Help Beny with his homework

[Beny]

Ok guys... I want some oppinions here, I was given a really bad English class this year (we had to explain why it's considered bad to shoot prisoners of war), so I though you guys might be able to scratch your brains... Here is the question.

Q: To what extent does obeying orders excuse war crimes? Discuss.

To give you some background, we are talking about the film 'BREAKER MORANT'.

[Paoli]

Beny, I too am doing Breaker Morant, albeit at Year 10. The Year 12's are doing it as well.

I've got a dotpoint summary that I can post here, and as my exams are next week I've been writing several text responses.

"Breaker Morant" shows that men can't be judged by their actions in war? Do you agree?

[Beny]

"Breaker Morant" shows that men can't be judged by their actions in war? Do you agree?

Ohhh... like that one.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Beny

Q: To what extent does obeying orders excuse war crimes? Discuss.

To give you some background, we are talking about the film 'BREAKER MORANT'.

Have not seen the movie Beny, but in general, that is a most pathetic excuse. Each and every human is born with a conscience, with a desire and awareness to do "good" at some extent; sure, many people ignore and subjugate their consciences, but still, I believe even in the worst of humans there remains something which encourages kindness, which cajoles them not to be oppresive or demented. Hence we see even some tyrants and murderers being kind or considerate in other spheres of their lives, since I believe it is alien to human nature to be evil to our fellow beings all the time. Of course, there are some people who are exactly that, "evil all the time", but these are few and far between and one cannot develop a moral or societal code applicable to the vast majority which is derived from the behaviour of these evil exceptions, this minority!

To return to your question, as we all have individual consciences, it is all our individual responsibility to ensure we do not create murder and mayhem. War crimes of all kinds, whether its interning and torturing prisoners in far-off islands, or dropping bombs and missiles on innocent civilians from a height of 35,000 feet, are in the end carried out by individual men and women, just like me and you. The army does not create "Borg drones" (sorry, Star Trek-Voyager terminology), and does not have a collective consciousness; each of its individuals is morally, as well as legally, responsible in her or her own individual capacity for his or her own actions. This is why when in the very rare occasion, to placate a public outcry, the army has to account for the evil and mayhem it routinely spreads, it puts up one or two poor souls and charges and punishes them individually; the whole army does not pay, even in its own demented legal system.

So if the actions by an army and its members are evil, the individual cannot hide behind the excuse of obeying orders. These people would not harm themselves or their own loved ones, and they would not torture and bomb their own children just because they were ordered to; so why do they do it with punity to others, and to others' children? Just because they have "been told to"? That is the excuse of a coward, not the attitude of anyone having any honour or decency.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

That is the excuse of a coward, not the attitude of anyone having any honour or decency.

I do think this needs to be handled with care: the US military is known for operating with frontline kids.. many of whom are pretty much fresh out of school. Other countries may actually have what we might term "minors" bearing arms. At the other end of the scale you have seasoned senior officers in the field who've been all over the world in god knows how many conflict zones and who really should be able to demonstrate a pretty nuanced grasp of subleties.

If every 18 year old in every unit questioned every time they were told to pul the trigger the military might well cease to actually function in any way shape or form whatsoever!

[Occasional Fan]

I don't disagree with anything you say, Maranello, but I do have some sympathy for the poor squaddie who is ordered by his less poor, generally better educated and certainly, within the military chain of command, more responsible officer to commit an illegal act (I say illegal because that is something which can be definiteively determined: there are undoubtedly loads of immoral acts which can take place in time of war, arguably starting with the act of declaration of war, but no two people on Earth will agree on all of those points).

The drill which the squaddie has learnt as second nature, both for his own good and the good of his comrades in arms, is that orders are not to be questioned but are to be executed. The trouble is that the drill assumes that the order itself is legal. It seems to me to be unfair to place upon the squaddie the obligation to check the legality of his officer's order. OK, some things, as you say, might be reasonably obvious corollaries of basic human nature - for example, not shooting your prisoner once he ceases to be a threat to you. But the lines beyond which one must not go in law are quite blurred in other cases: for example, I, a non-warrior, have always believed until quite recently that it was illegal for a capturing power to ask a captured prisoner for anything other than name, rank, religion and service number. In fact, the Geneva Conventions don't say that: they say the prisoner does not have to provide any more than that information. Thus, the Convention provides a right of (virtual) silence to the PoW but does not prevent the capturing power from seeking more information than that. So, if the officer orders his squaddie to "soften up" a prisoner for interrogation, how does the squaddie know whether to stop at a raised voice? Or a raised fist? A punch? A working over with a rifle butt?

We have had a lot of coverage recently of alleged and proven abuses in PoW camps in Iraq. Dreadful stories all, without a doubt. I remain disappointed with the number of "Other Ranks" who have been brought before military courts, tribunals and inquiries and with the number of officers who have not. Accountability for the actions of one's subordinates is one of the tenets of officership, or so I had always thought.

Slightly off the subject, and far away from cricket, but I've said it now.

[Paoli]

Look...Breaker Morant brought up all sorts of issues in our class...For example, whether the Nazi Prison Guards weren't criminals or not.

But you have to say, Breaker Morant is extremely Anti-British. Note the timing of the movie as well Beny, post Vietnam War...Mai lay Massacres.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Rachael

If every 18 year old in every unit questioned every time they were told to pul the trigger the military might well cease to actually function in any way shape or form whatsoever!

I could not agree more to that. Morality is subjective. I mean what is good, what is evil? What is right, what is wrong. It all boils down to circumstances leading to the act and the individuals involved.
To the original thread question, if a soldier shoots a prisoner because he is ordered to, any subsequent war crime should be placed on the superior who gave the original order. To disobey a direct order is insubordination and subject to court martial and this is the first and most important duty a soldier has instilled in him. BUT IF this order contravenes the given country's military laws, ie the Geneva convention, it is the soldier's duty to not only disobey the order but to arrest the officer who gives the order. Unlike Morrant, all soldiers in modern western armies are versed in the fundementals of the Geneva Convention and are bound to obey them above all else.
For example, if a British soldier captured a Argentinian soldier during the Falklands war and that soldier surrendered his arms, it would be illegal and wrong to shoot him. If an American soldier captured a militant in Iraq and he surrendered his arms, it too would be illegal to shoot him despite the fact he is not a recognised combatant and is technically outside the Geneva convention. But if that militant was suspected of carrying explosives and was regarded as a threat, they would be well within thier rights to shoot. You could shoot him anyway and get away with it because you would only have to say you thought he was posing a threat (even if he was,nt) and no-one within the military would do anything about it. Unless there was media present and had it on camera.
A case that comes to mind is the Malmedy massacre in Belgium in 1944 during WWII. The German SS captured 100 American prisinors and herded them into a field and machine gunned them. When the case was heard after WWII, the commader, Colonel Pieper, was found guilty but those who pulled the trigger were not.
During the Normandy invation earlier in the year, both Allied and German troops routinely shot prisoners and those attempting to surrender and none were convicted as they were in a battle zone and could still be considered a threat even though they were unarmed.
To sum up. To kill unarmed prisoners when they pose no potential threat is illegal. To kill unarmed prisoners when there is a chance they could potentially pose a threat is legal. To define "potentially" in this case is a grey area but most military bodies ussually rule in favour of those who did the killing in this case.

[Lemming]

In my opinion whoever is a member of the armed forces is there to obey orders, it is their job regardless of whether the orders are correct, incorrect, insane etc., their job is to follow orders to the letter to the best of their ability. If this is done by everybody in the armed forces, i.e. they follow orders from superiors, whatever those orders, then they have not committed a war-crime in a war situation. The war-criminal is the person who initially gave the order, and it is them who should take the blame.

It is not the responsibility of the soldier (or whatever they may be, the inferior, if you like) to decide whether their actions should be taken out on moral grounds. They should do what they are told and face the consequences if they do not. Furthermore, obviously the superior should be looked over by higher ranks and should face suitable punishment.

[Rachael]

The most serious complication in all of this is always going to be ambiguity with respect to what would count as "reasonable" in any situation: to take even the most trivial of examples, drivers in this country can't even agree on what would count as a "reasonable" speed of travel on a motorway with a 70mph limit... and the vociferous nature of protests against speed cameras suggest many seriously question the status of "law".

What's the film in which the submarine commander and his political officer disagree over what course of action is "reasonable"? I'm quite sure there are many greyer areas than that in conflict situations. Who is more worrying in such situations: a single individual who is convinced of the rectitude of his personal view and determined to act on it.... even if it compromises military effectiveness... or a senior officer who isn't sure about the virtues of a strict interpretation of "law" or "procedure" in relation to a critical decision.

My point is really that few generalisations are going to be feasible on this matter: the reasonableness of any individual action has to judged on a case by case basis.... and with a pretty open mind as to what sort of factors might be pertinent.