Dealing with ethical and/or legal issues in operations

[George Wallace]

"The role of the infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy"

That is the role of the Infantry. 

Is it the role of the "sniper"? 

Is the General wearing a side arm not carrying a weapon?

Is the radio not a 'weapon' used by us to call in Fire?  Is a Cell phone nothing more than a radio?

I don't see any similarity between an infantry soldier entering a building and finding a enemy soldier without a weapon in his hand and a sniper tasked with more precise orders to terminate targets.  I would say a sniper is disciplined in his/her targeting of an enemy more so than a infantry soldier just spraying rounds in a room.  Two totally different scenarios.  Two different reactions by the soldiers involved.  Two different emotions involved in the events.  One a more calculated and planned and the other most likely an instantaneous reaction of fear and a hasty assignment of guilt to the enemy. 

Is there really a correct answer to this question, as there are so many factors that are not stated in the given scenario to clarify the situation?  What were the orders given to those entering the building?  Why where they entering the building?  Who was the 'enemy' (Regular troops, Terrorists, Irregular troops, Farmers with sticks, etc.)?  What was the unit involved?  What was their training and discipline?  Too many questions leaving the scenario too vague to accurately decipher a clear answer.

 

[ArmyRick]

Mike, George,

I am not talking one iota about the damn entering the building scenario its been discussed to death. Bury it and move on, it was a gay scenario lacking in enough background info.

I am trying to shift the conversation. Think combat ethics and legality. Its like asking someone if a tree falls in the woods and no is there to hear it, does a tree make a sound. Your not looking for an answer, your giving someone something to think about.

Again, read what I said in my first of the two very recent post. I am not even looking for a response, just stimulating thinking in people's brains.

BTW, I said the general was unarmed (meaning he has no side arm). But I mentioned that by him giving orders he is enabling tactical action.

The radio or cell phone or any other communication device is a "weapon" or weapon enabler when used in spotting for mortars, arty, air, etc, etc.

 

[dogger1936]

Army rick. The scenerio is the same. Kill the general.

edit to add: these as you call "gay" ones from the 90's are actually more difficult.War is war unless they are surrendering you kill em. Add in a civilian steals your tccs manpack and is running away with it during IFOR...a whole differnt bag of worms.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have done IFOR/SFOR tours. I remember the scenarios involving the ROEs and thank goodness the only engagement most people (like me) expirienced was with bouncers at bars while I was hammered in Budapest or Split.

That was a different generation and we were doing a different gig than Afghanistan. We might find ourselves our doing those missions again. Or we may be storming the beaches under intense fire in ten years. Who knows?

 

[the 48th regulator]

I have done IFOR/SFOR tours. I remember the scenarios involving the ROEs and thank goodness the only engagement most people (like me) expirienced was with bouncers at bars while I was hammered in Budapest or Split.

That was a different generation and we were doing a different gig than Afghanistan. We might find ourselves our doing those missions again. Or we may be storming the beaches under intense fire in ten years. Who knows?

Well tough guy,

The Seven Rounds that slammed into my body, as I was a Peacekeeper in the Gay '90's, caused the same damage as the gang in this Afghanistan "Gig".

You just don't know when to shut yer yick, and considering you are the "Ethics Watchamacallit" for your unit, I advise you re-read your notes from your 2 hour course.  All through out this thread you have been a rash, and that includes the PM exchange we have had.

dileas

tess

 

[ArmyRick]

I know what happened to you, John. You want to explain why your jumping all over me? I am stating very simply that NATO tours in Bosnia had next to no action. The UNPROFOR tours were a far cry different. IFOR/SFOR was NATO.

BTW, some of the training and scenarios we had dealing with ETHICs in the past were pretty far fetched and in some cases right out of 'er.

 

[Hammer Sandwich]

Shoot, even I'm weighing in on this one....and the only thing I am SME on is sammiches and cig'rettes.

48th, if you think at all that anyone is denegrating UN service, you have the super wrong, ultra-ghey sickness of disease, man.

As an example....98% of my knowledge regarding Canada's role with the U.N., and roles played, has been delivered to me by this site...and that being said, the descriptions of these roles have been expanded exponentionally  from you providing your experience, 48th....

My little brain thinks that .....

QUOTE"Well tough guy,

The Seven Rounds that slammed into my body, as I was a Peacekeeper in the Gay '90's, caused the same damage as the gang in this Afghanistan "Gig".

You just don't know when to shut yer yick, and considering you are the "Ethics Watchamacallit" for your unit, I advise you re-read your notes from your 2 hour course.  All through out this thread you have been a rash, and that includes the PM exchange we have had."END QUOTE

Seems a little much.

I may be 31, fat, and useless, but I still maintain the right to have heroes, who I choose as I see fit.

I like Spiderman, Jonas Salk....and cats like 48th.

Don't lash out on a challenge that wasn't made, man.

I really don't think that guy attacked you.

 

[Good2Golf]

Folks, let's keep it on topic, please, and  stay away from personalizing the arguments.

Thanks.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[vonGarvin]

G2G:
Thank you.

Now, an interesting point was raised earlier.  There are those, perhaps imbued with the whole "Bosnia" experience where Butrous-Butrous Ghali himself had to authorise using deadly force were now presented with scenarios in which they failed to make the mental leap that using cellphones or waving flags or whatever constituted military action by an enemy.  But that's not really the point.


The point is this, and I'll state it again.  Ethics does not apply during the conduct of operations.  Soldiers will conduct themselves in accordance with applicable regulations, or else they will face the fury of the law.  Case closed.  "Ethics" is all about personal beliefs, etc, and as such, I don't give a rat's ass what you believe.  Instead, I care very much what you do.

And for anyone concerned about "credentials", not only do I have 21 + years regular force service, most as an officer in The RCR, but I also have an Honors Degree from The University of Western Ontario in German Language (not applicable in this case) and Philosophy (VERY applicable).  Yes, it trumps unit ethics officer, which in my professional and informed opinion, is as waste of effort.

 

[daftandbarmy]

  Yes, it trumps unit ethics officer, which in my professional and informed opinion, is as waste of effort.

There was a time when the terms 'Ethics' and 'Officer' were synonymous and not, unfortunately, the job title of a single person. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere... underneath that pile of Diogenes' stuff that they dumped on me when I wasn't looking 

 

[vonGarvin]

There was a time when the terms 'Ethics' and 'Officer' were synonymous and not, unfortunately, the job title of a single person. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere... underneath that pile of Diogenes' stuff that they dumped on me when I wasn't looking 

That Diogenes' "stuff" drives me insane.

 

[KevinB]

John, that tangent is derailing the commentary on operations.

  Damn way back in Cyprus we still had the right to use any force up to deadly force to defend our lives, members of the UN and Civilians under threat.

 

 

[McG]

George,
You need to take-up my suggestion to have this discussion with your legal advisor.  You don't seem to understand your (and your soldiers') obligations under LoAC.

Is the General wearing a side arm not carrying a weapon?

The general would be a legitimate target if he were wearing a side-arm or not.  If the sniper could identify who he was, he would still be a target if he was lounging in a bathrobe.

Is the radio not a 'weapon' used by us to call in Fire?

Not by law.  But, an unarmed enemy soldier talking on a radio is a legitimate target because he is an enemy soldier.  Further, even a non-soldier would be considered as participating in hostilities if here were coordinating military efforts by radio – in war, he too would be a legitimate target under LoAC.

Is there really a correct answer to this question, as there are so many factors that are not stated in the given scenario to clarify the situation? 

There is sufficient information to conclude that the friendly soldier acted legally.  There is not enough information to determine if the chosen act was the most appropriate (ie - best suited to achieving higher comd's & superior comd's intents), or even if other courses of action were open to the soldier.

Who was the 'enemy' (Regular troops, Terrorists, Irregular troops, Farmers with sticks, etc.)? 

The enemy, as already clearly stated, was a soldier in this scenario.  An enemy soldier is a legitimate target.

 

[daftandbarmy]

That Diogenes' "stuff" drives me insane.

Careful, you might hurt someone's feelings!

"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?"
Diogenes

 

[pbi]

The point is this, and I'll state it again.  Ethics does not apply during the conduct of operations.  Soldiers will conduct themselves in accordance with applicable regulations, or else they will face the fury of the law.  Case closed.  "Ethics" is all about personal beliefs, etc, and as such, I don't give a rat's *** what you believe.  Instead, I care very much what you do.

I disagree. Ethics most definitely apply during the conduct of operations: that is the ultimate reason for their existence.

In a thinking human being, their actions, (other than immediate reflexes) are a product of their thoughts and, ultimately, their beliefs and value systems. As an organization, we have a collective value system: our military ethics. If professional military ethics don't inform a soldier's judgement and decision process, especially when we are speaking about officers who may have dozens, hundreds or thousands of people under their command, (coupled with the legally sanctioned power to use sometimes massive lethal force), then what guides their actions?

The power of the law (or "regulations") alone? If that is true, how is a soldier (of any rank) equipped to reason out whether or not he has received (or is about to give...) an unlawful command? Acting without ethical judgement, or "just following orders" was destroyed as a legal defence for war crimes over half a century ago.

How does one act in a situation where the law, or orders, are not clear? Some kind of a decision will have to be taken, by somebody, and in making that decision a reasonable person will consider their professional military ethical standards to help them make that judgement. This is why ethics can't merely be somebody's random collection of "personal beliefs": they are more like a code, collectively agreed upon,taught and practiced throughout the organization/profession, that we expect all members will adhere to in making decisions, and in acting on those decisions.

This is why I believe that the whole business of unit ethics representatives is not only ineffective but is a violation of the responsibilities of command and leadership. The ethical education and guidance of a unit is the overall responsibility of its leaders, not of some poor junior officer or NCO stuck with it as a secondary duty. Wall posters and wallet cards, and banal little discussions with textbook answers don't really cut it either. You either live it every day, or it's window dressing.

Cheers

 

[vonGarvin]

I disagree. Ethics most definitely apply during the conduct of operations: that is the ultimate reason for their existence.

I am the person proof of how wrong you are.  Here's why.

I advocate the use of nuclear weapons in our war in Afghanistan.

I am apparently a f*ckwad who believes that marriage is a "bond" between one man and one woman, who are not related, who are both of legal age, who are both of sound mind and that bond is recognised by the state.

I believe that torture, used by skilled professionals, is justifiable in many cases.


I do not act on any of these beliefs, however, because it is against the law to do so.  For example, even if I had access to nukes, I still wouldn't use them, because I recognise that I am not the authority for their release.  Second, I recently congratulated someone on getting married, and I meant it.  (Yes, it was a same sex marriage).  Thirdly, were I to be presented with a situation in which torture could be used, I would not do so, and I would stop anyone from doing so, because that is the law.

"Ethics" is personal.  In the straw man cases where the law isn't clear, then clarify.  It's your duty to do so.  Anyway, the whole "UEO" thing is nothing more than window dressing.  I don't give a rats ass what "they" tell me to believe is right or wrong, because they can go to hell if they think that can alter my belief structure.  And I will make no attempt to alter any one else's belief.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I "Ethics" is personal.  In the straw man cases where the law isn't clear, then clarify.  It's your duty to do so.  Anyway, the whole "UEO" thing is nothing more than window dressing.  I don't give a rats *** what "they" tell me to believe is right or wrong, because they can go to hell if they think that can alter my belief structure.  And I will make no attempt to alter any one else's belief.

I do not think that ethics are personal.  I don't get to make up the ethics of my profession, nor those of humanity. 

Laws don't tell me everything, but ethics can provide guidance when the situation is not clear. 

You are entitled to your belief structure, but you can't just decide that you are ethical because you follow your personal beliefs.  Ethics cut across individuals and encompass everybody. I suggest that congratulating your same-sex friends on their marriage was not about obeying the law, it was about being ethical.  Are we obligated by law to congratulate people on their marriage? I don't think so.  Perhaps you felt some other obligation that took priority over your beliefs?  That other obligation might just be you being ethical.

 

[pbi]

I am the person proof of how wrong you are. 

Actually, I'd say that you're the person proof of how right I am, because you have argued strongly that you act in a way that you believe is correct. In other words, that it is important for an individual to subscribe to society's code of behaviour (put down in writing as "The Law") even if it conflicts with personal convictions.

If serving in the military (especially today, and especially as a leader) were as simple as just following orders ("obeying the law"), then maybe the requirement for soldiers to be capable of ethical judgement wouldn't exist.

Perhaps (and I say that as a HUGE perhaps), we could accept that maybe a Private, under certain circumstances, could function with no ethical judgement, provided he was under adequate supervision.(I'm not picking on Ptes: you could probably say the same for OCdts)

The problem is that Ptes don't stay Ptes. They grow up into leaders (we've had several Generals, including at least one CLS, who started at the bottom...), and if they grow up into leaders who have no functioning ethical standards, and thus are incapable of ethical judgement, I suggest that we are in trouble.

It's great if your internal beliefs happen to already match the Army's code of ethics. If not, then you accept that these military ethics guide your actions, or you get out, or you're heading for trouble at some point.

Cheers

 

[vonGarvin]

OK, "ethical".  Are we talking Utilitarianism?  Kantianism?  Egoism?  Consequentialism?  Hedonism? Stoicism? Deontologicalism? 

I would offer that the CF model is "virtue ethics", which emphasises the character of the moral agent, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethics.  Think Aristotle and Jesus of Nazereth as two proponents of virtue ethics.  Deontological theory talks about duty, and some may argue that the CF model is in that vein; however, the lessons have all been on being good.  From that, good actions will follow.  Well, they should follow (we all make mistakes).  But if you act virtuously, then all is good.


Or is it?  Look at the recent trial of former Capt Semrau.  Could one argue that he was acting virtuously?  Maybe he was (or he believed that he was).  It went counter to the laws of armed conflict and our own laws.  For that, he was punished.  So, again, ethics has no place.  Obey the law or suffer the consequences.  Period.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I suppose I am Kantian. 

You can't just decide that you are ethical because you are following a personal code if that personal code clashes with ethics.  I'm not saying that everybody argrees on everything.  There is debate and disagreement, and even when there is agreement on behaviour different people may have different reasons for coming to the same conclusion.  There is a level of common understanding, however, that gives us ethics.  Ethics goes beyond one person.

If laws were perfect and all-encompassing then perhaps we would not need ethics.  But those perfect laws would have to come from somewhere, and that would be somewhere would be ethics.  I also don't think that we are there.