Two years after the event, CNN is doing a major story on the killing of four Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers. Not surprisingly, the incident raises serious moral concerns.
On the face of it, the killing of prisoners is morally unacceptable. While this should be obvious, it can be argued for in the following manner. Killing an individual in time of war is generally justified in terms of the threat presented by the enemy combatant. To be a bit more specific, the killing of an enemy combatant in direct combat can be justified on a similar basis to that used to justify killing in self defense outside of war. When someone is a prisoner, he no longer presents the degree of threat needed to justify killing on these grounds. As such, the moral justification for killing in combat is lost and thus such a killing would be immoral.
If this argument succeeds, the soldiers who killed the prisoners acted wrongly. However, some attempts have been made to argue that the soldiers are not fully responsible for what they did. To be specific, it has been argued that the soldiers were pushed towards the killings by the rules placed upon them. Rather than go into details about these rules and policies, suffice it to say that the soldiers seemed to be required to act like police officers and provide evidence of the sort expected in criminal courts when turning in prisoners. Because of these rules, the soldiers believed that the prisoners they captured would simply be released in a short while.
Not surprisingly, this situation was rather frustrating. The soldiers lacked the training needed to conduct such police style procedures and the rules themselves seem to have been rather ill suited for the situation. Perhaps most importantly, the soldiers believed that they would soon be under attack again from the very same people they had recently captured, thus making them feel that their efforts were pointless and that they were being severely handicapped in their operations.
Of course, such frustration does not justify murder. Neither does the fact that the policies seemed to be unrealistic (something that seems to have marked the Bush administration’s entire approach to Iraq). However, these relevant facts do seem to provide a small degree of moral mitigation. It seems likely that the soldiers would not have committed murder if they believed that their prisoners would have been properly processed and detained. As such, those responsible for the policies and rules must accept some small portion of the blame for the murders.
Interestingly, a case can be made as to why the killings were acceptable in the context of war. As noted above, killing in direct combat seems to be justified on grounds similar to self-defense: if I do not kill you, you will kill me. Killing someone who does not pose a direct threat would thus not be justified on these grounds.
However, we certainly seem to accept the killing of combatants even when they cannot fight back. For example, targeting troop transports and personnel carriers is a legitimate part of war, even though the soldiers being transported often cannot fight back. As another example, bombing targets without warning is also considered acceptable as is the sniping of unaware soldiers. As a final example, all the combatants in World War II eventually came to accept the bombing of civilian targets as legitimate-after all, hitting the enemy’s capacity to produce weapons and supplies certainly seems fair. Such attacks are justified not on the basis of direct self defense, but indirect self defense: those people can be justly killed because they posses an indirect threat or will soon present a direct threat.
Going back to the murders, if those prisoners would have returned to try to kill Americans then they were a potential threat. Going back to the troop transport situation, soldiers are not expected to let the enemy get out of the transport and set up for battle before trying to kill them. They can be justly killed because they present an adequate potential threat-if they are not killed then, then they will kill. As such it could be argued that the soldiers were acting within the boundaries of what is morally acceptable in warfare.
Of course, it can be countered that the analogy breaks. After all, while attacking helpless soldiers is acceptable in some cases, there are established moral guides to the treatment of prisoners. In addition, while a prisoner is a potential threat, the threat presented is not the same as that as an active combatant who happens to be unable to fight at that time. This, it might be argued, is enough to break the analogy and thus re-establish that the killings were wrong.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c643ef88-2ee3-4d52-9bc6-116d1d9d161d)
Among other things, killing prisoners, unlike bombing troop-transportation, involves deception and a breach of trust: if a soldier surrends, it is because he trusts that he will be respected as a prisoner of war. Otherwise, he would have no reason not to fight to the death, killing as many U.S. soldiers as he can before he dies. In fact, the laws of war facilitate the surrender of enemy troops so that truces and perhaps peace can be established.
Moral behaviour in war is honourable and commendable, but the very term “war” suggests, to me, a situation in which morality has basically been tossed out the window since at least one group of people has convinced themselves that the time for moral behaviour has passed (and that group usually acts in such a way as to convince at least one other group of the same). Maybe the act of surrender, as Amos pointed out, ends that state of amorality in a highly localized way, and so we consider moral concerns to have been reimposed on the soldiers.
Mike Lab:
It’s exceptionally simple. There are rules of engagement. They broke them. They must be tried. Your sketch of a defence is a defence as a sketch i.e. risible. Channel 4 had ‘Generation Kill’, which they now seem to have taken off. Maundering rubbish but it had me hoping that one of them would get blown up as they went on their merry nihilist way. Was that the idea?
Well here we are in Bush’s 3rd. term with no promise left unbroken by the Ditheramus -in-Chief.
If the purpose of war is reestablish the peace (a juster peace or at least a peace on one’s own terms), then the rule of war which protects the life of those who surrender is an incentive for enemy troops to give up their arms, thus advancing the cause of peace. If one does not respect the life of prisoners of war, then the purpose of war can only be the annihilation of the enemy.
In World War 2, German troops marched hundreds of miles in order to surrend to the U.S., rather than to the Soviet Army, since they expected decent treatment from the U.S. Army. Apparently, enemy forces can no longer expect that kind of treatment from “the Americans”.
(We are all Americans from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego).
I am currently a member of the USAF (and part-time philosopher). It’s important to understand that we (that is Airmen, Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Guardsmen (I’m not sure about the Guardsmen)) are given training in order to understand the rules of how to handle prisoners annually.
We have to have training in the Laws of Armed Conflict as laid out in the Geneva Convention, which include the ability to shoot down an enemy personnel carrier, but not to kill those falling from the sky in parachutes to escape the plane. There are similar rules for men that dive overboard from a sinking ship.
Also, we have to have training in POW laws and status. There are very defined rules regarding the humane treatments of POWs, including access to food, water, chaplains, shelter, and medical attention.
Now, it isn’t exactly clear whether or not insurgents are eligible for POW status since they are not uniformed personnel, which is the justification given by the Bush administration for the interrogation tactics they’ve employed.
the only time killing is justified is as a last resort in direct self defence. using the arguments raised in this blog one could justify almost anything. morals are universal, something dose not mirraculessly switch from being grosly immoral in every day life to being a moral good when one puts on a snazzy green uniform and is told to do them by an authority figure.
In regards to the last post, it’s hard to argue for universal morals. That’s why there’s been so much discussion since people have been discussing things.
Interesting post here, though. I’ve always been very anti-war, but I guess, who isn’t? Even in self defense, I don’t know if I would feel justified morally in taking someone’s life in defense of my own. War just seems to make these moral questions even fuzzier and I find it hard to believe a bunch of philosopher’s would just fall back to the Geneva Convention as a standard for how we “should” act. Is the Geneva Convention really the greatest thing smart people can come with in regards to these issues? Maybe so, I’m not the one to say so.
I think that the private killing is immoral because of the role of soldier and the scene where the act take place.
Whatever the soldiers do in the battlefield is considered as moral as they are either protecting or fighting for their own country.
However, it is not their roles to punish the enemy.
I think Amos has it right in the first response. Certainly, combatants cannot be allowed to kill non-combatants with impunity. It’s murder. Prisoners, whether they can be processed or not, deserve protection from harm while they are unarmed. Killing or abusing prisoners only incites mad determination in the enemy to avoid capture. They will fight to the death rather than surrender, and that will lead to additional, avoidable, casualties for each side. Witness what happened in the Pacific Theater of WWII when the Japanese refused to surrender. On islands like Tarawa (Betio), Iwo Jima and Saipan, US forces suffered incredible casualties to an enemy afraid to surrender. More Marines died on Iwo Jima in a few months than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in eight years. Japanese soldiers had been told terrible stories of what to expect in American captivity.
But read “Lone Survivor” by Marcus Luttrell. His SEAL team let live a small band of unarmed Afghan shepherds that had counter-detected (walked over) thier recon position. The shepherds alerted the local Taliban armed militia, and the SEAL team’s position was eventually overrun. The result was the loss of every member of the SEAL team but one, Luttrell. The point is, the decision to let the unarmed go free can be disastrous, too.
Short of saying there are no good solutions in war, the failure in the Iraq scenario presented here must lie with the soldiers’ leadership team. Having soldiers collect and present evidence to detain prisoners is clearly not the right answer. Detain them, and sort things out later, when emotions are not running so high. There has to be a level trust and respect extended to the common foot-soldier to do the right thing in difficult situations because we know they have been trained right. Training is a leadership responsibility, and letting your men fall prey to the temptations that lead to incidents like this one is a failure of it.
Justapedn: Luttrell’s error, as far as I can see, was not letting the shepherds live, as you first claim, but letting them go free, as you later affirm.
This thread is about whether killing prisoners is ever justified, not about whether taking prisoners is justified.
I come from India and I think a particular example from India would be of interest here. In the 1990s and early 2000s organized crime in cities like Mumbai was crippling daily life. The law courts in India are infamous for the time they take to try people and often many gangsters and criminals are released due to lack of evidence. In the mid to late nineties a trend began. Many gangsters were killed in “encounters”. Majority of the encounters were genuine but a significant number of them were fake in that the gangsters were killed even if they were surrendering or complying. This phenomenon primarily came out of frustration with the justice system. But the point is that these police officers taking part in the encounters became heroes and also the crime came down drastically. I wonder if people here think if those police officers acted morally.
P: It’s tragic that a society comes to the point where police officers who take the law into their hands are seen as heroes. Was that level of crime the result of social inequality? In any case, the situation which you describe always leads to abuses by police: innocent people killed by the police, scores settled by corrupt police officers (who are present in all societies), police officers who favor one band of criminals over another, etc.
Amos: The crime was not specifically a result of social inequality. As I said it was organized crime - extortion, etc. Then there were open gang wars in broad day light in crowded places. So, in some sense the encounters actually brought back normalcy to life and people in general were thankful. But what you say is right. Some police officers, years later, were found to have favored one gang over another and such things.
So, in the short term and the very long term (10 years and over) arresting would have been the right option over killing the gangsters. But in the “medium” term it was important to kill them in encounters to bring back normalcy. Any thoughts on what the right action is in such a case?
P: I wasn’t there, so it is very difficult for me to evaluate the situation. However, if we take it as a thought experiment, abstractly, in which gangs are out of control and the courts do not respond to the situation and we imagine a police force of uncorruptible good and wise men (like Dirty Harry, if you ever saw that movie, about a similar situation), then I would say that the police are justified in taking the law into their own hands.
P,
That is an excellent question. A case can be made for killing bad people, even when they surrender or are helpless, when the legal system cannot (or will not) deal with them adequately. For example, using a Locke style approach it could be claimed that the failure of the system restores the state of nature and hence people must enforce the moral law on their own.
Of course, there is the concern that such situations can be used as an excuse for violence. There is also the concern that this sort of thing would simply lead to vigilantism.
Yes, killing of prisoners is morally unacceptable.
On the other hand, however, in and after World War II for example, executions of non-uniformed suspects or collaborators were fairly common on all fronts. More civilians died than uniformed troops in or after the ‘Great War.’
In France estimations made by police in 1948 and 1952 counted as much as 6,000 executions of suspected collaborators before the Liberation, and 4,000 executions after.
So flash forward to today and due to a bad Army policy, there were bad consequences.
Should these men, however, have received such harsh 20/40 year sentences?
That, to me, is a real crime.
Once the hostilities begin, all questions of morality are determined by superior firepower.
Basicly, I agree w amos again.
Tho, I saw Lutrell give an acount of t incident, w t “shepards”, and I donot think there was any options but killings them or allowing them to go free. A sound proof, escape proof prison cell would have done t job, but as w most SEAL recon teams, they did not bring one w them.
I remember hearing him say that mostly all of them knew that t shepard kid who happened/snuck up upon them was spying on them, but that one or two of t team argued against killing t kid and so, sure enuf,almost imediatly after their position had been found, t attack occered. His acount of what followed is truely harrowing and true.
Anyway a case can be made anyway for both t instence w t prisoners that t American solders shot and w t situation in India that because t situation is screwed up and murky that it is even more imortant that t justice enforcment personal behave in a just manner. Otherwise there will be no incentive for t situation to improve or for anyone to attemt to make t rules any less murky.
If they behave badly because t rules are screwed up there will be less insentive for t rules to be improved upon.