Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    everyone dies one day.
    Ok then, I would rather prolong my life.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ok then, I would rather prolong my life.
    If you don't die there, you might die the next day, then you have achieved nothing, you might survive to old age.

    You might home home, find a wife, have some kids, they might go their whole lives without knowing what you have done, but you'll know, you'll see it everytime you close your eyes, everytime a rape or torture scene is shown on TV, everytime your wife cries you will instantly be transported back to that moment, it will be behind your eyelids in HD in high volume surround sound, and the fear and disgust you felt that day will fill you as though it was happing right there and then... how many days do you think you could survive that?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    In the British army you don't get executed for not following orders. If you commit a crime under threat of death then you are not guilty, this defence was even permitted when trying nazis and soldiers just after ww2.
    Just because it has been so in the past does not mean it is so now, read the law of armed conflict, this defence was tried by war criminals in Yugoslavia, it does not wash under modern international LOAC.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    Just because it has been so in the past does not mean it is so now, read the law of armed conflict, this defence was tried by war criminals in Yugoslavia, it does not wash under modern international LOAC.
    Source?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    If you don't die there, you might die the next day, then you have achieved nothing, you might survive to old age.

    You might home home, find a wife, have some kids, they might go their whole lives without knowing what you have done, but you'll know, you'll see it everytime you close your eyes, everytime a rape or torture scene is shown on TV, everytime your wife cries you will instantly be transported back to that moment, it will be behind your eyelids in HD in high volume surround sound, and the fear and disgust you felt that day will fill you as though it was happing right there and then... how many days do you think you could survive that?
    I might also not get killed by refusing the order. I might die during the act, it is irrelevant. If I knew the individual giving the order would follow through with their word then I can say with a very high level of certainty that I will live longer by following the order. And you make a lot of assumptions about an individual you have never met and, to my knowledge, never communicated with in any way until, what, half an hour ago? Namely, you kindly assume I have the same moral code that you do.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I might also not get killed by refusing the order. I might die during the act, it is irrelevant. If I knew the individual giving the order would follow through with their word then I can say with a very high level of certainty that I will live longer by following the order. And you make a lot of assumptions about an individual you have never met and, to my knowledge, never communicated with in any way until, what, half an hour ago? Namely, you kindly assume I have the same moral code that you do.
    well I consider myself a rather moral person, I would hope my level of morality was common amoung most people, I understand that is not the case, but I would be interested to know what makes you such a hard case that you don't feel human emotion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    well I consider myself a rather moral person, I would hope my level of morality was common amoung most people, I understand that is not the case, but I would be interested to know what makes you such a hard case that you don't feel human emotion.
    emotions are largely useless/irrelevant a lot of the time, but I fail to see how relevant emotions are, are you trying to suggest that the people who are generally seen as "amoral/immoral" in their actions lack emotion?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    well I consider myself a rather moral person, I would hope my level of morality was common amoung most people, I understand that is not the case, but I would be interested to know what makes you such a hard case that you don't feel human emotion.
    Emotions and morals are seperate. You can be totally moral and totally emotionless at the same time.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    Source?
    Zlatko Aleksovski found guilty of individual responsability and superior responsability, ordering and obeying illegal orders.

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s...slavia&f=false

    http://www.icty.org/sid/7819

    Tihomir Blaškić

    guilty of allowing the Ahmići massacre tried passing the buck up the chain of command. Appeal rejected.

    http://www.icty.org/x/cases/blaskic/...-aj040729e.pdf
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    Zlatko Aleksovski found guilty of individual responsability and superior responsability, ordering and obeying illegal orders.

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s...slavia&f=false

    http://www.icty.org/sid/7819

    Tihomir Blaškić

    guilty of allowing the Ahmići massacre tried passing the buck up the chain of command. Appeal rejected.

    http://www.icty.org/x/cases/blaskic/...-aj040729e.pdf
    And they were both in positions of authority, were all their subordinates right down to the lowest level also incarcerated? And was there a directly expressed risk to their life if they didn't follow their orders?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    emotions are largely useless/irrelevant a lot of the time, but I fail to see how relevant emotions are, are you trying to suggest that the people who are generally seen as "amoral/immoral" in their actions lack emotion?


    (Original post by james22)
    Emotions and morals are seperate. You can be totally moral and totally emotionless at the same time.
    The basis of natural morality is empathy, if you do not feel emotion you cannot feel empathy, then your morals are dictated by law, this is why law exists. To suggest that someone can hold morals without feeling empathy is misleading of what morals actually are. Conforming to something or not doing something because it is considered the right or wrong thing by society is not morals, morals is what you feel inside yourself, best described by the old adage, do to others as you would have done to you. This is why the term moral compass is used, because everyone is in a different place, everyones compass may have its own quirks, dents or faults, but we know what we should be looking for when we employ it.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And they were both in positions of authority, were all their subordinates right down to the lowest level also incarcerated? And was there a directly expressed risk to their life if they didn't follow their orders?
    How can you try somone if they are not accused of the crime? Somone has to make the accustion before the criminal is tried. But these men tried to diminish their responibilty through blaming the command structure.

    To look into the trials of the subordinates (those that where accused and tried) I would need to spend a lot of time in archieves, which I'm not prepared to do for an internet debate on TSR.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    Zlatko Aleksovski found guilty of individual responsability and superior responsability, ordering and obeying illegal orders.

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s...slavia&f=false

    http://www.icty.org/sid/7819

    Tihomir Blaškić

    guilty of allowing the Ahmići massacre tried passing the buck up the chain of command. Appeal rejected.

    http://www.icty.org/x/cases/blaskic/...-aj040729e.pdf
    These are commanders, who ordered others to commit crimes. Something which is totally different to the case presented in the OP. No evidence that they were under threat of death either (or they would be aquitted).

    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    The basis of natural morality is empathy, if you do not feel emotion you cannot feel empathy, then your morals are dictated by law, this is why law exists. To suggest that someone can hold morals without feeling empathy is misleading of what morals actually are. Conforming to something or not doing something because it is considered the right or wrong thing by society is not morals, morals is what you feel inside yourself, best described by the old adage, do to others as you would have done to you. This is why the term moral compass is used, because everyone is in a different place, everyones compass may have its own quirks, dents or faults, but we know what we should be looking for when we employ it.
    Someone could follow a moral system such as the harm principle, from a totally rational point of view, yet not feel emotion.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    These are commanders, who ordered others to commit crimes. Something which is totally different to the case presented in the OP. No evidence that they were under threat of death either (or they would be aquitted).
    proof?


    (Original post by james22)
    Someone could follow a moral system such as the harm principle, from a totally rational point of view, yet not feel emotion.
    That was what I said, but that is not morality.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    proof?
    I cba right now, and it isn't relavent to this discussion anyway since we have only been talking about a person who recieves and order under threat of death. You said that it would not be a defense, I asked for proof, and the links you provided are not at all proof. I am still waiting for you to prove the claim you made.

    That was what I said, but that is not morality.
    It's how I define morality.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    The basis of natural morality is empathy, if you do not feel emotion you cannot feel empathy, then your morals are dictated by law, this is why law exists. To suggest that someone can hold morals without feeling empathy is misleading of what morals actually are. Conforming to something or not doing something because it is considered the right or wrong thing by society is not morals, morals is what you feel inside yourself, best described by the old adage, do to others as you would have done to you. This is why the term moral compass is used, because everyone is in a different place, everyones compass may have its own quirks, dents or faults, but we know what we should be looking for when we employ it.
    And you answered your own question.


    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    How can you try somone if they are not accused of the crime? Somone has to make the accustion before the criminal is tried. But these men tried to diminish their responibilty through blaming the command structure.

    To look into the trials of the subordinates (those that where accused and tried) I would need to spend a lot of time in archieves, which I'm not prepared to do for an internet debate on TSR.
    Are you suggesting that only those individuals committed the crimes and not the men they commanded? Logically, if you are accusing somebody of a crime and they committed those crimes with the aid of others, whether through choice or coercion, those others also committed the crime, or at least are accessories to the crime and therefore you can fairly reasonably accuse them. However, it is clear that you can only trickle it down so far, otherwise surely everybody who worked in the concentration camps and death camps in WWII should have been convicted of crimes against humanity, after all, they did it too.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    I cba right now, and it isn't relavent to this discussion anyway since we have only been talking about a person who recieves and order under threat of death. You said that it would not be a defense, I asked for proof, and the links you provided are not at all proof. I am still waiting for you to prove the claim you made.



    It's how I define morality.
    This is the template of the slide shown to all members of the British armed forces in their LOAC lessons

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...d_conflict.pdf

    1st slide under responsiblity "Illegal orders must not be given or carried out. Those who break the law may expect to be dealt

    with and, if found guilty, severely punished"

    and for further clarification the ICRC

    Slide 7
    http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files...law6_final.pdf

    slide 8
    http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files...law1_final.pdf

    or even from our American cousins

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm



    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And you answered your own question.



    Are you suggesting that only those individuals committed the crimes and not the men they commanded? Logically, if you are accusing somebody of a crime and they committed those crimes with the aid of others, whether through choice or coercion, those others also committed the crime, or at least are accessories to the crime and therefore you can fairly reasonably accuse them. However, it is clear that you can only trickle it down so far, otherwise surely everybody who worked in the concentration camps and death camps in WWII should have been convicted of crimes against humanity, after all, they did it too.

    No what I am saying is, if a crime is not known, how can it be tried? Just as people got away with numerous crimes during the London riots, were their actions legal? No, did every single crime go punished no, what happened in WW2 influenced a lot of changes in LOAC, hell, its had at least 7 amendments in the last 10 years,

    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ts-to-the-text

    I'm telling you what it is NOW, not what it was in the past and as much as you might object to it, the law states you are 100% accountable for your actions.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    This is the template of the slide shown to all members of the British armed forces in their LOAC lessons

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...d_conflict.pdf

    1st slide under responsiblity "Illegal orders must not be given or carried out. Those who break the law may expect to be dealt

    with and, if found guilty, severely punished"

    and for further clarification the ICRC

    Slide 7
    http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files...law6_final.pdf

    slide 8
    http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files...law1_final.pdf

    or even from our American cousins

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm
    None of this applies, since I very clearly said that it had to be under threat of death. None of those countries execute for following orders. Even if they did, you cannot be done for not following an illegal order.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    None of this applies, since I very clearly said that it had to be under threat of death. None of those countries execute for following orders. Even if they did, you cannot be done for following an illegal order.
    The links I posted have disproved that very point.



    An illegal order is an illegal order regardless of which country or organisation gives the order, follow it and you will be tried in an international criminal court, it doesn't matter if you are a British Soldier, an American Soldier, an IS soldier or a Ukrainian seperatist. If you are caught you will be tried by the international community.

    If a commander is giving you an illegal order he/she has already shown disregard for the rule of law, wether or not your armed forces executes people who do not follow orders is irrelevant at that point.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    This is the template of the slide shown to all members of the British armed forces in their LOAC lessons

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...d_conflict.pdf

    1st slide under responsiblity "Illegal orders must not be given or carried out. Those who break the law may expect to be dealt

    with and, if found guilty, severely punished"

    and for further clarification the ICRC

    Slide 7
    http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files...law6_final.pdf

    slide 8
    http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files...law1_final.pdf

    or even from our American cousins

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm






    No what I am saying is, if a crime is not known, how can it be tried? Just as people got away with numerous crimes during the London riots, were their actions legal? No, did every single crime go punished no, what happened in WW2 influenced a lot of changes in LOAC, hell, its had at least 7 amendments in the last 10 years,

    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ts-to-the-text

    I'm telling you what it is NOW, not what it was in the past and as much as you might object to it, the law states you are 100% accountable for your actions.
    So, the operators of the IDF artillery batteries will all be tried for their crimes if, by some miracle, Israel is actually tried in court for it's war crimes? Similarly with elements of the armies of probably every major power in NATO, definitely UK and US?
    Obviously, in all those cases it relies on the [near] impossible event of any of those countries actually being tried.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.