|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I suppose this will be highly controversial, but this defence, offered at the Nuremburg war crimes trials, has always seemed to me to be valid in its way.
Private Soldier Hans "I am not a Nazi, but the bastards run the country, and I want to survive" Schmidt is ordered to kill an innocent civilian.
Scenario 1: Hans shoots the civilian. Later the order was deemed unlawful. Hans is executed for murder.
Scenario 2: Hans refuses. Someone else shoots the civilian. Hans is court martialled by his superiors for refusing to obey an order. Hans is shot.
We still have the same number of dead people, we just have different timescales.
Comments would be interesting.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dunfyn
|
 |
Getting started |
Registered: November 2005
Messages: 16
|
|
|
Well, technically there would be at least three people dead in the scenario 2. If later 'Private Hans' is facing a trial, so would be 'someone else,' and the number could go higher.
As for personal accountability, I agree with you there. It is almost impossible for a private soldier to form an unbiased opinion in described situation. In the time of war and even before the hostilities, the opposite side is generally demonized. Most likely than not a military order won't sound like 'get across that bridge and shoot a couple of innocent civillians.' When following orders, private soldiers believe, or made to believe, that they are fighting enemy.
For somebody higher in ranks 'just followed orders' defense still seems reasonable. After all when forced to choose between your own life (and possibly well-being of people related to you) and the life of unfriendly stranger, one is likely to opt for a former.
But ultimately, it is the winner of the conflict, who defines what was justifiable under the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I was hoping one might extrapolate the numbers in the unique case of Hans and his one civilian 
I was kind of thinking of the systematic slaughter of people of a certain type, though. Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, disabled people, black people, the Welsh, etc.
People who come to mind are those constrained to follow the orders of any despot.
"Hans, cross that bridge and shoot a couple of homosexuals that you will find tied up there!"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't all that difficult to be a good and moral person until we are faced with a situation like this. It's "hmmm... I shoot this innocent person and stay alive myself", or "I refuse and get myself shot". I wonder how many people would knowingly give up their own life for a perfect stranger? There is something inside of us that fights for self survival. And once you make the decision to shoot one, then the next 30 or 100 or 1000 probably will be easier. All I know is, I hope to God I never have to face making such a decision. Even if you opt for self survival you have a lifetime of memories, regrets, self incrimination and bad dreams ahead of you. Many war vets have drank themselves to death over these types of memories. And these atrocities are committed on both sides of any conflict. There is no perfect, moral side in any war. And wars tend to take perfectly normal, moral, upright individuals and turn them into cold blooded killers. Such is the nature of war. Just ask a vet.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Just a couple of thoughts.
Hans refusing the order (and this would be equally true of an allied soldier in a similar situation) doesn't achieve anything. If he has scruples, refuses, and gets himself shot, it simply serves to deter anyone else from doing the same thing. But suppose that he has more than scruples; he's a really good guy at heart, and would never intentionally, betray, say, a Jew or an allied serviceman he discovers in hiding. Getting himself shot means that he will not be able to offer others a chance of survival in the future. Whatever happens, the 'prisoner' ends up dead. That's just applying logic rather than morality but, realistically, the best outcome is the best option. I'm just grateful that I have never had to stand in Hans' shoes.
I'd say that in terms of punishable culpabitity the line shoud be somewhere between these two groups: on the one hand, those who had no discretion or, if they had discretion, acted with as much humanity as their discretion allowed and also respected the Geneva Convention; on the other hand those who were responsible for devising inhuman policies, or who exercised discretion to act in an inhuman way.
Incidentally, when I mentioned the Nuremberg Trials in another thread, I wasn't implying approval. At least we've moved on since then; the UN led International War Crimes Tribunals at The Hague are vastly preferable to the trial of the vanquished by the victor.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Your mention, plus Marc's not unreasonable adherence to the law of the relevant land inspired the question. By that I am not implying anything whatsoever about either of you. This is a separate set of thoughts.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Hans has three options.......
1. Shoot the victom
2. dont shoot the victom and become by default the second victom...
3. take the victom out back, fire into the ground, and both hans and the victom run like hell to Switzerland.
See, there always is a simple solution....
Each solution is correct.... Each carries the weight of a moral dilema....
The first being, follow orders and be a good loyal soldier.
The second, stand the moral ground and die for the cause.
The third, stand the moral ground and live to tell the tale.
Which is right? Only when you stand in Hans's shoes can the reality of the situation carry and weight. Let's hope none of us have to make the choice.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The challenge comes when option 3, attractive and inspired as it is, is barred to us.
Equally, Hans has no idea he is likely to be tried as a criminal and executed for war crimes (murder) if he shoots the hapless civilian. It's far safer to shoot now and ask questions later, if ever, than to go for option 3.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to be coming from a rather different place from most other posters on this!
I alone am responsible for my moral conduct - I therefore refuse to be told to shoot anyone, under any circumstances (if I weren't an absolute pacifist, I might shoot them on my own judgement).
If the consequences of that mean that I end up getting shot myself, I hope that I'd still have the guts to stand up for what I believe.
Frankly, any attempt to transfer moral responsibility away from the individual strikes me as only a more sophisticated version of the playground "so-and-so made me do it - it wasn't my fault". To do something because you fear the consequences of not doing it is not a moral decision, but a pragmatic one ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During a "modern" war large numbers of innocent civilians are killed by young aircraft pilots conducting their deadly raids, dropping napalm, chemical agents, bombs, or firing missiles, from a comfortable distance to their innocent civilian victims.
Does it make a difference whether Hans is carrying a gun, looking into the eyes of his victim, or is simply pressing a button to drop a bomb or fire a missile?
-
Attachment: vietnam.jpg
(Size: 3.43KB, Downloaded 360 times)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>To do something because you fear the consequences of not doing it is not a moral decision, but a pragmatic one...
Of course it is a pragmatic decision. You are faced with the likelyhood of your own death. It's easy to stand upon the moral high ground when when we are simply speculating about a scenario we don't feel likely to ever happen to us. But I wonder how many of us would actually maintain that moral fiber if actually thrust into that position?
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Schroder wrote:
> It's easy to stand upon the moral high ground when when we are simply speculating about a scenario we don't feel likely to ever happen to us. But I wonder how many of us would actually maintain that moral fiber if actually thrust into that position?
Probably a minority of people ... but perhaps quite a large minority. In less extreme circumstances, people do "whistle-blow", resign jobs (with no alternatives in mind) over points of principle, refuse life-saving medical treatment on grounds of religion, refuse to fight back if physically attacked, and so forth. There is a streak of principle in most people, which can come out in the most unexpected circumstances.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Ok shoot him.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 19:48] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
It probably makes no eventual difference. However I was looking at a specific and personal dilemma rather than a generic one.
Currently Hans Schmidt's dilemma comes under the accepted category of "War Crime", whereas a missile firing does not. While we could argue that the latter also ought to, and that war should be conducted by ranks men in nice uniforms with pikes and muskets without civilian involvement, that is unlikely to happen.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
The spectrum of responses in this thread is interesting, but there seems to be a reluctance to get to grips with the moral issue Timmy posed.
Let's get the admissions over first. I am as guilty as anyone here - probably more guilty than most - of meandering away from the point. Other than for the logical propositions of this post, I do not intend to imply any criticism of others for doing what I do myself.
If we address the specific scenario Timmy has postulated, there seem to me to be a couple of fairly clear inferences. First, because Hans professes that he is not a Nazi, the setting must be presumed to be somewhere in a Nazi-controlled area of the European mainland or North Africa during the course of World War Two. Secondly, simply because the scenario is posted as a moral conundrum, we must assume that Timmy has said all that there is to be said; in other words, Hans is given the order to shoot a civilian in cold blood (that must be the case if the act is to be a war crime) and the superior officer giving the order is physically present to ensure that the order is carried out.
So, with all genuine respect and without criticism -
Marc's third option, attractive and ingenious though it is, must be disqualified. There is no 'round the back'. And, of course - as was portrayed chillingly (and despite cinematographic licence elsewhere, pretty much accurately) in the film 'The Great Escape' - hightailing it for Switzerland was a hugely hazardous and generally fatal option.
Tor is disqualified, too. His point is entirely valid in terms of moral culpability, but pushing the firing button in a military aircraft and killing five hundred civilians in a 'legitimate' military exercise is not a war crime. Killing one civilian face to face, in cold blood, is a war crime. Don't shoot me; I'm only the messenger!
NW is also disqualified because, as a committed pacifist, he would be a conscientious objector, and so could never be faced by the dilemma. That implies no criticism of NW; I have known and respected his views for a long time. Indeed, the only thing that separates us is my reluctance to rule out violence as an option in extreme circumstances.
Finally, I think that Michael must also be disqualified, because at the time and place in question legality simply wasn't an issue. Despite Nazi extremism, ordinary Germans still - with absolute justification - were resentful of their treatment, and that of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, after World War One. Hitler's mantra of 'lebensraum' for ethnic german-speakers was seen as the restoration of natural justice. So ordinary Germans, without Nazi sympathies, felt that their cause was just and were driven by a sense of patriotism to join the Army. In an exact reflection of such attitudes, Brits had flocked to enlist because they saw Germany as a threat to the British way of life (which, I admit, they themselves would shortly afterwards all but destroy). But ordinary, good men on both sides never for one moment saw themselves as contracted murderers - they saw themselves as defenders of what they held dear.
So (coughs deferentially!) that leaves Dunfyn, Paul Schroeder and myself - none of whom have presumed to know the answer.
Anyone else feel like a try, sticking to the rules I've suggested? Or, failing that, anyone fancy shooting me down in flames?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have hesitated for a very long while, asking myself whether I really had anything worth while to contribute to this thread. The question Timmy has raised is agonizing, and hopefully, none of us in this forum will ever be put in a situation where we have to make such a decision.
My only purpose here is to offer some thoughts from my own tradition, Judaism. I honestly cannot say whether these thoughts are of practical value, but they do indicate, I think, a philosophical trend.
First of all, in Judaism every human life is considered to be of infinite value. Therefore, no life is "more important" than any other. The only claim we can make is that we must do everything we are permitted to do to remain alive. That said, What are we permitted and what are we not permitted to do?
The following incident is related in the Talmud. It would have happened about 1700 years ago. A man approached a very famous rabbi with an acute dilemma: bandits were threatening him that if he did not kill a certain person they would kill him. The rabbi's response was: "You must permit yourself to be killed. Who told you that your blood is redder than his?"
During the Holocaust Rabbi Ephraim Oshry was asked by another inmate whether he could substitute his son - an budding genius - for another. (The Nazis were going to choose victims by height.) Rabbi Oshry, with tears in his eyes, explained that such a substitution could not be made because "you cannot eliminate one life in order to save another".
There is only one excuse in Judaism for one private individual taking the life of another: self-defence. The Talmud says that "If someone is actively threatening to kill you, kill him first!"
If you have read this far please accept my apologies: I really don;t know how practical these examples are in relation to Timmy's question.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I would still argue that on a basis of simple mathematics there may be times when the sacrifice of a single life may lead to the preservation of many lives, and presumably (if your God grants free will) we are left with the moral responsibility for resolving that issue.
Incidentally, lest anyone should think otherwise, my complaint about Marc's reference to circumcision was based solely upon the premise that the point was introduced solely to be offensive; I do, in fact, emphatically disapprove of the practice. Circumcision is practised by several religions but - approaching this from the Christian tradition - I am wholly unable to comprehend why a God who - allegedly - creates us in his own image should thereupon demand that children be mutilated. But that's only an agnostic logicians view.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Of course Cossie, you must be right, after all you are Cossie.....
By default that means that my opinion must be invalid..... because you say so.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
But you are a philosopher. Why not philosophise?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Hans could also have been Kosovan, Iraqi, Zimbabwean. I posed him as a non-Nazi German because it is an instantly recognisable scenario. Hans could equally be a non redneck in a redneck community being made to go a little bit further than planting a flaming lower case T in front of a house.
He could be a kid in s street gang whose initiation rite is that he shoots a random stranger.
All of these scenarios, while not immediately apparent to be the same as Hans's dilemma, are rooted in it. "Solve" Hans's dilemma and we "solve" the rest.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
What's the point of trying.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR, I find it very interesting that although I come from a very different religious perspective (vaguely towards the Quaker end of doubting Christian), I'm in almost complete agreement with the position you describe.
I don't actually consider killing another human being in self-defense to an actual, immediate and physically present danger to be wrong - it's just something that I personally wouldn't do. But I would not condemn those who would.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
If it's to be a pure 'moral conundrum', you have to stick with the scenario in which Hans has some reasonable justification for believing in the wider conflict, but a moral objection to the way in which it is conducted.
So [apart from a brief interlude in (I think) 2004, when there was an outbreak of anti-Serbian vigilante activity] Hans can't be Kosovan, because the Albanian Muslim majority in Kosovo are victims rather than opressors; the Serbs who live in Kosovo see themselves as Serb, not Kosovan. Nor can he be Iraqi, unless he is an Al-Quaeda fighter, in which case it's difficult to see how he can oppose the modus operandi of Al-Quaeda, since membership of that organisation necessarily involves acceptance of the premise that indiscriminate killing is a legitimate means of achieving domination.
Zimbabwean is a possibility, if he's a member of the army opposed to Mugabe's regime - but it does beg the question of whether anyone with Hans-type reservations would ever consider joining that army.
Redneck is valid, insofar as there are recorded instances of young family members being drawn into Klan activity against their will - but on the historical evidence I've read (and I admit that my reading on the subject isn't comprehensive) rejection might well exclude 'Hans' from the community, but it wouldn't - except in the most extreme circumstances - cost him his life. (Btw - hands up those who thought 'Mississippi Burning' was a great - and, for the US, a very courageous - film. And is there anyone alive who doesn't place Gene Hackman among the acting greats?)
Street Gang? Naa - he'd have heard of the initiation rite and if he really was a Hans-clone heed pretend he was a nerd who didn't want to join anyybody in anything.
So - I reckon (though you're entitled to disagree) that if you change the scenario you subtly change the question - and if you do that then, as the concept of legal precedent clearly shows, it's no longer true that solving one scenario helps to solve the others.
But, as ever, feel free to argue otherwise!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, Michael.
The immoral act is putting yourself in the position of having to obey an order whether it is right or wrong. That is why it is impossible to be moral and in the armed forces or even maybe in the police. Some laws are immoral and enforcing them is immoral too. In fact all laws are amoral. There is nothing about any law that says you OUGHT to obey it - only that you MUST obey it and THIS will happen to you if you get caught.
Of course if you are required by law to serve in the forces then you may be unable to help being immoral. I did (compulsory) national service from 1953-1955. I did it in the Navy which was a much more humane service than the other two because the officers had to live on the same ships as the seamen. And most of the time I was in the navy I was breaking the law against homosexual acts as often as I could find someone to help me break it.
I think the (supposed) laws of god are often more immoral than the laws of man; they are an abomination!
But there can be no general answer to Timmy's question. Sometimes one ought to shoot the officer giving the command. Naval officers that were too unpleasant sometimes fell overboard in the night and were never heard of again.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Al Quaeda in Iraq? Surely not.
The improperly elected President Bush says that Al Quaeda is in Iraq. His generals who are not at liberty to disagree go along with it. The news services are bamboozled into using his terminology.
There isn't the smallest shred of evidence to support this contention. All the evidence is that Saddam Hussein did not get on with Al Quaeda and that the organisation had not spread to Iraq. Where is the evidence that a spread has occurred since then? There isn't any.
This sort of talk is like our own government - if they want to put you in prison for 28 days without just cause or trial, all they have to do is say you are a suspected terrorist. Not even the USA can do that - unless they can catch you and by 'extraordinary rendition' take you to Gauntanamo, where no laws apply.
And every civilian shot or bombed in Iraq is a suspected terrorist even our men killed by 'friendly' fire.
Cossie, my friend, I think you need some lessons in Newspeak.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heartily agree with Cossie about circumcision. Of course it was 'justified' by the medical profession in England as a hygenic thing to do. That was, of course, completely false, except in a very few rare cases.
I can't see how anyone can fail to see that it is genital mutilation.
Presumably if there were no holy books and no priests there would be no reason (but for tradition) to do it any more.
How can we do away with tradition?
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I think we need to move circumcision to a new thread, chaps.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
First of all, I accept entirely that Al Quaeda was not involved in Iraq in the pre-invasion period - but the fighting (as opposed to government-sponsored killings) began AFTER the invasion.
I've admitted elsewhere that, in retrospect, I was naive to believe the 'intelligence' about weapons of mass destruction, but THAT was the reason put forward in the UK to justify invasion. Our quality press (or at least the papers I usually read) didn't sign up to Bush's 'Axis of Evil' blandishments; on the contrary they tended to make fun of him. In particular, there was derision of his arrogant 'If you're not for us, you're against us' pronouncement. Regardless of the fact that we were subsequently shown to have been naive, I - and, I'd suggest, the vast majority of those who initially approved of the invasion - believed that there was a real threat to the ever-precarious stability of the Middle East, perhaps especially to the United Arab Emirates, a group of non-extremist, secular Muslim states whose independednce was (and still is) essential to the economy of Europe. I did not think for a moment that the invasion was to fight Al-Quaeda.
But Al-Quaeda exists, and regardless of the speculative, ill-researched counter-theories which surface on the internet because they cannot find houseroom elsewhere, it is plain that it is an Arab-led Islamic fundamentalist group dedicated to Islamic domination, that it is efficiently organised and funded, and that it attracts significant support throughout the Muslim community, even here in the United Kingdom. Given its objectives and resources, it seems inconceivable that it would NOT seek to take advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq; indeed some of the criticism from senior British military personnel of the apparent lack of any coherent US plan for the post-invasion period has focused specifically upon failure to anticipate this inevitability. Of course there would be tensions between Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd groups, but it was clearly very advantageous to Al-Quaeda to maximise these tensions. And what else would account for the well-documented presence in Iraq of so many non-Iraqi Islamic activists, some of whom freely acknowledge Al-Quaeda associations?
Since you specifically mention Bush in such strong terms, I wonder if you asre falling into the trap of reverse-rhetoric, assuming automatically that everything he says is simply political deceit? If so, take comfort from the fact that I'm not contending that you are wrong to do so. He considered, before the invasion, that Al-Quaeda was a threat in Iraq. He may or may not have been sincere in his belief, but it seems pretty clear that the belief was not shared by his administration, as there seems to have been no strategy to address an Al-Quaeda presence then, nor to anticipate Al-Quaeda infiltration in the future. So what he said WAS wrong, but Al-Quaeda is certainly there now. The best hope for Iraq is that war-weariness among the civilian population will severely erode the level of Al-Quaeda influence.
As regards your views about extended detention of terrorist suspects before charge, I think that it's all too easy to become emotive about erosion of civil liberties and to overlook the realities of the situation. In these technological days, the gathering of evidence is increasingly difficult and, in the case of terrorism, may well involve an international dimension. Given that the initial arrest follows a tip-off from an inside source, or a period of direct observation, the police may have very strong and real grounds for suspicion, but a suspect cannot be charged simply because his actions are suspicious; if the police can't do better than that he would very likely be discharged on his first Court appearance. But gathering evidence, particularly from overseas or from analysis of computer usage, is a slow process, and I have no difficulty in believing that 28 days might in some cases be insufficient.
What I believe we ought to be demanding is a fair an proper structure of controls to ensure that such a system is not abused. If, for example, the police were required to present evidence for extension of detention without charge before a High Court Judge at seven-day intervals, each time demonstrating not only that further investigation was justified, but that there previous enquiries had been pursued with due urgency, I would be at least partially satisfied. If these hearings were properly recorded, and transcripts were made available to the defendant's lawyers if the case were dropped, or otherwise after it had been finally decided, I think I'd be content; the latter provision would ensure that all concerned were obliged to follow the rules. It seems to me to be a question of balance; only a tiny proportion of the UK population presents a threat, but tiny is not negligible, and we should take proper and reasonable account of the possibility of terrorist attack.
My problem is that at a pragmatic, rather than a theoretical level, I have little regard for either the leadership or the prevalent ethic of the British Police Force. Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, presided over a Force whose catastrophic incompetence through a whole series of errors and mistakes - some of which were absolutely incomprehensible - led to the shooting of a wholly innocent man at Stockwell Tube Station in 2005. Now normally I wouldn't call for the resignation of the man at the top unless there was reasonable evidence that he knew, or might reasonably have suspected what happened. But twentyfour hours after the killing he was still upbeat about 'a job well done'. In the days following the killing, police spokesmen blatantly lied about how the victim has acted and how he had been dressed. He was wearing only light clothing - can you reasonably believe that, a full day later, Blair was unaware that the victim had NOT been carrying a bomb? The victim was alleged to be 'of Middle-Eastern appearance'; in fact, he looked precisely what he was - South American Hispanic. It will no doubt come as a surprise to the average Brazilian to learn that he is of Middle Eastern appearance! The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) reacted rapidly, but Blair refused them access to the scene of the shooting, and even approached the government to request a suspension of the IPCC investigation on the grounds of public security at a time by which he must have known that his officers had killed an innocent man. In the IPPC investigation and the legal enquiries which followed, the Metropolitan Police deliberately sought to blacken the victim's character, drawing attention to the fact that he was an illegal immigrant and that there were traces of prohibited drugs in his bloodstream - both factors being patently irrelevant to the circumstances in which he was killed and thus entirely irrelevant as evidence. And - to my mind most damning of all - in evidence to the IPPC enquiry, ALL the police officers present (none of whom were in uniform) claimed that they had identified themselves loudly before the shooting. Not one of the considerably larger number of civilians in the tube car had any recollection of ANY of the police officers identifying themselves. It seems inescapable that to achieve such complete disagreement one group or other had been coached - and which group do YOU think it was? Despite all this, Blair, who has never given anything resembling a sincere apology for the actions of his Force, is still in the job, and enjoys considerable political support. I try to be open-minded, but I couldn't possibly trust Blair again, and I don't see how he can command popular respect - nor can the Metropolitan Police Force.
Back in 2005, I strenuously argued in this forum against speculative criticism of the police when no hard evidence was available. I suppose the extended digression in this post is to demonstrate that, whilst don't think I was wrong to argue against speculation, now that evidence is in the public domain I fully concur in condemning the police action.
I am proud of the UK institutional systems which have led to public release of all the evidence in this sorry case, including emphatic criticism of the role of Sir Ian Blair. I am deeply ashamed of the fact that he is still in office and still apparently unrepentant.
So, to end by grasping a passing shred of relevance, the fact that I approve in theory of a political solution doesn't mean for a moment that I believe that it will work in pracice without a full armoury of safeguards. But we've got to start somewhere, haven't we?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie, you are just too nice, sometimes!
>
> What I believe we ought to be demanding is a fair an proper structure of controls to ensure that such a system is not abused. If, for example, the police were required to present evidence for extension of detention without charge before a High Court Judge at seven-day intervals, each time demonstrating not only that further investigation was justified, but that there previous enquiries had been pursued with due urgency, I would be at least partially satisfied. If these hearings were properly recorded, and transcripts were made available to the defendant's lawyers if the case were dropped, or otherwise after it had been finally decided, I think I'd be content; the latter provision would ensure that all concerned were obliged to follow the rules.
I think you greatly underestimate the extent to which the police are seen as just another gang of bullies who will get away with whatever they can. The urban excluded are no strangers to gang culture, and think in these terms ... not does that imply that the police are seen as "wrong" - loyalty to the group at the expense of anything else is widely seen as admirable.
I certainly wouldn't be happy with your suggestions. I'd want a complete change of rules that no member of the police and security forces were allowed to resign when under investigation, I'd want a greatly beefed-up charge of "perverting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice" which would automatically require investigation (like murder and sex abuse allegations do) - I think the de Menezes case shows the need for one! I'd like automatic compensation for loss of wages, reputation, etc for all those held for longer than 14 days but not subsequently charged and found guilty. I would like ANY wrongdoing by the police & security forces to invalidate any case they might bring - simply to exclude evidence that can be proved to be wrongfully obtained (including evidence obtained by torture)is not enough.
But most of all, I'd like a complete change of culture: at present, we seem to be labouring under the delusion that prosecuting police and sacking them undermines public trust in the force. So we let them get away with shooting innocent people, lies, dangerous driving for no good reason, racial and homophobic abuse, etc. This can't possibly restore faith in the police - nearly everyone I know has some first-hand experience of small-but-utterly-poisonous minority of bad coppers, and of the prevalent culture of cover-up.
The only possible way forward is a "zero tolerance" approach: any member of the police or security forces found guilty of an offence should automatically receive a real sentence rather than being let off with a warning, and should be sacked from the Force.
If we do this, for a decade or two, we might just restore trust in the police and security forces to the point where it would not be counter-productive to allow an increase in the time permitted for detention without charge.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I wasn't so much trying to be too nice as becoming conscious of the length of the meandering post! Hovever, in principle I believe that it's better to be moderate and progress slowly than to ask for the moon and get nothing; hence I stuck to the specific issue of a review system to prevent misuse of extended detention without charge.
You say: "I think you greatly underestimate the extent to which the police are seen as just another gang of bullies who will get away with whatever they can. The urban excluded are no strangers to gang culture, and think in these terms ... not does that imply that the police are seen as "wrong" - loyalty to the group at the expense of anything else is widely seen as admirable."
I don't think I want to get into a deep discussion about this; clearly the problem is worse in London than in my part of the North-East. I'm not happy with the term 'urban excluded'; it presupposes that someone else is responsible for the exclusion. I accept that there is a great deal wrong with our social support structures; probably the greatest single cause is the endemic failure of UK governments of whatever political complexion to commit to the funding of long-term strategies. There's far too much tinkering, not only with the available budget but also by introducing politically motivated changes and paying too much attention to so-called 'experts' with fashionable views. But I'd argue that the second-greatest single cause is inadequate parenting by parents who were themselves inadequately parented, and to a significant degree that is a result of undue complacency in the early years of the welfare state. And then, of course, there's alienation - not by any means the same thing as exclusion. Catching benefit cheats is a higher priority than catching tax evaders; even the terminology encourages alienation - why is only one group described as cheats? Local authorities also bear much of the blame; for example, in the Tyneside area a few weeks ago a young child was killed when trespassing on the railway to retrieve a football. He had been playing in an establised play area within a council estate and adjacent to the railway. The railway was fenced off, but the fence was neither high enough nor sufficiently secure. So does the local authority construct a new fence, adequate for the purpose? No. It closes the play area. More alienation! It's a wide and hugely complex issue, but I don't think the blame can easily be attributed, everyone bears a share.
You go on to say: "I certainly wouldn't be happy with your suggestions. I'd want":
I'll answer each 'want' separately.
"... a complete change of rules, so that no member of the police and security forces was allowed to resign when under investigation ..."
I agree in principle, but your bald statement is too simplistic. It's actually a complex area, but what matters is that a resignation should not result in termination of an investigation, nor release the person under investigation from any obligations imposed by the former contract of employment for so long as the invstigation continues, nor impede the bringing of any relevant charges, nor prevent the formal substitution of dismissal for resignation as the reason for cessation of employment. If you agree with that, then I agree with you!
"... a greatly beefed-up charge of "perverting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice" which would automatically require investigation (like murder and sex abuse allegations do) - I think the de Menezes case shows the need for one!"
Yes. After the Stockwell affair, no-one could reasonably disagree with that.
"... automatic compensation for loss of wages, reputation, etc for all those held for longer than 14 days but not subsequently charged and found guilty."
I'd be happy with the establishment of a wholly independent review body to consider such claims; I don't think compensation should be automatic.
"... ANY wrongdoing by the police & security forces to invalidate any case they might bring - simply to exclude evidence that can be proved to be wrongfully obtained (including evidence obtained by torture) is not enough."
No, absolutely not. Corrupt as the police may sometimes be, I see neither logic nor justification for dismissal on a technicality. It's obviously (at least to my mind) a question of degree. None of us are infallible, and I would not expect the police to achieve a standard I don't aspire to myself. A blanket provision would inevitably lead to cases being dismissed for simple errors which were neither culpable nor significant.
"... but, most of all, I'd like a complete change of culture: at present, we seem to be labouring under the delusion that prosecuting police and sacking them undermines public trust in the force. So we let them get away with shooting innocent people, lies, dangerous driving for no good reason, racial and homophobic abuse, etc. This can't possibly restore faith in the police - nearly everyone I know has some first-hand experience of small-but-utterly-poisonous minority of bad coppers, and of the prevalent culture of cover-up."
Well, it seems that the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London labour under that delusion, but you don't, and I don't - so if we each convince about 30 million others, we'll be home and dry! Seriously, I do very much agree with you on this point. I suppose there is some sort of precedent in the Vice Squad scandals of around 35 years ago; I was too remote from the affair to know much about it. What happened to the senior officers involved, and what was the public reaction at that time?
"... The only possible way forward is a "zero tolerance" approach: any member of the police or security forces found guilty of an offence should automatically receive a real sentence rather than being let off with a warning, and should be sacked from the Force."
I'll have no truck with 'zero tolerance' in any way, shape or form. Each case should be judged on its merits, though I'd agree that conviction should result in dismissal, simply because it is impossible to entrust the duty of upholding the law to anyone who is prepared to break it when it suits his convenience. Certainly, I agree that when a potential offence has been committed the decision to proceed should be taken out of the hands of the police; for example, police drivers accused of driving or parking offences should be dealt with under the normal court system.
"... If we do this, for a decade or two, we might just restore trust in the police and security forces to the point where it would not be counter-productive to allow an increase in the time permitted for detention without charge."
Two wrongs never, ever amount to a right. There are real, logical and - I would argue - compelling reasons to allow extended detention without charge now. Prevailing circumstances demand it, for the reasons given in my previous post. I agree absolutely that the discretion should not be given to the police. but I'm fairly comfortable with the High Court judiciary, who have demonstrated many times that they are well aware of misdemeanours by the police.
Yes, our police force is open to valid criticism on many fronts, but though the 'bad pennies', like the girl with a curl, are not merely bad but horrid, they are a minortity even if some occupy senior positions. If you attack the whole institution, rather than the specific wrongs, you simply destroy morale and inhibit recruitment - and, inevitably, things get worse, not better.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
