he fulfills his orders anyway. Is it murder?

 

3) The buck stops with the government. Whilst the commander could say he is following orders and has no authority to stop them, the government does not have that excuse. Whoever makes that decision is committing innocent civilians to death. Is it murder?

 

4) In my opinion, every armed forces contains a elements of effectively criminals. Even the SAS contained them. Should the government or commander do more to stop some of these people? How much more can they do? Is it murder?

 

5) All armed forces have problems, not just as a concept (ie collateral damage) but also regarding the individual soldiers. The decision to use armed forces will 100% lead to innocent deaths through some of the above causes. However, it may be very necessary, but even if it is not, is it murder? If it is not murder if necessary, then what is necessary? How trivial can it be?

 

6) This is similar to 5, except this is a declaration of war. If the declaration was wrong, does that make it a war crime? What makes a declaration wrong, law, morals? Surely, again, if the law is not the same as morality, the law should change, not morality. Would it make a difference if the government believed themselves to be right, but were mistaken either by facts or by reasoning? What if there is a boundary dispute? What if it is pre-emptive?

 

7) Networks of checkpoints and road blocks seriously undermine the peoples freedom of movement. They also undermine the entire economy and effect the life of everyone including the innocents. However, they are by far the most effective method of stopping suicide bombers and other militants disguised as civilians. Should women going into labour and other humanitarian necessities be allowed to pass the checkpoints without being searched properly? Would it make a difference if the suicide bombers regularly desguised themselves as pregnant women and humanitarian workers? These are the bulk of what is used in Israel against the Palestinians, but they are also used in Iraq, Afganistan, Egypt and even London. Further, airport passport controls are effectively a checkpoint.

 

Targeted killings and arrests. These are usually done by planes or unmanned drones that fire a missile or a bomb against militant leaders. However, militants usually hide in densely pact civilian areas and each bomb has a very high rate of collateral damage being about 3 innocent people who die and say 8 more injured, for every 1 or 2 militant leaders killed.

Also used in the fight against Al Qua

 

Shooting at mosques? Would it make a difference if it was a church? What about if there were guns and weopons in the mosque or there were militant fighters actually in the mosques and they were shooting at you? What if you were taking casualties?

 

Occupation. This is basically, in my understanding, the arab way of saying all of the above, but in such a way as to make it sound worse than it actually is.

 

Would it make a difference if the civilians were: shooting; throwing stones; engaging in 'peaceful protests' at the same time as bullets are flying all around? Does it make a difference if a 'militant' is a child?

 

 

Unfortunately, in the battle against Islamic militants from Al Quaeda to the Tamil tigers, from the chechen militants and Hamas, all the above problems often occur. Therefore, a good moral map that could be applied to all of these conflicts would enable us to get a good consistant world view.

[Edella]

Glad there's been such a good response to an important topic.

 

I disagree that the starting point is the Geneva conventions.

If you read my post more carefully,you will see I said The Geneva Conventions might be a good starting point for what many countries agree are "The Rules of War." According to Wikipedia Nearly all 200 countries of the world are "signatory" nations, in that they have ratified these conventions.

Why should a deal between nations 60 years ago make a difference about what is the morally correct approach.

Because nearly all 200 countries of the world are "signatory" nations, it does make a difference. Whether this is the morally correct approach is,of course, debatable.

What about if there were guns and weopons in the mosque or there were militant fighters actually in the mosques and they were shooting at you? What if you were taking casualties?

This question(and others you ask) is addressed in protocol I and II of the Geneva Convention but since you dismiss the Geneva Convention out of hand it may be of little interest to you.

 

There are many more treaties signed by various countries covering such issues as human rights,the use of particular weapons, genocide,etc,and many have faults,but understanding the history of "the rules of war" is crucial to understanding what may or may not work today.

 

You wanted to start a debate on what is and is not acceptable conduct in war,and when the most widely recognized documents concerning acceptable conduct is offered,you dismiss them and say,"Why should a deal between nations 60 years ago make a difference about what is the morally correct approach?".They are far from perfect and it could be argued that they are ineffectual and difficult to inforce.Perhaps you should read them.

 

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

-George Santayana

[Racoon]

Agree with Edella here.

Geneva Conventioned was formed over 60 years ago, because thats when WWII took place. yeah, you know that, but you probably don't realize first hand the immense human suffering. Its Uncomprehendible. :)

 

So, that Convention was/is a way to say We, as humans, should not sink to the depths that were displayed during that monumental global crisis. Its still relevant because there isn't too much worse that could happen, that didn't already happen. :shrug:

 

What about engaging an enemy that has zero regard for collateral damage?

It means there are going to be some people killed that are innocent.

Its not pretty. Geneva countries do at least hold some accountability.

 

War Never goes smoothly.:) There really are no rules when it comes to mortal combat.

It is wrong to purposely kill innocent civilians, but its going to happen.; acceptable casualties of war. (hopefully you don't become one)

:D

[C1ay]

I would say that the actions of a soldier deserve consideration of the circumstances at the time but the deaths of any civilians by a soldier deserve a thorough investigation. This is never true for a militant/terrorist. Any and all civilians that he/she kills are murdered.

[Edella]

I would say that the actions of a soldier deserve consideration of the circumstances at the time but the deaths of any civilians by a soldier deserve a thorough investigation. This is never true for a militant/terrorist. Any and all civilians that he/she kills are murdered.

I completely agree C1ay,But is seems the label "terrorist" is very derogatory and hard to define.It is commonly carlessly tossed around like the word nazi can be. In the struggle against terrorism, definition is important for the international fight against it.Don't get me wrong,I have no sympathy for terrorists.When I hear people say “One man's terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter" I cringe.Still, the international community seems to be having a hard time defining it.Maybe a definition for the word would be a good idea for a different thead,if it hasn't been done already.

[Racoon]

Don't get me wrong,I have no sympathy for terrorists.When I hear people say “One man's terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter" I cringe.

 

I've said that paraphrase here before too Edella. You may cringe, but its true.

We tend to see things from our personal point of view; its quite natural.

 

I suppose the Minute Men during the Revolutionary War were considered "terrorists" by English Empirical opinion. Yet they were freedom fighters. :)

 

Theres 2 sides to every coin. It takes an open mind to see it.

Not that I condone terrorism...;) But its not like America is completely innocent, whole-hearted benefactors either...

These guys see us as a threat to their way of life. As do we see them in that light as well...

 

Collateral Damage is going to happen, regardless...Moral or Immoral.

[Edella]

I've said that paraphrase here before too Edella. You may cringe, but its true.

We tend to see things from our personal point of view; its quite natural.

 

I suppose the Minute Men during the Revolutionary War were considered "terrorists" by English Empirical opinion. Yet they were freedom fighters. :)

 

Theres 2 sides to every coin. It takes an open mind to see it.

Not that I condone terrorism...;) But its not like America is completely innocent, whole-hearted benefactors either...

These guys see us as a threat to their way of life. As do we see them in that light as well...

 

Collateral Damage is going to happen, regardless...Moral or Immoral.

 

You do have a point Racoon,and have thought about opening a thread to discuss this very subject(not here,don't want to hi-jack sebbysteiny's thread),but like threads on abortion or homosexual marriage,it can turn nasty fast.What thinks you racoon?

[sebbysteiny]

I think terrorism and what makes a terrorist is important in this thread since it appears to come up alot.

 

However, I am trying to avoid specific allegations against one country or another, and instead focussing on the act. Specific examples for illustration are good though.

 

The reason for this is because I believe many people have double standards when it comes to some countries. The moral rightness of tactics and decisions seem often to be judged not by the act but by the actors.

 

For example, I refuse to believe that a tactic praised by the Pakistanis is suddenly wrong if done by America for the same reasons.

 

I don't think that the definition of a terrorist is that difficult. It is the intentional killing of innocent civilians for the puposes of spreading fear of furthering a political agenda.

 

The only reason this definition is not accepted is because Arab countries, knowing full well that the Palestinians do this all the time against Israelis, and that Iraqi insurgents do this to Iraqis and Americans, fear that allowing terrorism to be defined will mean that their beloved causes will be delegitimised.

 

The Arab nations have instead insisted on a definition saying 'intentionally killing civilians to cause fear or further a political cause EXCEPT if it for "resisting occupation". Quite what 'occupation' means I've never been too sure. It seems to me to be a word branded about to demonise opponents of Arab nations. Nevertheless, this definition is an attempt by Arab nations to give legitimacy to Palestinian groups like Hamas and Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade, and Al Quaeda (at least in Iraq) for walking into cafes, night clubs and markets and turning as many innocent people as they can into butcher meat.

 

However, where is the line between terrorism? Can you have a terrorist attack against enemy armed forces? I suggest you can. If the militants attack armed forces disguised as civilians rather than wearing a uniform, then they are not engaged in gorilla warfare like the Viet cong were, but are engaged in terrorism.

 

The reason for this is that when terrorists disguise themselves as civilians, it is the innocent civilians who they disguise themselves as that will suffer.

 

So how would this distinction help answer the above questions?

[C1ay]

I completely agree C1ay,But is seems the label "terrorist" is very derogatory and hard to define.

I don't think so. A terrorist is one that utilizes terror to get their way. Not by using terror against the soldiers of the enemy but terror against innocent people that are not part of the conflict. It is the use of fear against the people to forward their political ideology. Sometimes soldiers kill civilians by accident, terrorists kill them on purpose.

[HydrogenBond]

If we look at the art of war, although the motivation changes, the result is usually the same, i.e., death and casualties. The most common victims of war are not the leaders and the those who instigate and benefit most by the war, but the young men in the trenches fighting the war. Being a blood letting exercise, that serves only a small immune group, everyone not in that inner group gets to share in the negative festivities. This is why war normally spills into the civilian arena, since it would not be fair if only young men do all the dieing. That would skew the population. It therefore comes down to ideals fighting against ideals. In that respect, even noncombatants who share an imposing ideal are subject to the blood letting of war. This keeps the population distribution more balanced. I don't believe in war or civilian casualties but are summarizing the results.

 

What we are currently trying to do is not address war, but changing the distribution of people killed by war so only young men die in war. It would make more sense if we limit casualties to only those who instigate war. If two cultures wish to war, we put all the instigators in a cage match with low tech weapons, like sticks. We can wosify it more by given the combatants body suits that prevent cuts but allow bruises. We let them beat on each other until one of the team leaders says, uncle, for the team. The rest of us can watch it on pay-per-view, with the winner taking the gate receipts.

[sebbysteiny]

We can wosify it more by given the combatants body suits that prevent cuts but allow bruises. We let them beat on each other until one of the team leaders says, uncle, for the team. The rest of us can watch it on pay-per-view, with the winner taking the gate receipts.

 

Hydrogen bond

 

I like what you say, except I differ on one important respect.

 

If wars were truely decided in the way you say, what happens when somebody in charge of a truely disgusting regime takes on the Western world.

 

If, say, Saddam and Bush Sr had a wussy boxing match to decide the future of the middle East (including the entire state of Kuwait), the consequences of Saddam winning would be horrific. People would get brutalised, nations assets stolen, and democratic nations would be replaced with horrible tyrany.

 

Since us, the West, have such a decisive military superiority to dictators like Saddam, I am happy such conflicts are solved by tanks and planes rather than a more even boxing match. Further, if we go back to the second world war, I would rather fight and die to keep western democratic freedom from being replaced by nazism, and so it seemed did our grandparents generation.

[C1ay]

The most common victims of war are not the leaders and the those who instigate and benefit most by the war, but the young men in the trenches fighting the war.

It is those very leaders though that are the targets of war, not the young men in the trenches or the civilians around them......

[HydrogenBond]

You makes some good points. But these work under the assumption that the instigators are given enough time to muddy the social waters allowing the madness of war to take hold. At that point the social damage is done and it is hard to put the worms back into the can. On the other hand, as soon as the leaders begin to stir up the sediment with their rhetoric, we book the cage match. Since war is often for the personal gain of the instigators, their reward is the reciepts. The rest of us watch the match like we are wathcing two football teams. We can get all pumped up with team pride, but when the game is over, we go back to our normal lives.

[Edella]

A terrorist is one that utilizes terror to get their way. Not by using terror against the soldiers of the enemy but terror against innocent people that are not part of the conflict. It is the use of fear against the people to forward their political ideology. Sometimes soldiers kill civilians by accident, terrorists kill them on purpose.

I disagree,At least I think it is an oversimplification.The fire bombing of Dresden during WW II comes to mind: The city had no military targets to speak of, and it was known that it was packed with civilian refugees from the east.Most estimates put the death toll at around 35,000, but some claim it was three or four times this figure.I of course don't know if you think this was an act of terrorism or not,but it does seems to me fit your definition of what a terrorist does.

But its not like America is completely innocent, whole-hearted benefactors either...

I do love my country,but America is not above reproach.

 

There is a fine line between patriotism and nationalism.