Debate:Torture

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by a bunch of drunks in the Saloon.

With the torture debate raging in America, one thing I hear quite a bit is that the "Just following orders" defense was shot down during the Nuremburg war crimes trials and is therefore not sufficient for the CIA officers who tortured... However, am I the only one that sees that the Nuremberg trials were an absolute joke? They were easily the worst example of victor's justice in the modern era, and the conduct of the people running the trials left no doubt as to the final result. Also, and this may be unpopular, but I think "just following orders" is a damn good defense in certain situations. If a CIA agent has moral or ethical issues against torture and their boss says "Well I have a memo here from the president that says it's legal and you have to do it." Is that agent really gonna say "well I quit?" In Germany is was even worse, as any dissenter would likely have been shot. I'm not saying this is a defense for all situations, but there are cases when just following orders is a damn good defense. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 08:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly "doing it under duress" might be a defence, and one would hope that US troops are not under the same kind of duress as German soldiers. It's also my understanding that a soldier has an obligation not to obey an illegal order.--Bob^{bing up} 08:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There lies the rub - soldiers are generally taught not to think (if I remember my national service days). If he gets told do 'x' because the President/O.C./major/Corporal says so, chances are, he will do 'x' without question and not consider the legalities. He might have private doubts, but they're just that - private. In most cases, the blame lies with those who issue the orders, not those who carry them out. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just it. Soldiers are trained to execute orders. Sure, we all go through ethics training and law of land warfare classes. For some reason, when you're out in the field, 90% of the leadership loses its goddamned mind. Most of the time that we dealt with the civilians was fine, but when you add the catalyst of finding an IED triggerman or capturing a sniper (yes, it CAN be done), the kid gloves come off and all bets are closed. I had to keep my lip bit as I saw leaders roughing up women for intel and tell my subordinates that what they saw was fucking WRONG and I would not tolerate it. I had one incident where we were processing an IED triggerman who kept crying "Mister, my baby, my baby..." and I'll be honest, I wanted to kill him right there. I had a 6 month-old that I had barely seen back home and 20 minutes earlier, this guy was waiting to blow me to hELL. I kept my emotions in check with the detainee, but got into a scrap with a team leader who thought it would be fitting to walk him into a wall blindfolded. My personal revelation came later when I was reviewing what had happened and I realized that how I conducted myself was the only thing that separated me from the enemy we were fighting or the Blackwater thugs running all over the place. Sure, I had to endure people talking about me as "an al-Qaeda hugger", get called a pussy and other things behind my back, but my section looked up to me for being able to run contrary to the example set by our leaders and not one of the detainees that my section captured were released for lack of evidence or prisoner misconduct. The other section was completely baffled every time their detainees were sprung in under 12 hours. In summation, it's a personal commitment to the values of civility and decency that prevents these things, no more, no less. If you can get that example from your superiors, fine, but YOU are the one who has to watch yourself shave every morning in the end. /soapbox The Foxhole Atheist 14:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a soldier, but I always thought that different "rules" should (if not, 'do') apply to various levels of soldier. The 18-20 year old "first real job" private should not face the same crime as the drill Sargent screaming at him to do it or else. Similarly, the Sargent shoudl not face the same levels of expectations that the Captain, the General, or the Vice-President face. The one writing the order, in my opinion, how ever high up you can trace is, shoudl face the strictest punishments.--En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish it were that way, but it seems that the higher you go, the more protection you have because shit rolls downhill. What it comes down to is that (horribly butchered, I'm sure) movie quote: "Good, bad, it doesn't matter... I'm the guy with the gun." Legal occupation or not, a soldier is expected to support the Commander's intent and desired end-state. From Private E-nothing to Four Star General you ARE the authority. Many people seem to forget that aspect. I saw a lot of guys with "cowboy mentality" over there, and they were rewarded, most of the time, for behaving as such. Thankfully, we didn't have any rape or murder cases like the 101st had to deal with, but there were more than a few 15-6 investigations carried out by JAG into suspected detainee abuse. I found it ironic that I had been given so much shit over NOT doing such things, but I could rest easy when real, punishable consequences started showing up as a result. Everyone else would switch into a subdued HCM, but I could go to sleep at night. Sometimes, quiet revenge is the best kind. The Foxhole Atheist 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Foxhole Atheist. But I thought that soldiers had a duty to disobey an illegal order - or is that just window dressing?--Bob^{bing up} 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)--Bob^{bing up} 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the problem; what do you do when your boss (the president) tells you it's legal, but you're pretty sure it's not. At that point, the "just following orders" defense gets a lot more murky. Z3ro^talk 14:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a situation of what should be versus what is. I was never personally given any illegal orders, just present at "questionable" situations. In every case, I had to make a choice during the investigation: Do I remain loyal to the guy (or guys) in my unit, or do I remain loyal to the Army as a whole? Each time, I came to the same decision. Tell the exact truth as to what I saw and let the investigator do his job. I wasn't going to defend someone for something I thought was wrong, but I wasn't seeking to make them pay for any mistakes or lapses of judgement they had. That is not what I was there for. For too many others, however, you have the whole "A Few Good Men" scenario playing out. Soldiers (mostly officers) remain loyal to the soldiers (again, mostly officers) and ignore the ethics issue. I can tell you with almost absolute certainty that had we been given an illegal order (Torture that guy, kill that prisoner, shoot those civilians, whatever you want to put in here) that everyone in my platoon would have responded with a resounding "Fuck YOU, Sir." Since I am an analytical sort of guy, though, I can comprehend how easy it would be to take a step from something like prisoner abuse supported by the chain of command to following explicitly illegal orders from them and saying "I was told to." So yes, soldiers DO have a duty to disobey illegal orders, but I'll reiterate that leaders make the difference because they set the example and those junior to them will take their lead and run with it. The Foxhole Atheist 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But what do you do when your superior tells you it's legal? I mean, that's a tough situation. It seems obvious that you wouldn't obey an illegal order, but what about a quasi-legal one? Z3ro^talk 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's where non-commissioned officers come in. We're not lawyers, but we know what we are trained to do, what our scope is, and what right looks like. There were a few times where we were given instructions from the CoC and our platoon leadership sat down and said "This is what they're telling us to do... I don't know if it's right or not, so we're going to do this other thing and tell them that their way didn't work." In cases like the CIA torture debacle, however, my heart bleeds for those guys because they were royally fleeced. A lot of them DID question the orders and they got told to shut the fuck up and execute. They were reassured that what they were doing was legal. Until you can prove to me that the guy either had explicit knowledge that the legality was a farce or just went along because he was a sadist, I'm not going to hold him culpable for his actions. I hold the leaders to the fire for it, as I've been saying all along, but I know full well that the peons will be the only ones to suffer any consequences. The Foxhole Atheist 15:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I take your point, but some of the things released recently about "enhanced interrogation" have got to have looked like they were illegal to anybody. I know that doctors and lawyers were involved in this along with CIA and military staff and it all happened under - shall we say "the stress of the hour" (or year or decade). And I wasn't there. But it seems amazing to me that anybody would have thought it was legal.--Bob^{bing up} 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This will sound very "anti-military"ist, and maybe it is, but I can't help but feel that the way the military is structured, the way units are deployed, etc, reinforces (rather than removes) the mentality that says "it's ok to torture, cause he's the enemy". The number of stories I hear about gay men being beaten and straight women being raped (or 50 years ago, blacks being beaten); the vitriolic way military personnel talk about both "the enemy" and just "the outsider", seems to be a direct result of a military attitude that "we are the best" "we are more important that anyone else" etc. Individuals do not have this attitude, but when individuals become units... then you start to see things that are frightening.--En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That is understandable, WfG, but that level of cohesion will also help to preserve the lives of the unit members. I was ostracized (kind of) because I WOULDN'T adopt that mentality. I was just as concerned for the safety and welfare of everyone else, but I didn't exhibit the bravado and machismo that was apparently required as proof positive that I was on the same sheet of music. The enemy is the enemy and, if he so much as points a weapon at anyone in my platoon, he's going to die, violently. If he's captured, however, and we have him under our control, then the converse applies. Anyone who tries to rough him up SHOULD be subjected to an ass whooping. The fact that he's now an EPW should be testament enough to our superiority. Why would you even NEED to run him into a wall, bang his head on the roof of the HMMWV "on accident", or kick him while he's down? You can train policy, but you can't train maturity. The Foxhole Atheist 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) What Foxhole seems to be saying is my point. There are people on the left screaming about how we need to lock up the individuals who carried out the orders, but they either don't understand the way the military (or the CIA) works or they simple don't care. These people, for the most part, did have reservations about the "enhanced techniques," but the higher ups had memos straight from the White House telling them these were legal and acceptable and that they were saving American lives. When most people think of torture, they think of the Rack and red hot pokers and shit like that, people really don't consider waterboarding torture.. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 19:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even murkier

Here's an ethics question for you... What do you do with someone who commits an illegal act by giving only LEGAL orders?

For instance:

A platoon is investigating an IED site when a civilian comes along and acts suspicious about the Americans being there. The platoon leader calls the guy over and begins questioning him through the interpreter. After a few minutes of "I don't know anything" and "I am just a shepherd", the platoon leader tells his section sergeants "Move your perimeter into the reed lines, pull security from there. We're exposed to mortar fire standing around in the open like this." As the sections extend the perimeter (out of line of sight), someone overhears the platoon leader say to the interpreter "Get him to talk." Ten minutes later, the civilian is let go with a black eye and holding his wrist.

Now, both of those statements were legal orders. Something clearly illegal (crap kicked out of civilian) happened, but no one was there to see it. In fact no one SAW anything. Maybe not even the platoon leader. He may have said "Get him to talk" and just turned around. He didn't ORDER anyone to strike anyone. He may have implied it, but because of what he SAID, he has absolved himself of responsibility. Everyone knows damn well what went on, but no one could see it. No one could hear anything, and even if they could, it would all be in a foreign language anyway. An argument and a fight sound a lot alike in other languages.

So what do you do? What do you say? What CAN you say?

Things like this happen everywhere, not just in war zones. The Foxhole Atheist 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna say, this happened at my work last week, which is not (yet) a warzone. My boss told us to open specific kinds of accounts for customers, which were more profitable, then change the accounts later if they complained. We got called on it, and the boss basically threw us under the bus, saying he didn't "say" to do what we did, he just implied it and was misunderstood. Jerk. Z3ro^talk 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In both these cases the people who actually carried out the immoral acts were in the wrong morally. In both these cases the people who engineered the situation were also in the wrong, and probably more deeply in the wrong than those who actually carried out the action. The question of who would be more criminally culpable would be for the courts. (And I think that Bush and Cheny were more culpable than any individual soldier.)--Bob^{bing up} 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds just the old "mafia" defense. I never told anyone to kill him, I simply said I would like this problem to go away, therefore I was not involved in any conspiracy. However, if the evidence inplies that they knew exactly what they were doing, lock em up. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I would like to say that I'm unhappy that it appears that the current administration is unwilling to hold any senior policymakers accountable. Second, regarding TFA's scenario, the person giving the order is required under the UCMJ to report witnessed violations of the law. If he or she wasn't watching, then they were negligent in supervising an interrogation, which would be dereliction of duty. This is also in violation of the UCMJ. Either way, while I generally do not judge the individual actions taken by servicemen and women in harm's way, it is pretty cowardly to order subordinates to break the law while covering one's own ass. Corry 04:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Murder is murder, torture is torture. If my boss tells me to torture or murder, can s/he make me do it? (edit) PS, I'm a pacifist, so my opinion really doesn't matter. ħuman 06:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's the big problem Human, It's obvious when you make it clear cut like that, and I'm sure that most of our servicemen and women would refuse an outright execution (I hope so anyway) but what happens when it's much more nuanced than that? Police "rough up" suspects all the time in interrogations, so where does a soldier, having received a direct order from a superior officer complete with legal permission from the Office of the President draw the line? SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 07:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. But as a pacifist, I abhor all these acts of murder, torture, etc. It's an easy out for me. I say "killing is wrong". ħuman 08:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Water-Boarding

I only have a few minutes so I'll make this quick. I was at a party awhiles back. We had been drinking....and etc and the subject turned to waterboarding. I volunterly offered myself for water-boarding (Hannity is a pussy). We flicked off all the lights and someone shoved a rag in my mouth and had 3 others hold me down. While I had water poured over my face, a good friend shoved the naked bulb of a lamp in my face a screamed questions at me. Believe me when I say, it aint pleasant. Seemed like tourture to me. I was hard though and gave nothing away Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 06:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But you have nothing to give away, other that your recipes for getting blind drunk. ħuman 06:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dark knowledge indeed. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 07:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Hannity backed himself into a corner and now he's gonna feel it big time. I hope Olbermann keeps the pressure on him until he either accepts or is forced to admit that all his tough talk is nothing but a front. I've long said that the chickenhawk is the lowest of the low. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 07:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but these "pundits" (=yacking mouths) answer to no-one. Except those who pay their salaries. And they say, "yack on, as I paid you to". ħuman 08:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true in a corporate sense, but the more Hannity refuses to answer Olbermann, the more he looks like a total wimp in the eyes of his viewers and listeners, maybe not the hardcore fans who think he speaks divine truth, but a lot of his people are upset. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 08:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fuck Hannity, he'll turn no-one off because the people that like him will never be swayed (they'll react like Schlafly and blame Olberman) and the people that dont will never like him. There's no middle ground, no "swing vote" for a fucker like Hannity. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)