Morality

[Carter]

From Torsten Glacer:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...the US promotes a very selfish set of morals in which you serve yourself and only yourself. WIth that kind of outlook on life a government can't last long. Oh well..just my opinion

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may find this article about "The Corruption of Democracy" interesting. It is a penetrating look into modern politics. The first part is about campaign contributions. But the article nicely opens up to a discussion of two different conceptions of democracy. One type is indeed the kind that "can't last long" It is the type without individual rights.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/nav_4_4_com_the_corruption_of_democracy.asp

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]

[Carter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Drinkard:

>I would have to say that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

>The constitution was written to guarantee our "pre-existing natural rights".

That's from Rousseau. A French philosopher popular in the 18th century. In my humble opinion, he was wrong. There are no "natural" rights, unless that is a reference to the right to do what comes naturally (sheep have a right to eat grass, for example). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that's from John Locke.

Locke believed in natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Rousseau didn't believe in natural rights. Apparently you do agree with Rousseau.

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]

[Terry Drinkard]

> Carter:

>> Terry Drinkard:

>>> Carter:

>Wow, I'm glad to see my strong opinions have an audience!

Hi Carter!

>>>The founding fathers believed as I do that people are born with "natural rights". You don't earn them.

>>More's the pity. Nor do they come with balancing responsibilities, the one gaping hole in the US constitution.

>Actually they do come with responsibilities. Personal responsibility.

Please cite the article in the US Constitution where those personal responsibilities are outlined.

>I don't see it as a hole in the US constitution. The way I see the

problem is that people/governments don't respect each others rights. Governments exist to protect our rights. We don't exist to

serve the government.

The goverment exists, at least in part, to keep us all from killing one another. Without that fundamental functionality, we don’t have a government. This is fundamental because people in general do NOT respect the rights of other people. We, as human beings, require laws and the force necessary to enforce those laws in order to live peacably with one another. Don’t agree? Cite one single place in the world where one can live peacably that has no government. I’ll save you the effort. There are none. Even the hunter-gatherer tribes found in Borneo and New Guinea have a huge murder rate (from memory about 1/3 of all male mortality was violent murder).

A government can be described, at least in part, by a sets of rights. However, this would be a very high level description. It would be impossible to construct an actual effective government with nothing the rights of the citizens to work from. We need more (lots, actually).

From a systems design point of view, each force should have a counter-balancing force or forces. In the realm of human government, the classic pairing is rights with responsibilities. In the US Constitution, there is no such pairing. Even in business, Chief Executive Officers have fiduciary responsibilities to balance out their managerial rights. This is simply good sense.

[...]

>We may well incarcerate too many people. But you should check your figures. There are about 2 million prisoners in the US. With a

population of well over 200 million, that comes out to less than 1% of the population in jail. What was that about beer?

Depends on how you do your statistics. Up to 25% of some demographics are currently incarcerated or have been recently incarcerated. Check the stats on black males. Is this right? By right, I mean is it morally and ethically acceptable?

>Maybe my definition of murder isn't clear. What I mean by murder is "unjust killing" Kinda like Hilter murdering millions of Jews.

Your definition of murder is fine, it’s your definition of “right” that appears a bit murky to me.

>>It isn't "True". It's just one way of looking at the world, no better or worse than others, simply useful in the proper context.

>Certainly you have to admit that some philosophies are better than others. Application of theory which yields results can be compared.

Better at what? Based on what criteria? What results are we trying to maximize? What are we tring to minimize? Unless and until we can clearly express what we want, we can’t evaluate much of anything. That caveat said, I do agree that some forms of government (the palpable product of a political philosophy) are better suited to producing some results than others. Usually.

>>>The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany didn't believe in natural rights, with predictable results.

>>Neither do the English. Your point?

>All of the English? Some of them? The English government?

My point is that the English (well, Great Britain’s) constitution does not reflect a strong Rousseau influence, as does the US’. In fact, the Brits don’t even have a single document one can label as their constitution. Different tradition. To the best of my recollection, no one other than the Boers have accused the Brits of attempted genocide.

My point is that a good, decent, just government does not require a strong infusion of Rousseau, or “natural” rights.

>My point is that if governments or societies do not respect other people's rights very bad things can happen.

Irrespective of the nominal form of the government. I agree completely. Moreover, I would add if the traditions and moral code of the society are violated, bad things can also happen.

>>True, he was a libertarian. That does not presuppose a belief in "natural" rights.

>Actually it does. You should read up on libertarianism.

I tutor my sister the lawyer in Political Philosophy (I know, I’m a ringer in a number of areas). A belief in Rousseau’s “natural rights” is not a fundmental basis of libertarianism so far as I am aware. Libertarianism is derived from anarchism, popular in the 19th Century. Bukunin, et al. Libertarians, by and large, do not recognize the need for a state, much less a strong state. Rousseau would spin in his grave if he knew people were attributing such thoughts to him. Rousseau’s political philosophy dealt with the shift from monarchy to democracy, not with a shift from statist to non-statist.

To be clear, I am attributing the concept of “natural” rights to Rousseau (I could be wrong, perhaps it was Locke Carter, I'll have to look it up). That, of course, does not mean someone else cannot steal that concept and twist it to suit their need. Historically, “natural” rights have been used to justify democracy over monarchy. That is, the right to govern is derived from those governed. Legitimacy is the issue. To the best of my understanding, libertarians see no government as legitimate. And a strong government? Heaven forfend!

Read Heinlein for examples of libertarian attitudes!

>Have you seen the computer-animated Starship Troopers series? It's

awesome! IMHO

Is that a TV thing? I don’t have TV here. Oodles of movies (DVD and VHS, thank you very much), but no network TV. I have a friend who tapes Sailor Moon and Gundam Wing for me, but that’s as close as I get.

This is a rather long post, I know. Moreover, I don’t really expect anyone to read it all the way through. Heck, I wouldn’t.

Still, this brings us full circle back to the morality of war and war simulations.

What is the purpose of war today? At least two-fold, in my opinion. One is the classic function of the extension of foreign-policy, which is itself an extension of internal politics, which again, is an extension of economics. We might describe that as the aggressive part of the dual function of war.

Second is the function of ensuring the survival of the state. We might describe that as the defensive function. As I mentioned above, there is no area in the world wherein one can live peacably without a state, a government of some form. We can argue over the structure and actions of the state, but no one can argue intelligently for the absence of the state. In our world, it simply does not work. If it did work, it would almost certainly already be working.

Therefore, since the state is essential to our quality of life, it behooves us as citizens to have an effective and functional war-fighting capability. War-fighting is a complex task (as I explained to critics, the tasks of the infantry, while not technical, are, in fact, complex). Anything that can be done to improve the combat abilities of our war-fighting forces (within the bounds of moral and ethical behavior) is desirable because it better insures our survival as a culture and as a society. That makes training for war moral. In fact, that creates a moral imperative to train. One part of an effective training program is war simulations, therefore war games are moral. QED

Sorry for the long way ‘round, but I for one enjoyed the trip.

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Terry Drinkard ]

[Coyote]

Terry,

Don't appologize for the length. This thread has produced some of the best posts I've even read on the net.

The founders realization that collective responsibility was the key to ensuring collective rights predates the Constitution.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

And they agreed with you on the need for a state (plural at the time) in order to make this a reality.

Great discussion guys.

Gary Chilcote

[Torsten Glacer]

Actually I enjoyed that article very much, Carter. Mr.Kelley seems to know what he is talking about very much so. It seemed to paint a clear picture about what is wrong with the US's election system today.

[Carter]

Torsten, glad you liked the article. I ran across it the other week. It really struck a nerve with me.

[Carter]

Yes. There is a Starship Troopers TV series.

Its called: "Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles"

There's a good fan website for the show at:

http://www.trooperpx.com/RSTC/series.html

[Slapdragon]

>>>The founding fathers believed as I do that people are born with "natural rights". You don't earn them.

>>More's the pity. Nor do they come with balancing responsibilities, the one gaping hole in the US constitution.

>Actually they do come with responsibilities. Personal responsibility.

---Please cite the article in the US Constitution where those personal responsibilities are outlined.

Actually this is a misunderstanding of the place that the founding fathers put the constitution. Anarchists and many hard core libertarians believe in all rights and no responsibilities based on the ideals of the founders of the United States (influenced by many other thinkers of course). They peruse the constitution and point out no where does the consitution outline a citizen's responsibility, there fore they have none. But the consitution implies and expressly outlines that their are responsibilities attached to citizenship stemming from laws passed by the legislature and by a body of practice known as common law. The legislature defines the bounderies through which people much operate in the form of legal statute, modified by established norms of practice as found in common law. The difference in a democracy is that all of the people make the laws by hiring a few to do that sort of thing for us (through elections) and thus our responsibilities are defined by ourselves. While the hiring process (called an election) can lag, leaving the current group of bums in even if our will is not being done, but this is part of the plan. Lots of drags are placed on the system, such as the Bill of Rights, checks and balances, etc, to try and keep personal freedom at a maximum while keeping government slow to change, a good thing by any standard.

Looking at other systems of government, what is striking is how badly they all failed. Facsism results in short lived, hugely oppressive, efficient, but brutal governments. Communism might work in a toned down way, but the destruction of press freedom means that information gets clogged up and the system collapses under its own weight. Tribal systems only work in isolation, otherwise they engender huge tribal level warfare, while socialism and a few forms of monarchy have worked well as long as they are tempered with a feedback system to allow people to speak against and for the system.

It is interesting to see the basic contradictions of the political groups that are primarily against the various forms of democracy. Take the German "Boldheads". The group has a racist, homophobic agenda, but a study of the group revealed a large homosexual undertone (something found in the skin heads also leading to the theory that the more homophobic a group is, the more likely it is actually suppressing homosexual activites). Its leaders espouse total freedom through anarchy, but also believe in a rigid hierarchy of government. They do not like big government, but they worship NAZI Germany when private enterprise was essentially gobbled up by the government. There leaders are usually well education, but they are against the education of their group.

[Carter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coyote:

The founders realization that collective responsibility was the key to ensuring collective rights predates the Constitution.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you've got this half right. I think the founders believed that the collective responsibility is the key to ensuring "individual" rights.

Freedom is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited"

Freedom is great stuff as long as you don't violate other people's rights.

The constitution guaranteed us many freedoms and rights.

Responsibility is implicit in freedom. Personal freedom means that you make your own choices. You are then responsible for whatever choices you make. If you make a bad choice, who's fault is it but your own? If your choice is successful in some way or another, wouldn't you deserve the credit?

Personal freedom = Personal responsibility

[Carter]

Terry,

I really debated replying to your last post. I've already demonstrated that much of what you wrote in your first post was wrong. I'm sorry, but because of that I don't put any weight on what you've written in your last post.

However, because people seem to still be interested, here's my reply:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Drinkard:

>The way I see the

problem is that people/governments don't respect each others rights. Governments exist to protect our rights. We don't exist to

serve the government.

The government exists, at least in part, to keep us all from killing one another. Without that fundamental functionality, we don't have a government. This is fundamental because people in general do NOT respect the rights of other people. We, as human beings, require laws and the force necessary to enforce those laws in order to live peacably with one another. Don't agree? Cite one single place in the world where one can live peacably that has no government. I'll save you the effort. There are none. Even the hunter-gatherer tribes found in Borneo and New Guinea have a huge murder rate (from memory about 1/3 of all male mortality was violent murder).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take from this statement that you now agree with me that:

-people have rights

-people not respecting each other's rights is a problem

-that it is the government's job to protect our rights.

A government can be described, at least in part, by a sets of rights. However, this would be a very high level description. It would be impossible to construct an actual effective government with nothing the rights of the citizens to work from. We need more (lots, actually).

That's why we have the Constitution. It's more than just rights. It lays down a framework for government.

From a systems design point of view, each force should have a counter-balancing force or forces. In the realm of human government, the classic pairing is rights with responsibilities. In the US Constitution, there is no such pairing. Even in business, Chief Executive Officers have fiduciary responsibilities to balance out their managerial rights. This is simply good sense.

The US Constitution was worked out pretty well so far. The country has held up for over 200 years. And the document has been the primary model for written constitutions everywhere since its creation. The document make pretty good sense to me the way it is.

>We may well incarcerate too many people. But you should check your figures. There are about 2 million prisoners in the US. With a

population of well over 200 million, that comes out to less than 1% of the population in jail.

Depends on how you do your statistics.

2 million / 284 million = 0.7%

Up to 25% of some demographics are currently incarcerated or have been recently incarcerated. Check the stats on black males. Is this right?

If you do the crime, you do the time. Regardless of skin color.

Are you advocating racial quotas for prisons? Like "well, we know this guy's a murderer but we've got too many people of his race locked up already so we'll have to let him go."

Remember ... "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent"

But yeah, I'll agree with you that there are way too many people locked up for victimless crimes. We need to concentrate on stopping the people who hurt other people.

More later.

[Carter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Drinkard:

>>It isn't "True". It's just one way of looking at the world, no better or worse than others, simply useful in the proper context.

>Certainly you have to admit that some philosophies are better than others. Application of theory which yields results can be compared.

Better at what? Based on what criteria? What results are we trying to maximize? What are we tring to minimize? Unless and until we can clearly express what we want, we can't evaluate much of anything. That caveat said, I do agree that some forms of government (the palpable product of a political philosophy) are better suited to producing some results than others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just trying to counter your claim here that some political philosophies are "no better or worse than others". You do now agree that "some forms of government ... are better suited to producing some results than others." So I think I made my point.

I'm certain that natural rights can be demonstrated to be superior to other systems on many sets of criteria. But that would be a real project that I'm not prepared to do at the moment.

I will say the we have natural rights and freedom in the US which gives us a mostly "free" market. Because of that our economy is the largest in the world. Wealth is certainly one measure of success.

There is a book out there (the title escapes me) that did exhaustive research into which cultures and societies have "been the most successful". The conclusion in the book was that the free-est cultures with a good work ethic were the most successful.

My point is that the English (well, Great Britain's) constitution does not reflect a strong Rousseau influence, as does the US'. In fact, the Brits don't even have a single document one can label as their constitution. Different tradition. To the best of my recollection, no one other than the Boers have accused the Brits of attempted genocide.

My point is that a good, decent, just government does not require a strong infusion of Rousseau, or "natural" rights.

I'm not all that familiar with Great Britain's government. But since John Locke was from Great Britain I suspect that they do have some concern for natural rights.

On the other hand, I know that in the past we've had problems with England not respecting the natural rights of Americans. That's why we fought the American Revolution and the War of 1812.

While the War of 1812 is way in the past, we got into it because the British were kidnapping American sailors and forcing them into the service of Great Britain.

And I know that American's weren't the only former British colonists that felt their rights were violated.

--

Besides that I think you need to read up on John Locke, Rousseau, Libertarianism, and anarchism. I think you'll be surprised at what you find.

You can read that article I posted on "The Corruption of Democracy" for John Locke/Rousseau.

I also found a website for you on libertarianism:

http://www.libertarianism.org/

[Carter]

I checked up on that book about which cultures are the "most successful".

Its called "Who Prospers?: How Cultural Values Shape Economic and Political Success"

by Lawrence E. Harrison

It's listed at Amazon.com

[SFC Matrix]

Elemental, Learn before killing? What planet are you on? Nobody learns what is moral in combat until they are presented with the dilemma. So many folks like to make combat into something that you can figure out, something where you can stop and say, "hey, I am going to go about this in a "moral" way". When you are trying to survive, you are on the fringe, unless you have been there, you don't know how you are going to react. Its not a part of the "learning" curve. You're raised with them or your not, and when you are in a bad situation, you will hope the morals you were raised with will kick in. I had Ranger buddies who were so pissed at the sammies that some of them lost it. Go down to the VFW and ask some of the vets there where morals came up when a buddy of theirs just got fragged by the enemy. Its alot to control.

[minmax]

I never imagined that young lady's question would generate such a lengthy debate.

Here are a couple of observations about the Constitution, Freedom, Natural Rights, and finally morality in combat.

The Constitution was written by landowning, White, professionals mostly over the age of 35. While they all had personal agendas they all agreed on 3 basic points. 1. Confederation was a dismal failure so, a strong central (Federal) government was neccesary. 2. The 'mob' was not educated enough to be trusted with selection of the executive or the senior legislative body (Senate). 3. With freedom came responsibility therefore if you owned land (at least 50 acres) you could vote. Why the restriction? Simple, they figured anyone with the intelligence and the means to own land could be trusted with the vote.

Freedom is a myth, in the United States it is garunteed that you have Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life is a natural right but it can be taken from you. Liberty likewise. Pursuit of happiness means there should not be any barriers to your opportunities but, you have as much a right to starve as the next guy. Who garuntees freedom? No one not even the Constitution garuntees those rights. Every right we have in the United States can be legally taken away if the circumstances warrant such actions. Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Johnson did at times take away some of those Constitutional rights.

Natural rights, another popular myth. Yes you got the right to breath and be happy or sad. Natural rights well, the government acknowledges them in a whole slew of writings (The Federalist, Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, etc...) But again NO garuntees.

Morality in combat,

Best thing I can say is there are primal laws that supercede fairly recent human notions of morality. We told the Sandis it was simple 1 of ours 10 of theirs. We ambushed and if the orders were no POWs then no POWs. Morality does not count for squat when survival is on the line. Not that I am saying that a warrior should be without mercy or compassion but simply he holds his life and that of his comrades in higher esteem than abstract notions like morality.

Well, hope that provides something for y'all to chew on.

[SFC Matrix]

I don't need to chew....You hit the nail right on the head!

[elementalwarre]

(lots snipped out before and after this)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SFC Matrix:

You're raised with them or your not, and when you are in a bad situation, you will hope the morals you were raised with will kick in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SFC Matrix, please reread what i posted earlier

i favor the idea of an ethics test, but as i've said elsewhere i don't know of a provably effective scientific test, and i want kids to learn -before- combat

i'm not talking about trying to figure out the right thing while under fire

i'm talking about demonstrating that you place your country's welfare above your own before being allowed to vote or hold public office. a way that may do this is by serving your country. i realize service does not give someone a well-developed sense of ethics and if anything may severely test them. it's simply a suggestion made by heinlein which i think may serve to show what someone's priorities are

note it's a -test-, not an education

[Carter]

minmax,

My intent was mostly arguing politics. I'd be an idiot to tell professional warriors how to do their job.

As far as the "right to life" and combat, a corollary of the right to life is self-defense. If you have the right to life, then surely you have the right to defend it.

War is a kill or be killed situation. Therefore I would say it is only self-defense to kill the enemy before the enemy gets the chance to kill you.

How that is done is best left up to the professionals. I don't think that an ambush would be immoral. The enemy would do the same thing. You're both out to kill eachother, by just about any means available.

And I think it is well known that prisoners can give away your position or otherwise put friendly troops in danger. This reminds me of the scene in U-571 where the enemy captain is taken prisoner, then later gives away the position of the captured submarine to the enemy, endangering everyone onboard. So I could even understand an argument to "take no prisoners".

Modern war is pretty much no holds barred. I could see that it would be very dangerous if you stopped to think about morality on the battlefield.

Like I say, I was mostly arguing politics.

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carter:

Modern war is pretty much no holds barred. I could see that it would be very dangerous if you stopped to think about morality on the battlefield.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i strongly disagree for most low-intensity conflicts (LIC). LIC fighting is frequently around friendly or neutral civilians -and soldiers-. achieving the intended goal while fighting under those conditions means being -very- careful about where bullets go. that's anything -but- no holds barred

[Carter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre:

i strongly disagree for most low-intensity conflicts (LIC). LIC fighting is frequently around friendly or neutral civilians -and soldiers-. achieving the intended goal while fighting under those conditions means being -very- careful about where bullets go. that's anything -but- no holds barred<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point.

"friendly or neutral civilians -and soldiers-" are an important consideration.

[SFC Matrix]

So as hypothetical and behind the desk as you sound, does this mean that I should have gotten out and asked the Somali's which ones wanted to kill me? Or better yet, maybe I should pose this question to anyone...How careful are you when you are being shot at. I don't condone the shooting of innocent civilians, but I seem to hear alot of opinion from someone who doesn't do alot of shooting. Battlefield ethics and morality will always be a debated topic, but when the U.S. fights, things like ROE are never clear, and there always seems to be an area where you can drift. I like the fact that you have an informed opinion, but unfortunately it doesn't hold alot of water with a vet like me. Morality in practice works, its too bad when the fighting starts, its goes to hell.

[Carter]

SFC Matrix,

Not sure if you were responding to me, elementalwarre or both of us?

I've definitely never been in combat and like I say, wouldn't want to tell professional warriors how to do their job.

But I am curious about your experience in Somalia. I'd be fascinated to hear anything that you would like to talk about.

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SFC Matrix:

I don't condone the shooting of innocent civilians, but I seem to hear alot of opinion from someone who doesn't do alot of shooting.

(snip)

I like the fact that you have an informed opinion, but unfortunately it doesn't hold alot of water with a vet like me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SFC Matrix, some civilians have been shot at. i've been caught in a firefight with full-auto assault rifles on both sides. i shot my way out and swore to never be that close to war again. i very clearly remember what i felt. ease off, ok?

is morality a luxury for a policeman too? the next time police face terrorists with hostages, i hope not

i realize i'm trying to be objective and abstract about something which is damn harsh and whose details can kill you. maybe a scenario gives a better feel for what i'm trying to say:

say there's a US marine patrol in lebanon, early 1980's. they're caught in a crossfire between militias. an APC is hit, brews up and kills the crew before they can bail

the US commander does not know which group hit the APC. it's a running firefight, several groups chasing each other and civilians everywhere. until the APC was hit, no fire seemed to be even close to the patrol

regardless of ROE, who should the US commander now fire at? everyone he sees who's armed? that's a clear rule but may only convince all sides to cooperate in killing his patrol

should his patrol hold and fire? bug out? how does the commander know if a given civilian is helping a given group or just going home with water?

on the other hand, if a militiaman had been more careful with target ID, maybe his group would not risk getting hosed by US forces

hope that makes my viewpoint clearer

[Gyrene]

SFC Matrix, morality does have a role in combat, particulatly in low intensity conflicts, to deny that level of responsability and chalk everything up to "heat of the moment" would be to display a lack of discipline.

Picture that you are in Mogadishu heading off from the Airport towards Bale Dogle in a convoy and you are passing through the market on the way out of town. All your men are rifles-out on the 5 tons and keeping a sharp lookout when a couple of skinnies jump out from the crowd, take a couple of shots at the convoy and mingle back again. One of your men is hit in one of the trucks and some of the offenders are still visible scooting through the crowd.

Would 40+ M16's & 60's opening up on the crowd be an appropriate response? Should the officers and NCO's keep the men in check?

The situation will determine the response and this is when Morality and discipline comes into play, to simply open fire with all hands would most likely be the wrong decision, unless the crowd was visibly hostile and actively attacking the convoy.

Real life is never cut and dry and command decisions like these are never easy but in the future as we get involved in more and more of these LIC's the more important a disciplined and morality conscious military coupled with realistic and unrestrictive ROE's will become.

Gyrene

[Jeff Gilbert]

Well, after reading all this I guess it's my turn to post an historical prospective of the "Just War", morality and whatever ...

Cicero [335 BC], the Roman orator, jurist, and philosopher was one of the first to deal with the questions of justifiable war. Cicero believed that the use of force was justifiable only when the war was declared by an appropriate and legitimate governmental authority acting within specific limits. For Cicero, the ability to wage war rested solely with the state, and could be lawfully waged only "after an official demand for satisfaction has been submitted or warning has been given and a formal declaration made." Additionally, Cicero also proposed the existence of a common norm for human behavior which transcended the laws of individual nations and governed their relations with each other. Cicero's belief in this universal norm was based on his view that there was a “humani generis societas”, a "society of mankind rather than of states. This view of a universal standard of behavior for nation-states which exists outside of promulgated law would have a profound impact on later just war theorists, particularly on Hugo Grotius.

1 – ability rested with the state and the state along

2 – only after formal for satisfaction and then a formal declaration

St. Augustine [4th & 5th Century AD] agonized over how to reconcile Christianity's high ethical ideals with the world realities which were bringing about the fall of Rome keeping in mind that early Christian approaches to warfare were pacifistic in nature, due to a focus in the early Church to the notion that Christians were distinct from the rest of society. However, with the growing Christianization of the Roman Empire, and the increasing political and social influence of the Christian Church, Christian theologians during the fourth and fifth centuries began to develop justifications for the use of force which would eventually take shape over time as just war theory.

As the first major Christian theologian to address himself to the task of determining the circumstances under which war is legitimate, Augustine held that "[t]he natural order, which is suited to the peace of moral things, requires that the authority and deliberation for undertaking war be under the control of a leader." For Augustine, war is a permissible part of the life of a nation, and the power of prosecuting a war was part of the natural powers of a monarch, ordained to uphold peace. War, far from being something which Christians should shun, is part of the life of a nation, ordained by natural law, a law which according to the New Testament is ordained by God.

Augustine's conception of the “Just War” did not create a carte blanche for bloodshed. In forming his ideas on war, St. Augustine carefully points out the causes for which war may be fought, and the procedures that must be satisfied in order for a war to be just. "[F]or it makes a great difference, by which causes and under which authorities men undertake the wars that must be waged." For Augustine, for a war to be just, it must be fought for the right reasons, and it must be waged under rightful authority.

Augustine held that the only reason which justified war was the desire for peace. "Peace is not sought in order to provide war, but war is waged in order to attain peace." Augustine denounces other motives for war, such as "[t]he desire for harming, the cruelty of revenge, the restless and implacable mind, the savageness of revolting, the lust for dominating, and similar things," and refers to them as things which are "justly blamed in wars." In fighting a war, the goal must be to do that which is necessary to obtain peace; "[l]et necessity slay the warring foe, not your will." Augustine also includes under the subject of necessity the just treatment of prisoners and conquered peoples, making it clear that mercy should be shown to the vanquished, particularly if they are no longer a threat to peace.

Besides right intention, St. Augustine also held that it was necessary for a war to be waged under lawful authority. The purpose of the war-making powers of the state is to ensure peace, which in turn helps to foster the common-good of those in society. Augustine recognized that it was necessary for the authority and decision to undertake war to be made by a recognized leader. In addition, the soldiers who serve under the leader must serve the peace and common-good of society. Warfare which is declared by unlawful authority therefore fails to meet this criteria, as does warfare which is not directed toward peace and the common good.

1 – Lawful Authority.

2 – Moral imperative. Were we attacked vs War of Aggression.

3 – Reasonable expectation of success.

4 – All reasonable other measures must be exhausted.

5 – Proportional response. Non-combatants and mercy.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas based himself upon St. Augustine's view of war, elaborating on these teachings. In refining his theory regarding the justness of a war, Aquinas focused on defining the right to make war and the importance of the intent which stands behind the decision to go to war. His attempt was to formulate simple rules which would give guidance on these issues, Aquinas argued that a war is justified when three basic, necessary conditions were met:

1 - the war was prosecuted by a lawful authority with the power to wage war

2 - the war was undertaken with just cause

3 - the war was undertaken with the right intention, that is, "to achieve some good or to avoid some evil."

Grotius [16th Century AD] A Dutch Protestant who some call the father of international law. Grotius lived through the aftermath of the Thirty-Years War in Europe and wrote extensively on the right of nations to use force in self-defense in his book Jure Belli ac Pacis ("On the Rights of War and Peace"), which was published in 1625. It was largely Grotius who secularized just war theory, making the theory more acceptable for the age of the Enlightenment. For Grotius, a war is just if three basic criteria were met:

1 - the danger faced by the nation is immediate.

2 - the force used is necessary to adequately defend the nation's interests.

3 - the use of force is proportionate to the threatened danger.

Grotius agreed with Cicero's belief of the need for a declaration of war, and also argued that the “purpose of just war theory” is to provide “succor and protection for the sick and wounded in war, combatants and civilians alike.” A result of this view is the notion that just war theory exists externally of any recognized legal system, that it is a part of the “law of nations” which is followed by all civilized nations. For Grotius, it is not necessary to prove just war theory by consulting with any of the established laws of the nations of Europe, or their customs. Instead, those laws are known through the universal medium of the natural law, a law which transcends nations and their own particular legal codes, a law which is binding on all human societies in their interactions with each other.

Daniel Webster [1842] while serving as the U.S. Secretary of State, acknowledged the legitimacy of the customary norms employed by Grotius to define the just war. This recognition occurred as a result of attempts to resolve the so-called "Caroline Incident."

The Caroline Incident occurred while the British were attempting to prevent supplies from reaching Canadian rebels. During these efforts to restrict shipping to the rebels, the British burned the U.S. ship Caroline and killed several U.S. citizens. When the United States protested, the British government responded that its actions were justified as a matter of self-defense. Webster responded by stating that the only way for the British claim to self-defense to stand was if it met the traditional elements of just self-defense. Webster outlined those elements which are based mostly on the writings of Grotius:

1 - consisting of necessity of self-defense

2 - the reasonable and not excessive use of force.

[Jeff Gilbert]

Jeez ... all that from a retired enlisted guy ! My brain is now sore, I hope you are all satisfied.