When Is It Right For the Enemy to Do to You What Your Side Did to Them?
If someone in your group does something morally wrong to the enemy, does that make it morally acceptable for the enemy to do the same thing back to you?
Let’s make the example concrete, if hypothetical. Not that anything like these examples would ever actually happen, but . . . just hypothetically speaking:
If someone from your country’s army tortured someone to death, does that make it morally right for someone from the victim’s group to torture you to death?
If someone from your party takes the other candidate’s comments unfairly out of context, does that make it morally right for the other party to take your candidate’s comments unfairly out of context?
If someone from your political party deliberately lied to federal authorities, would it make it right for members of the opposing party to deliberately lie to federal authorities?
You should know: many people on the other side think that your side’s bad actions entitle them to throw the rule book out the window.
Are they right?
Perhaps some people are confused by that old saying, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” (Exodus 21) Lots of people quote that inappropriately. In it’s context it is about limiting punishment to fit the crime, so that justice does not become revenge. It is about doing the *right* thing in response to the wrong thing.
But in the concrete examples you give the respondent is only doing another wrong thing and compounding the problem.
Rather than taking an opponent’s comments out of context (and therefore knowingly distorting what he’s saying) it is more appropriate to put your opponent’s words *into* context, showing his inconsistencies and lies. Of course, many gullible people could be persuaded by a campaign of lies and distortions. Look who recently got elected. But if you win by lying, can you govern with the truth?
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 10/20/2009 @ 7:40 amOf course not.
Denounce and punish the offenders, and set an example for the other side to follow.
Unless, of course, they are a bunch of amoral thugs.
Dr. K (eca563) — 10/20/2009 @ 7:40 amWhen Is It Right For the Enemy to Do to You What Your Side Did to Them?
I think this question would be even more interesting posed to us (when is it right for us) since “sides” is just an expansion of the question in the last post, which hypo implied individuals.
My answer: when it’s done for justice’s sake, or to make a point, not for revenge’s sake, and doesn’t damage anyone (this includes reputations) or kill them.
Oversimplified example 1(a): A very young child keeps pinching his brother. You try to reason but it doesn’t seem to be getting through. Finally, you calmly explain you’re going to show him what it feels like. You pinch him and now he gets it. You explain again why you did it and that he shouldn’t do it because it hurts. This is OK.
Oversimplified example 1(b): Same as (a) except in a fit of frustration at hearing Child B cry you pinch Child A hard and yell, “SEE?! NOW you know how it feels!” This is not OK.
O.E. 2(a): Someone’s starting a blog war on you, saying you’re dishonest about something. You post a clearly satirical post saying your opponent’s into goat raping. You explain why you’re doing it. This is OK.
O.E. 2 (b): same as A except now you post detailed “evidence” (actually circumstantial or flimsy) that your opponent is cheating on his wife, so how dare he, hypocritical, etc. This isn’t.
You should know: many people on the other side think that your side’s bad actions entitle them to throw the rule book out the window.
Are they right?
You’re kidding, right?
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/20/2009 @ 7:45 amOh, it also helps if you don’t allow the other side to continually rewrite the rules so you don’t even know that you have stepped over them.
See (Geneva Conventions – POW versus Enemy Combatants).
That tyoe of ex-post facto crap just makes people who follow the rules say “Why bother if they are gonna change the rules anyway?”
Dr. K (eca563) — 10/20/2009 @ 7:47 amActually, to be concrete, why should anyone obey the law when Democrats don’t and aren’t punished for breaking the law or held to the standard of upholding the law?
Do you have to pay taxes since Geitner, Rangel, Daschele, and … haven’t? Equal justice under the law? Especially when Geitner is the head politico over the IRS? How can he prosecute anyone for what he didn’t do, and he hasn’t prosecuted Rangel and other Democrat tax dodgers?
Oh, don’t forget drunken Teddy and clan. How many times have they wriggled out of felonies while drunk?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/20/2009 @ 7:59 amFor your three totally hypothetical examples, No, no and no.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 10/20/2009 @ 7:59 amI take the “rabid dog” route. If a rabid dog is attacking your family, you kill the dog, with sadness perhaps, but you kill the dog nonetheless.
You maintain your morality as much as possible. Try and convict those who violate our laws and remove those who would harm you and yours even if in retaliation.
BeachBumBill (6eefb0) — 10/20/2009 @ 8:00 am1. Defending your self is ok as long as the self defense is in proportion to the attack and there is not a better way to defend your self at hand.
2. Deliberating targeting innocents or non-combatants is never morally acceptable, because it is an affront to the human dignity of both parties.
3. Torture is never morally acceptable. For the same reason as in 2.
4. Comments out of context are, to a certain degree, in the eye of the beholder and therefore a tougher call. Do it too much and you may beclown yourself.
5. Lying to someone who has a right to hear the truth is never morally acceptable because truth is too precious a commodity to spit on.
quasimodo (4af144) — 10/20/2009 @ 8:07 am1) No – This one goes without saying.
2) No
3) No
On the 2nd and 3rd ones are annoying, since the actual words of Barcky and his lying dirty little socialisms are much easier than making up a position he did not hold. But, I can see why they wanted to do this, given the abject dishonesty the way they attacked McCain over this “fundamentals are strong”.
JD (a2ecee) — 10/20/2009 @ 8:23 am‘Eye for an eye’ can’t justify any immoral behavior including these examples, but one could find examples that justify the above.
1) The torture is justified in the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario (but not “to death”).
2) Smearing your political opponents is justified if they are literal Nazis (but not “Godwin’s Law” Nazis).
3) Lying to Federal authorities is justified if they have decided to seize all US citizens’ guns.
etc.
oneisnotprime (e25cc0) — 10/20/2009 @ 8:34 amAlways stay on the moral high ground. The view is better and the position is more easily defended. The truth is the worst enemy of the morally corrupt and/or deficient.
We can discuss the working definition of “defended” during the so-called END GAME if the situation requires. So far, the major wounds of our enemies are self-inflicted as they slowly bleed out.
vet66 (9d1bb3) — 10/20/2009 @ 8:42 amNo.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 10/20/2009 @ 8:45 amIndeed.
Al Qaeda terrorist nithings have no entitlement to POW rights.
It would be just as wrong for the other side to torture Americans to death, as it would be wrong for Albanians to rape and murder an American girl .
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 10/20/2009 @ 8:51 amno. no. no.
I would be very interested in seeing this exact post on a left-of-center site; and the responses following.
Corwin (ea9428) — 10/20/2009 @ 8:57 amWhat is worse is that some people think that their IMAGINED or exaggerated view of the opponent’s actions justify bad actions of their own.
Example of the form: “Bush tapped everyone’s phones and internet to fight non-existent terrorists, so how could they complain if Obama did it to find actual tax cheats?”
Each side has its partisan fever-dreams of what the other side “did”, and there is some danger that they use fantasy to justify their own reality.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 10/20/2009 @ 9:00 amI’d say that the objectionable actions are justified ONLY to highlight and prevent future trangressions by the original defending party. The Union decided to try as traitors several Confederate prisoners, and upon finding them guilty, hung them. The South protested and, after getting no response, hung an equal number of Union prisoners. The resulting publicity forced the Union to suspend the practice.
As dead and unfortunate as the chosen-by-lottery hung Union soldiers were, their deaths saved the lives of likely many times that of captured Confederate soldiers. Justified? Tough call, but there is an argument for it.
Chris B (d098d0) — 10/20/2009 @ 9:13 amOops, should have read “original OFFENDING party.”
Chris B (d098d0) — 10/20/2009 @ 9:15 amPunish the guilty and defend the innocent. Bad behavior on the part of others does not justify such action on my part. It can be very tempting in real life, though.
Bar Sinister (d2caac) — 10/20/2009 @ 9:24 amwell, and specifically it begs the question, who counts as being on each side for the purposes of this question. war is one thing. what liberals don’t get is that it has a certain inherent arbitrariness in the choice of targets that is justified. But if you are talking about punishing bad speech with counter speech, and you are talking about using underhanded tactics to get revenge on what the other side did, well, who exactly is responsible for all of that.
For instance, take the forged racist limbaugh quotes. who is responsible for that? obviously the creator. but what about the news reporters who didn’t research it very well? what about the politician who hears these quotes in articles from what they consider respectable sources? or do we just impugn it to an amorpheous “left?”
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/20/2009 @ 9:38 amNo.
The Viet Cong, Japanese, Germans and North Koreans mistreated our POWs, often with torture. We did not torture theirs.
Maybe both sides – liberal and conservative – should be looking in a mirror rather than accusing the other.
JEA (9f9fc9) — 10/20/2009 @ 9:43 amHmm.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
carlitos (831ee5) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:11 amChris
In the case of hanging confederates that was fully legal. The constitution specifically allows for capital punishment for treason.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:12 amWhen was the last time one of our geo-political opponents admitted to prosecuting one of theirs for violations of the Rules of War?
AD - RtR/OS! (3b92f0) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:14 amEnd of discussion.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:17 amComment by A.W. — 10/20/2009 @ 10:12 am
And, if memory serves me, the first instance in history of a “War Crimes” trial was the trial and execution of the Camp Commandant of Andersonville, after the end of the Civil War.
AD - RtR/OS! (3b92f0) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:19 amThough the POW camps in the North were no Sunday picnics but not anywhere near as horrific, the victor does have the privilege of writing the history books.
“When Is It Right For the Enemy to Do to You What Your Side Did to Them?”
Never… easy 🙂
Lord Nazh (899dce) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:21 amAgain, the question without context.
First, it is apples and oranges to use the word ‘enemy’ to describe political opponents and terrorists… and, no, they’re not the same.
Reserving ‘enemy’ for those we’re at war with (and real war), it is NEVER okay for them to do to us what we do to them… but not for the reasons given, but rather because I don’t want my enemies doing anything to hurt us, I want the hurt going one way. Put another way, it is not okay for our enemies to shoot American troops who are shooting at them… period. They don’t get a pass because we’re shooting at them, they should get killed for doing so. A terrorist who tortures and kills an American should be killed for harming an American… the way in which they did so is irrelevant.
As for tactics used by and against opponents who don’t rise to the level of ‘enemy’, such as political opponents, it must first be determined whether the actions in your scenarios #2 and #3 represent a deviation from agreed upon rules of contest and, if so, whether the offending side takes appropriate action to discipline the offender (by, for example, firing them from the campaign). If so, then it isn’t okay for the other side to retaliate by using the same tactic. If however, your side excuses or otherwise doesn’t punish the offender, then you have in effect lowered the standards of conduct and the other side is thus free to decide for themselves whether they want to compete using those lower standards or whether they wish to refrain for whatever reason.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:27 amAD i gotta object to one phrase in your post:
> the victor does have the privilege of writing the history books
That is true in dictatorships only, or at least in countries that don’t practice freedom of speech. but nothing in american law or tradition prevented the south from getting its views out.
Indeed, the southern view of certain events prevailed for decades. If there wasn’t freedom on this point, the views of claude bowers wouldn’t have prevailed for decades and the movie birth of a nation would never have been made. indeed, no one would pretend not to know what the civil war was about, like as if anyone fights without knowing precisely what they were fighting for.
Sorry to go off on you, but this is a serious pet peeve. anyone who romantically pretends the southern point of view has been suppressed is kidding themselves.
And as a point of fact, the civil war was about three things. slavery, slavery and slavery. anyone who thinks it was about states’ rights or the closely related concept of small government is blissfully unaware of how thoroughly the confederacy violated both principles.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:31 amWhen challenged by insurgents as is the Phillipines, we chose tough tactics, like the ‘water cure’ not actual torture. The story of Capt. John Ryan WP. ’88,is instructive, who was acquitted by a court martial, just in case the historical record seems unclear. And Gen Franklin Bell, WP. ’78, who authorized such tactics eventually became Army Chief of Staff
bishop (4e0dda) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:33 amSo bishop, if the ‘water cure’ was used on one of our captured soldiers, it would be fine w/you???
JEA (9f9fc9) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:42 amIf someone from your political party deliberately lied to federal authorities, would it make it right for members of the opposing party to deliberately lie to federal authorities? Why stop with ‘Scooter’ Libby – why not add the convicted Republicans from the unethical spawning grounds of Watergate as well. Seems the only lesson learned was, ‘don’t get caught.’
You should know: many people on the other side think that your side’s bad actions entitle them to throw the rule book out the window.
And what book might that be– perhaps Allen Drury’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel, ‘Advise and Consent.’
Gravely Ill, Atwater Offers Apology
The apology by Mr. Atwater, who is now in his last month as chairman of the Republican National Committee, is included in an article in the February [1991] issue of Life magazine, where he also starkly describes his often-desperate attempts to deal with his illness and his fear on some nights that if he falls asleep, “I will never wake up again.”
As manager of [G.H.W.] Bush’s campaign, Mr. Atwater succeeded in making the case of Willie Horton, a convicted murderer, an issue against Mr. Dukakis.
Mr. Horton, who is black, raped a white woman and stabbed her husband while on a weekend furlough from a Massachusetts prison. The Bush campaign used the case to portray Mr. Dukakis, then Governor of Massachusetts, as a liberal who was soft on crime.
“In 1988,” Mr. Atwater said, “fighting Dukakis, I said that I ‘would strip the bark off the little bastard’ and ‘make Willie Horton his running mate.’ I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not.”
Reputation as ‘Ugly Campaigner’
Since being stricken last year, the 39-year-old Mr. Atwater has apologized on several occasions for many of the campaign tactics he once employed and for which he was criticized. But rarely has he spoken in such detail or with such candor as in the interview for the first-person Life article.
“In part because of our successful manipulation of his campaign themes, George Bush won handily,” Mr. Atwater said. He conceded that throughout his political career “a reputation as a fierce and ugly campaigner has dogged me.”
“While I didn’t invent negative politics,” he said, “I am one of its most ardent practitioners.” – source, AP, 1/13/91
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:52 am#21, fully legal to hang them.
My pet peeve is the use of – well, that’s the law or rule so it is lawful and ok. No tolerance. Hence – an Eagle Scout has a 2-in. blade locked in the trunk of his car in the school parking lot, he deserves the stated punishment – suspension (or expulsion).
Traitors or not, the punishment (hanging) would be deemed by most as too harsh given all the subtleties of the civil war. Could not the Confederacy have a law that called for two hangings for each hanging the Union committed?
It is this mindset that perpetuates man’s longest feuds.
Corwin (ea9428) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:54 amIn the context of the practices of war, the concept of rules of war has broken down to the point of meaninglessness for several reasons. The most obvious is that we’ve seen the rise of state-less movements that can’t be deterred from committing atrocities – its part of their ideology. The second is that with the abandonment of reciprocity the entire foundation of the “laws” of war is destroyed. If we decide to be so “civilized” as to not use reprisal to enforce the laws of war, then the other side has no incentive to conform.
This is the weakness of the approach of the US and the West to war crime.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:54 amWe’re talking of people who hacked off the heads of Pearl, Berg, Quattrochi, Johnson (in Suweidi),
bishop (4e0dda) — 10/20/2009 @ 10:58 amcivilians all. They want to establish an Emirate,
as Rohde has reluctantly realized, part of the global caliphate,
A lot of this depends on how it’ll play in the media. Republican people have to be lots lots more ethical and calibrated. For example, dirty socialist Democrats can shove little Honduras off a dirty socialist cliff just for giggles. Republicans would be held accountable.
So there’s really two discussions to be having here I think.
happyfeet (f62c43) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:02 amThat’s the infuriating thing, hf, we tell the truth, and they regard it as a lie, they lie
bishop (4e0dda) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:11 amand treat it as the truth.
Dogcrap, Willie Horton was first identified and used by a Democrat opponent of Dukakis’ in the primary. Your real problem is that Horton was the truth that Dukakis couldn’t recover from.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:22 amCorwin
I will happily agree that some people just don’t use enough discretion. The stupidity of zero tolerance is a perfect example. Of course a lot of that is driven by fear of lawsuit, but fair enough.
But in the case of the confederacy. Well, look the problem we have looking back in 2009 is that the civil war history market is dominated by southerners and they don’t generally want to hear that their ancestors were bad people. but yes, they were. They took up arms against this country because 1) they lost an election and 2) were afraid that this loss of an election would result in the end of one of the great crimes in history: slavery. Really, if you see slavery for what it was it was a crime in the same ballpark as the holocaust. I call it “holocaust-level evil” and no, I don’t accept any excuse for those who engaged in it.
To fight a rebellion to invalidate a basically democratic election and perpetuate slavery is sick in the extreme. To the credit of the average modern southerner, they won’t support what their ancestors actually believed in. With very rare exceptions, they get that slavery was a bad thing. But in their normal human desire to think the best of their ancestors, they are willing to accept a fairy tale about their ancestors to make them think they were not such bad people. So you hear the average modern southerner claiming this was about “states rights,” or “defending their homes.” Its crap, but they believe it because they want to believe it. But sorry, every person who fought and or died for slavery endangered their mortal soul. Slavery was that evil. And fighting to undo an election isn’t a good cause either.
Mind you, of course if Lincoln planned to be a dictator or something like that, elected or not a rebellion would have been justified. But we all know that was not the case.
So they all deserved death. Now the north didn’t seem terribly interested in wholesale slaughter of the confederates if only because the concept seemed counter productive. But I would have had no problem seeing every confederate general hung. And it might encourage a certain lack of upward mobility in the south.
Its also worth noting that the South later would kill every single black soldier they got their hands on, even if they surrendered. They did so claiming it was fomenting slave rebellion. “How dare you encourage the people who are really tyrannized to rebel!” you could cut the hypocrisy with a knife.
Happy
> So there’s really two discussions to be having here I think.
Exactly. War is one thing, but politics is another. And I am with mark steyn in saying that we should not be using the language of war when talking about politics. Democrats are, as a rule not the enemy. Look, I am not thrilled with how Obama is doing things but I think at the end of the day he thinks he is helping the country. He is wrong on that point, but he isn’t intentionally f—ing things up.
Indeed, I generally apply the adage that one should never assign evil motives when simple incompetence will suffice.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:24 amIt was Al Gore who first raised willie horton, fyi.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:25 amAre they right?
No. But they are moral relativists and hypocrites. Since Pat linked to the Libby case, I’ll note that the folks who were most keen on jailing him for lying to the Feds applied a different standard to Bill Clinton. Which is why this question is of great interest to me academically, but little interest practically. The Left will adopt and discard whatever standard advances their statist agenda at the moment. I can do my best to avoid falling into that trap, but I harbor no illusions that there will be any reciprocity.
Karl (f07e38) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:31 amIf I did some ‘bad’ thing to someone, I have no moral authority to complain if he does it back to me. = One of the reasons it’s not smart to do bad things to folks.
The context that leaps to mind is the current conservative/liberal debate. The question is the survival of the US as we understand it. Duane over at Hughniverse compared the situation to the US military having to invent a new kind of warfare to address an enemy that obeyed none of the conventional rules. He wondered if the conservatives were up to fighting a principled ‘war’ with unprincipled opponents.
The libs are banking on conservatives not having an adequate response. Conservatives are confounded by the tactics, by appreciating the risks in throwing out ethical standards, and possibly by a certain lack of creativity inherent in the conservative nature, call it habits of thought.
The ethics are an important part of what we want to save; if we throw them overboard to fight, will we lose by the fact of doing so, or are we like the soldiers that do violent things so the population won’t have to? I think the risk is too high that we would lose, in essence becoming the enemy ourselves.
Barring the development of better techniques to deal with an unscrupulous opponent, we are left to put more effort into the ethical techniques we now have. Will they work? Do we have faith in them? Right now we are still defensive, responding to their sorties, and in some dissaray. We seem to have accepted their ‘rules of engagement’.
I’m probably not the only one to have my faith in the intelligence of the American people very much shaken by the ’08 election. Things are looking a bit better now, but if the economy bumps up some, and time passes, will the public forget and choose utopian promises again? Will lib $ and lies be more effective than our old methods?
Many of us are committed to the ethical position because of a faith in a higher power. In God We Trust. Every Christian knows many examples of this scenario, the Old Testament Israelites were in a similar position often enough. The consequences of their choices were pretty drastic sometimes.
I’d suggest we look more closely at the military anti-insurgency strategies, to see if we can adapt anything. We need to polish our creativity, and use our brains. I vote for trusting God, but He did give us brains to use.
jodetoad (059c35) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:40 amCanceling oil leases on the first day of your presidency while jobs are vanishing and people are hurting is intentionally f—ing things up.
He’s malevolent and incompetent in equal measures I think.
happyfeet (f62c43) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:40 amKarl
The bigger hypocrisy is how the liberals howled over val plame being “outed” (question: was she really in in the first place), but no one minds all the serial violation of national security done against Bush.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:41 amThe Viet Cong, Japanese, Germans and North Koreans mistreated our POWs, often with torture. We did not torture theirs.
Actually, the Germans treated POWs pretty well although there were atrocities before they got to the camps. I knew some guys who had been German POWs and there is quite a bit of research on such topics as the treatment of femur fractures in POWs held by the Germans. A lot of this didn’t come out until after the war but the medical care was often better than they got from our own army.
One good way to measure this is mortality of those reported alive after capture. In German hands it was less than 5%, in Japanese hands it was over 25%.
The German Army was contemptuous of the Nazis, for the most part. I don’t know how the Russians were treated, though.
You should also be aware that there were many POWs shot by our guys who did not want to bother with taking them to POW cages and so forth. With Japanese, it was very common because of Japanese behavior after capture. Once again, the Japanese POWs were well treated once they were in camps.
My father-in-law commanded a camp with Japanese POWs in the Philippines in 1945. He also commanded the mortuary detail that identified the remains of the Bataan Death March victims and the dead in the Owen Stanley Mountain Range in New Guinea. He came back an alcoholic and it took a year to get over it. He was a lifetime AA member after that.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:45 amHeh. Remember that little montage that Rush used to play from the transcript of Hillary Clinton’s testimony?
“I don’t remember. I’m sorry, I can’t recall. I don’t seem to remember that…”
Guess it only works for some. Scooter Libby should never have even tried to remember. Like Clinton he could have used the Alzheimer’s defense.
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:46 amMike K. – That jibes with my impression. Most of the stories I’ve heard about hardship in German POW camps are about lack of food. And of course that was an issue throughout Germany while they were at war, just as food was rationed here.
Families in my former congregation had been in charge of German prisoners here in the US, using them for farm labor. They were well fed in our little farm community where the local folks mostly spoke German at home. But then, the war wasn’t happening on our own soil.
So we didn’t seem to respond to German treatment of prisoners. We did what seemed best at the time, and it worked out OK. I suspect that the problems of extreme behavior were more likely to be individual incidents and decisions on both sides – again driven by exigencies or emotions.
Now, the commies on the other hand had more of a rep for very ill treatment of captured Germans.
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 10/20/2009 @ 11:56 amIn the case of these examples, doing the same just because the other side did it is self defeating. Just because the other side got away with it, does not mean that you will.
On the other hand, misbehavior by the other side OUGHT to affect your future behavior. In a war, bombing ambulances and hospitals is a war crime UNLESS the other side is committing the war crime of using those entities for strategic military purposes.
It is wrong for the White House to use the National Endowment for the Arts to promote and fund policy propaganda. But the answer is not for the new administration to do the same. The answer is for the new administration to argue that the NEA should be disbanded because it self-evidently leads to political corruption.
James GW (42f3e1) — 10/20/2009 @ 12:28 pmGerman treatment of Soviet POW’s was abysmal. Likewise, the Soviet’s kept German POW’s for many years after the war with untold tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, never returning from the Gulag.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/20/2009 @ 12:30 pmGesundheit,
There is a movie coming out about the German WW2 prisoners held in Algona, IA. I think it has to do with Christmas. There is a museum of sorts made out of the camp, etc.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/20/2009 @ 12:34 pmWe seem to all be in agreement, for the most part, about these types of actions as it relates to war. It gets stickier when you are limiting it to politics.
JD (a2ecee) — 10/20/2009 @ 12:41 pmMike K
Just a nitpick, but that Japanese number seems skewed. You have to wonder how many were killed without being reported as captured at all. From what I hear the Japanese didn’t respect the concept of surrender very much.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/20/2009 @ 12:42 pmAnd yeah, I know, it should be a consistent standard, across the board. If it is wrong, it is wrong. But, in an environment where the Admin runs roughshod over opposition, attempts to silence critics, and has the MSM at their beck and call, it would behoove people to start thinking about ways to effectively get their message out in said environment.
JD (a2ecee) — 10/20/2009 @ 12:43 pmA.W….My reference to “victors writing the history books” was in reference to the reporting of POW treatment by the two sides in the Civil War.
AD - RtR/OS! (3b92f0) — 10/20/2009 @ 12:56 pmGrowing up in Post-WW2 SoCal, we all knew of the horrendous conditions experienced by Union soldiers at Andersonville, but to find contemporary accounts of Union POW camps, and how Confederates were treated in them, was virtually impossible.
The North won, so the treatment of Southern POW’s is something that sort of fell between the cracks, and was left to the academics of a following Century.
And, I am thoroughly familiar of personal histories generated by the War of Northern Aggression.
“Barring the development of better techniques to deal with an unscrupulous opponent, we are left to put more effort into the ethical techniques we now have.”
It’s a difficult question on both sides, jodetoad. But I doubt you, me or anyone else would want our soldiers to behave in any way which we consider immoral. It’s just not the way our military has ever worked. And I hope it never will. Which is why the question of torture bothers people – including me – so much.
JEA (1eb0e1) — 10/20/2009 @ 12:59 pmMe? No, of course not.
There has to be a price to pay for bad behavior. Hopefully, there are avenues, such as the media, to set the story straight and to attempt to expose the disreputable behavior of one’s opponent. However, if that kind of environment doesn’t exist, other tactics become justifiable.
Normally, I would say no. But, if a situation exists where the authorities tacitly allow such abuses by one side, then the other side may very well be justified in adopting their tactics.
Anon Y. Mous (0d3db4) — 10/20/2009 @ 12:59 pmSome systems of rules require reprisal or its threat to work.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/20/2009 @ 1:01 pmSadly, when the rule book has already been tossed out the window, I believe it imperative to play to win by any means necessary.
With that said, tit-for-tat is mathematically proven to be the most sound strategy when combating an enemy in an infinite game which my hypothesis above does not accept as a base premise.
HeavenSent (01a566) — 10/20/2009 @ 1:22 pmTo answer these questions requires first answering other questions.
How and when do you determine when an action is an isolated incident, or when that action in concert with other actions indicates that the rulebook has been thrown out?
What are your other options for punishing the evildoer that do not cross moral strictures?
If you are placed in the position where you have to realize that the rules have been thrown out AND you have no appropriate recourse but to break the same rule, you break the same rule or die.
luagha (5cbe06) — 10/20/2009 @ 1:46 pmIn that infuriating movie with Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington as submarine officers ordered to fire a nuclear missile at hostiles, the big line was “War is the enemy!”
This is my threshold: do what you can to avoid war, but if one is brought upon you, there is no “rulebook.” The only imperative is to make your enemies submit. That’s it.
Would I conduct a war as a completely heartless tyrant literally taking no prisoners and simply killing anything in my path? No. But, I would be within my rights to do so. Remember – war was brought to me. Others decided it was ok to kill me. If that is their best “thinking,” they forfeit their rights to everything, their life included.
Ed from SFV (4b493e) — 10/20/2009 @ 1:58 pmwelcome to the age of neo-reconstruction not post racial politics
rawdawgbuffalo (2dfdbc) — 10/20/2009 @ 2:12 pm1. No. But on a personal level I’d be a bit more resigned to my fate at the hands of offended captors
2. No. It’d be OK though to illustrate how statements are taken out of context using the offending politicians most embarrassing snippets and then placing them in full context.
3. No. I would do everything in my power to encourage my opponents to continue to lie to Federal authorities though.
4. Yeah, I know. I know how that slippery slope goes and how it ends.
Drumming up false affront as justification for evil acts is grounds for removal from the gene pool
And yeah, I’m guessing that none of this answers your questions, I just don’t know why.
SteveG (97b6b9) — 10/20/2009 @ 3:05 pmBoth sides do that. Both sides have been doing that for decades. What makes anybody think it’s going to change? I wish it would, but wishing don’t make it so…
JEA (ec2163) — 10/20/2009 @ 3:19 pmAhhhhh, there’s the JEA that dexries the hyper-partisanship of modern discourse.
JD (037e6f) — 10/20/2009 @ 3:35 pmBut, I would be within my rights to do so. Remember – war was brought to me. Others decided it was ok to kill me. If that is their best “thinking,” they forfeit their rights to everything, their life included.
Right, but not everyone in your path is one of the people who decided it was ok to kill you. So you kill them, and their loved ones decide that because you brought the war to them, they are within their rights to kill everyone in their path as they try to get to your loved ones, etc.
Down that road lies a peculiar sense of madness where everyone is pissed off at the injury done to them, convinced in their righteousness that they are morally justified in doing anything they want to anyone remotely affiliated with those who are remotely affiliated with those who hurt them, and blind to the fact that the guys on the other side feel just the same way.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/20/2009 @ 3:48 pmaphrael, and so describes all of human history.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/20/2009 @ 4:09 pmSPQR, I’d grant most of human history, certainly.
But, that said … it seems to me that this is a case where rising above our demons is a goal worth striving for.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/20/2009 @ 4:16 pmWe’re talking about war, not your neighbor dumping the leaves from your tree back on your yard that he just raked up from his yard.
AD - RtR/OS! (3b92f0) — 10/20/2009 @ 4:26 pmaphrael, which part of human history would you think escapes your definition? It is pretty clear from the anthropological record that the concept of the noble hunter/gatherer savage living in peace is a myth.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/20/2009 @ 4:36 pmLike it or not, ruining the morale of the folks on the home front is a crucial piece of ending a war sooner, rather than later. Every “innocent” aircraft builder, or bullet maker, or energy engineer who is available, contributes to our side getting killed. Every mother who sends a boy to the military instead of refusing and fighting her own, presumably evil, government, is no innocent.
A very great irony is that by inflicting horrible pain on the “innocent” home folks can lead to many more being saved. The remaining citizens will demand an end and a change to their bad leadership. If these folks do not, then they are still against me.
Look, evil is visited upon every individual and society. Either we decide to take it on, even at the cost of our own lives, or we make pacts that lead to disaster. The good people of Iran have the misfortune of having been born there. It’s a tough break, but there it is. They have an absolute obligation to bring down their evil leadership.
The U.S. citizenry has been unbelievably blessed to not have an internal evil as powerful as, say, the Mullahs. Yet that doesn’t therefore mean we can’t fight it elsewhere. If that evil entrenches itself among “innocents,” so be it. It must be eradicated nonetheless.
Ed from SFV (4b493e) — 10/20/2009 @ 5:36 pmThe Art Of War…
I……
The Art Of War (f67a5b) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:09 am