"The Taliban Don't Wave" - Robert Semrau
- Thread starter Sharps '63
- Start date
- Status
Disclaimer: By virtue of my trade alone I have to side with Morpheus32's argument. Also, I have a lot of respect for the man base on his experience, what others have said of him and my limited personal experience. That said I wanted to play the devil's advocate here because Morpheus has a valid point, but beyond "this doesn't feel right", no one has brought a decent argument against his position and I love these discussions on ethics.
DND has an established ethical framework to guide our decisions. In order of importance the three statements are:
1. Respect the Dignity of All Persons
2. Serve Canada before Self
3. Obey and Support Lawful Authority
While the expanded description of these statements does not include mercy killings, one could argue that slowly bleeding out is not a very dignified way to die.
Would offering a quick and less painful way to die not be a way to respect the dignity of a person?
ref:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/statement-of-defence-ethics.page
DND has an established ethical framework to guide our decisions. In order of importance the three statements are:
1. Respect the Dignity of All Persons
2. Serve Canada before Self
3. Obey and Support Lawful Authority
While the expanded description of these statements does not include mercy killings, one could argue that slowly bleeding out is not a very dignified way to die.
Would offering a quick and less painful way to die not be a way to respect the dignity of a person?
ref:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/statement-of-defence-ethics.page
I haven't read the book and I am only slightly informed on the subject, but it appears to me that any man that has the balls to go and fight for his country deserves the greatest respect. As for killing an almost dead combatant, I don't see anything wrong with that. This man was railroaded and made a victim of pure bull#### rules of engagement. He should be treated as the hero he is. AS for fair play to the enemy-why does anyone who would blow themselves up in a crowd of innocent people or who would hack the head off a defenseless person with a hunting knife deserve any mercy? I say kill em all, let God sort them out.
canucklehead
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
I gotta say - from a cursory outside look originally, I thought Semrau was totally justified and in the right by doing what he did.
After reading what Morpheus32 and CCM's perspective - I've changed my opinion completely. You've made it very clear about why it shouldn't be done in a logical and well thought out manner. I thank you both for your service!
After reading what Morpheus32 and CCM's perspective - I've changed my opinion completely. You've made it very clear about why it shouldn't be done in a logical and well thought out manner. I thank you both for your service!
Well, although I understand where you are coming from...I can't say I agree with you on that score and I'm glad you are not in charge of our military.
In this regard, I totally agree with you!
Military people do not get to pick and choose which orders and regulations that they will comply with. If they decide not to comply they will face the consequences as this man did. The NDA doesn't make any allowances for killing prisoners or mercy killing badly wounded enemy combatants even though some may see this as having been a humane gesture in the circumstances.
Disciplinary proceedings not only deal with the case at hand, but also have a view on upholding regulations and orders for the ongoing maintenance of military conduct and discipline. I haven't seen the record of proceedings from the court martial so have no idea of the extent that the issue of the casualty being in extremis may have been considered as a mitigating factor. If it was recognized as a mitigating factor it would have set a very uncertain precedent for future behaviour. In future cases just who would get to determine when and if a casualty's death was certain thing relative to his injuries and possible medical response. In short, who would get to play God and decide when mercy killing might be an acceptable and legitimate course of action, and how would this be defined in orders and regulations? Or would we just leave this up to lower level commanders to decide on a case by case basis?
What about mercy killing of one's own troops in other circumstances? Assume a tank or aircraft fire with a casualty trapped inside who could not be extricated. Would it be acceptable to end the individual's suffering with a well placed pistol shot? Do we endorse this for the police when dealing with vehicle accidents in the civilian world? The fact that the casualty in this case was an enemy combatant should not make a difference in an ethical sense. As a society we have not yet accepted the notion of mercy killing being an acceptable action in the case of severe injuries, even those that are beyond retrieval. I don't think that we want to legitimize this for our military either.
Disciplinary proceedings not only deal with the case at hand, but also have a view on upholding regulations and orders for the ongoing maintenance of military conduct and discipline. I haven't seen the record of proceedings from the court martial so have no idea of the extent that the issue of the casualty being in extremis may have been considered as a mitigating factor. If it was recognized as a mitigating factor it would have set a very uncertain precedent for future behaviour. In future cases just who would get to determine when and if a casualty's death was certain thing relative to his injuries and possible medical response. In short, who would get to play God and decide when mercy killing might be an acceptable and legitimate course of action, and how would this be defined in orders and regulations? Or would we just leave this up to lower level commanders to decide on a case by case basis?
What about mercy killing of one's own troops in other circumstances? Assume a tank or aircraft fire with a casualty trapped inside who could not be extricated. Would it be acceptable to end the individual's suffering with a well placed pistol shot? Do we endorse this for the police when dealing with vehicle accidents in the civilian world? The fact that the casualty in this case was an enemy combatant should not make a difference in an ethical sense. As a society we have not yet accepted the notion of mercy killing being an acceptable action in the case of severe injuries, even those that are beyond retrieval. I don't think that we want to legitimize this for our military either.
that has happened. im glad i havent had to witness it. because hearing the first hand account was horrible enough.
Correct, this was an illegal act contrary to our ROE over there. It was not a Zombie movie, we don't get to decide who gets mercy and who does not. There is no grey in this situation.
No, it is illegal in Canada to assist a terminal person with his death, we take Canada's laws with us where ever we go. Can't do it here, can't do it there. There is no code shared amongst warriors, the so called warrior's code is just fluffy BS.
Pure Energy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- A river runs through it.
Moral of the story, kill em the first time so you don't have to tend to them or execute them.
Yeah...well.... I got nice boots...free! Ohhh, and I got full auto fire....free.
Rather childish response to this thread. I would expect something more intelligent to try to make your point.
absolutely - thanks for articulating this, well said.
Just a stupid response to a stupid statement. Government policy makers largely view soldiers as "dumb, stupid animals" to this day, nothing new. That is because soldiers display personality traits which they consider "dumb and stupid" like honour, loyalty, commitment and duty. Since the middle ages a soldier existed to fight for those who couldn't fight for themselves. If not for soldiers none of us would be able to express ourselves freely on this forum or anywhere else.
I see quite a bit of emphasis on "following orders" in this thread. Let's not forget this was the defense of many a war criminal.
"Obey and support lawful authority". Authority is only "lawful" as long as it's actions and directions are, and when they are not, following them has been shown to be culpable act, morally and legally.
"Obey and support lawful authority". Authority is only "lawful" as long as it's actions and directions are, and when they are not, following them has been shown to be culpable act, morally and legally.
- Status
