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]

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

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.

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)

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Edella

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]

Originally Posted by Racoon

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?