I agree with minty green that you can’t expect people to not become emotional about a war. In fact, it seems inhuman to remain unemotional when people are dying. The problem is, people are going to be calling me emotional when I get upset over the deaths of innocent Iraqis, but of course it’s considered normal to mourn the deaths of American servicemen.
Correction: “collateral damage, human shields, and the hopefully rare errant munition” are not necessarily murder. The military is required to take many steps to avoid the killing of civilians (a.k.a. “collateral damage”), and if their efforts are insufficient, the deaths would be unlawful. Of course it’s not completely clear how far they have to go to protect civilians, so many cases will fall into a grey area.
DKW, the word “murder” is appropriately used here. It means “unlawful killing.” In this context, the relevant law that determines whether the killing is lawful or unlawful is the international law of war, not the domestic criminal law you refer to. “Murder” doesn’t have any technical legal meaning in the international context.
I don’t get what Monty’s freaking out about, but the “just obeying orders” defense is very relevant to the question of whether a killing is murder.
** i might accept that civilians are not intentionally targetted out of malevolence, but i cannot accept that civilians do not die needlessly from the indifference of U.S. soldiers. that is human nature, and as far as i am concerned applies to any military anywhere on earth. **
Human nature? I disagree with your position. I think U.S. soldiers are well trained. In addition, I think they would be affected by civilian deaths. In fact, this is my assessment of human nature. Most people, including soldiers are not indifferent about loss of life.
I disagree, chula. If I start with the premise that we do not target civilians, then you’re right–any civilian deaths could indeed be a result of insufficient effort to avoid collateral damage. This is the tragic part of war. I fail to see, though, how you get from there to here:
Insufficient effort to avoid collateral damage equals malice aforethought? You’re going to have to explain that one to me. Dereliction of duty, maybe. Murder, no.
Whoops. I missed your third paragraph. Even substituting DKW’s definition with “unlawful killing,” I still don’t think an international court would come to that finding over a lesser charge.
flyboy, I didn’t use that definition of murder. The point of my post is that that definition is not appropriately used in this context. The general definition of “murder” is “unlawful killing”; the “malice aforethought” is only relevant in a legal context in which murder is defined as such. Here, “unlawful killing” is one that violates the international laws of war. The mental element necessary to be hypothetically convicted of a war crime is very different than domestic law. For most war crimes, you only have to be aware of the possible outcome of your actions to be guilty.
I just saw your new post on preview. I’m not sure where the confusion is. The ICC is never going to convict someone of “murder.” But it could convict someone for killing someone in a way that violates international law (as defined in the ICC statute). That would be an unlawful killing, which by definition is murder.
how precisely can you kill people with bombs? if the war is fought within the cities of Iraq what can the civilians do? if we are fighting a war how really are we supposed to avoid civilian casualties? it’s bound to occur. that’s not indifference? i don’t even understand how a war could be fought without some level of indifference.
He was a war-monger, but sure 'twas no wonder
For so were his VP and daddy before
And they each wheeled their barrow
Through streets broad and narrow
Crying toxins and missiles, alive, alive-O!
Alive, alive-O! alive, alive-O!
Crying smart-bombs and missiles, alive, alive-O!
One can kill very precisely with the smart bombs, nn. Another thing is I would very much like to know how you come to the conclusion that the US Servicemembers are indifferent to civilian deaths.
Chula: Are you forgetting there’s this nifty little thing called the UCMJ?
Another one of your deliberately cryptic remarks, Monty, but I’ll bite. If you are trying to say that the UCMJ is a relevant body of law which defines when a killing is unlawful, I’ll give you that. If a US soldier kills in violation of the UCMJ, it’s murder; if he kills in violation of the international laws of war, it’s murder.
Or perhaps you are saying something about the “just obeying orders” defense. I don’t know why I’m arguing with someone who refuses to tell me what his argument is.
To be quite honest, I’ve been doing my very b est to NOT respong in any of these assinine threads about the possible war in Iraq. I can, however, state that civilians within city boundaries will be doing there very best to stay away from the fighting. Those that haven’t been coerced into the military that is. Unfortunately, in ANY war, civilians get killed. I know for a fact that the U.S. Army trains to shoot at people with weapons, not just blast away on full auto like you see in movies.
Hell, I should know, I was in the Army for ten years and went through a lot of damn training to that effect. As I said above, in any war, there WILL be civilian casualties and the best that anyone can do, once hostilities commence, is to try and limit them to the very smallest amount possible.
To me, this is NOT indifference. The only indifference I ever saw during Desert Storm was when Iraqi soldiers died as opposed to our troops. Hell yes we were indifferent! It wasn’t us!
chula: In our military, “I was just following orders” is not a valid defense against a charge of murder. One is expected to disobey unlawful orders. That’s my argument.
OK, Monty, like I said, I didn’t follow what your problem was. We both agree that “just following orders” is not a valid defense.
I reread your exchange with nobody and I’m thinking that the problem is that he’s conflated jus ad bellum and jus in bello. That is to say, if you think the war itself is unjust, you’re bound to view any resulting deaths as murders. To you, the individual soldier would be a murderer, and the fact that he was just following orders wouldn’t make a difference. If you believe in the war, only the killing done in violation of the rules would be murder.
but how many people in the U.S. military aren’t sure why they are going to war?
i see it like this… the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the aggressor. when i see real evidence that convinces me attacking Iraq is a good idea i will defend my glorious leaders’ quest for war. i know people die in wars, that shouldn’t even be a debate. it’s just that there is nothing of substance to even consider, so we are stuck in this endless loop.
The issue of whether or not we should go to war with Iraq is a raw emotional issue for a lot of people, not just an academic exercise. I think it’s especially hard right now for people to maintain a level of academic detachment that may be acceptable to you, Coldfire, as a Moderator on the Straight Dope Message Board. The posters in question are only human, and so may respond to a difference in each other’s views in a ( temporarily and unfortunately ) less-than-rational but quite human way.
Thank you, however, for bringing this to everyone’s attention. I am sure your good advice will give all of us a lot of wholesome food for thought, and quickly resolve the situation.
Creaky, your sarcasm is duly noted. I was, however, NOT speaking as a moderator of the SDMB. And of course retaining civility will not resolve this issue any sooner: it will make life more pleasant on this message board, and that’s about all we -as posters- can influence in this whole thing. So let’s.
Squink: Polly Malone is spinning in her grave, but thanks for making me laugh on a Monday morning.
EasyPhil: Paris is indeed worse than Amsterdam, in terms of driving. So is Rome. From what I’ve heard, no sane person would even try to drive in NYC.
If measures are taken to prevent civilian casualties then it’s not indifference. Indifference suggests lack of concern. I think the U.S. Military considers carefully the unintended consequences of particular actions. This is not indifferent.
Also, please note that this portion of the quote was not originally posted by Jacksen9:
**i might accept that civilians are not intentionally targetted out of malevolence, but i cannot accept that civilians do not die needlessly from the indifference of U.S. soldiers. that is human nature, and as far as i am concerned applies to any military anywhere on earth. **
Those words were originally posted by nothingnobody.
Thanks
