From: Alfio Puglisi (puglisi@arcetri.astro.it)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 14:30:52 MDT
On 12 Apr 2002, James Rogers wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 09:20, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
>>
>> Not the only one. If it was possible, I would put a TV-camera on the
>> helmet of every soldier, broadcast it worldwide, and record on tape. Then,
>> after the war, review them and hold the shooter liable for any
>> misconducts.
>>
>> After all, a human being is not infinetely reliable, moreso
>> with a rifle in his hands in split-haired situations like the ones that
>> he will encounter in the battle field. We think "guilty" about people who
>> kill other people in car accidents, usually due to some errors in their
>> driving. I don't see why during a war these rules should be changed.
>
>
>With all due respect, this is utterly naive. I have grave doubts that a
>camera will give adequate context for any analysis of possible criminal
>behavior in a combat environment, particularly if evaluated by
>individuals who have never been in combat themselves. And I suspect the
>well-meaning civilians who want these cameras in the first place would
>not be happy with the analysis of combat vets who were qualified to make
>the evaluation.
Well, of course it's naive. And it's also a practical impossibility, and I
presented it as such. Still, I think that the human being -> combat
machine trasformation that a soldier undergoes should not be an excuse for
misbehaving. When you are on a battlefield you have high ideals (save your
country from the "enemy"), high power (license to kill), high dangers (be
killed), maybe high resposabilities (if you fail, something really bad can
happen). Therefore, I require high standards from the people there. I
refused the semi-obligatory military training here precisely because I
wouldn't trust *myself* in any combat situation.
>
>[interesting discussion on battlefield-induced behaviours]
>
>it in the first place. It is instructive to see what "crimes" on the
>field of combat the military actually punishes and which they do not,
>since the military justice system is far stricter than the civilian
>justice system. The civilian justice system is not likely to have
>adequate context for making a fair judgement against a soldier's actions
>in combat, which is among the reasons a separate military justice system
>exists in most countries. In most developed countries, the military
>justice system works quite well.
This is exactly what I don't like: the concept of right and wrongdoing are
different in war than in peace, due to the different way of working of the
brain. The military bodies know that, and reward and punish their soldiers
accordingly. Killing someone (military or civilian) because he dares to
open a window is self defense. Then, the war ends, and suddenly killing
anybody is wrong unless he already shot you.
Hopefully, a singularity in the following decades will stop this mess.
(and maybe there will be different types of conflict...)
Alfio
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:28 MST