bodypilot90 0 #1 May 11, 2004 ok using this example, you be the judge. In a line unit on patrol a tank commander opens fire with a 50 cal machine gun on a unarmed group of 30 villagers. Are the people up the chain of command, say 4 or 5 levels as guilty of the war crime as the tank commander. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 May 11, 2004 Not enough information in your scenario to tell.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #3 May 11, 2004 How the fuck could anyone who did not pull the trigger AND did not give orders to pull the trigger be guilty of the crime? It's the same anywhere: supervisors of others cannot be in full control of their subordinates' every action. They can be responsible only for how they handle dealing with those actions after the fact. I have always disagreed with the principle of supervisors biting the bullet when a subordinate does something that is not official policy, could not be foreseen, and could not be prevented. This asks (demands) that the supervisor be omniscient and omnipresent. It's impossible. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 May 11, 2004 Quote How the fuck could anyone who did not pull the trigger AND did not give orders to pull the trigger be guilty of the crime? If they gave the order.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #5 May 11, 2004 QuoteQuote How the fuck could anyone who did not pull the trigger AND did not give orders to pull the trigger be guilty of the crime? If they gave the order. quade, go back and reread your post. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 May 11, 2004 My point is that jeffery's responce appears to assume that in the scenario the superior had no knowledge of nor gave the order. The information given in the poll question doesn't state either way.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #7 May 11, 2004 QuoteMy point is that jeffery's responce appears to assume that in the scenario the superior had no knowledge of nor gave the order. The information given in the poll question doesn't state either way. I took the poll question to mean that orders from the superiors were not involved, and I stipulated in my response that if they did not give such orders then I thought they were not to blame.. I don't think the question was as ambiguous as you say (regarding whether orders were given). --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #8 May 11, 2004 tank commander acted on his own with out orders to fire. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
supervole 0 #9 May 11, 2004 How did a tank comander that would fire upon unarmed villagers without orders or reason get in control of the tank? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #10 May 11, 2004 Quotetank commander acted on his own with out orders to fire. This makes your poll moot and opinions become irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scratch 0 #11 May 11, 2004 QuoteI have always disagreed with the principle of supervisors biting the bullet when a subordinate does something that is not official policy, could not be foreseen, and could not be prevented. This asks (demands) that the supervisor be omniscient and omnipresent. It's impossible. The job of a supervisor is to supervise. If a subordinate gets out of hand he/she has not done their job. The supervisor need not be omniscient or omnipresent. It is impossible but the supervisor need to be respected. If you have a well trained, well supervised and dedicated team shit rarely, if ever happens. It is up to the supervisor to ensure this is the case. A crappy, ill disciplined, unmotivated team is the fault of the supervisor and the blame lies there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,498 #12 May 11, 2004 Quotetank commander acted on his own with out orders to fire. But was it unofficial policy to open fire on civilians? Had this kind of thing happened before and what had the superiors done in that case? Or was this a case of a lone soldier within an otherwise civilised army?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #13 May 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteI have always disagreed with the principle of supervisors biting the bullet when a subordinate does something that is not official policy, could not be foreseen, and could not be prevented. This asks (demands) that the supervisor be omniscient and omnipresent. It's impossible. The job of a supervisor is to supervise. If a subordinate gets out of hand he/she has not done their job. The supervisor need not be omniscient or omnipresent. It is impossible but the supervisor need to be respected. If you have a well trained, well supervised and dedicated team shit rarely, if ever happens. It is up to the supervisor to ensure this is the case. A crappy, ill disciplined, unmotivated team is the fault of the supervisor and the blame lies there. Given the little information supplied, we do not know anything about the (hypothetical) training or lack thereof that this (hypothetical) tank commander and crew received. For all we know the tank commander in this scenario is a much decorated veteran who simply 'did not know' that what he was doing was wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scratch 0 #14 May 11, 2004 Quotesimply 'did not know' that what he was doing was wrong. If it was wrong then it was his superiors job to make sure he knew. I am not saying that a superior can cover for everything but it does not absolve him of the responsibility. Saying "I did not know they were doing that" when it is you job to know is a crappy excuse. As a supervisor of any type. If you find youself in that situation you make sure that heads roll and then go take your medicine WITHOUT blaming your subordinates. That way, if you survive and if your boss has any brains you should. You will return to your team and have their respect. If you did know and did nothing then there is no way out. Expect to be looking for other employment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #15 May 11, 2004 QuoteQuotesimply 'did not know' that what he was doing was wrong. If it was wrong then it was his superiors job to make sure he knew. I guess you missed the tongue-in-cheek () reference to someone else being discussed at length on this forum because he claimed that 'he did not know' what he was doing was wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scratch 0 #16 May 11, 2004 I just get annoyed when the people in charge fuck up and then blame the subordinate for following through. I am not saying the subordinate is innocent but there is a chain of command for a reason. That reason is to ensure that when orders get issued those orders get followed. The fact that in this case the breakdown in the chain of command was known and nothing other than opening an enquiry was done is beyond the pale. So while people shuffle paper and interview and run for cover the abuse carries on.....niiiiice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #17 May 11, 2004 Obviously you're referencing John Kerry and what he admitted to in Vietnam. What you're not including in your scenario are the ROE issued during that time regarding free fire zones and classification of civilians as enemy combatants if they appeared to be aiding the Viet Cong. So, to answer your poll. Is it wrong to gun down villagers with a a 50 cal? Absolutely, and anyone should know that. Is it wrong to gun down enemy combatants? Absolutely not. Is it wrong to classify villagers as enemy combatants and have free fire zones based on suspicion? According to Geneva Convention, yes. But not according to his superiors or peers. And he wasn't aware that classification was wrong until afterward. There's a big difference between a soldier gunning down civilians and a soldier gunning down what he has determined to be enemy combatants based on the illegal orders of his superiors. No, he's not blameless, but there's a big difference. And when he got home, he tried to stop it from happening any more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andrewstewart 0 #18 May 11, 2004 Along similar lines to your scenario: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/apache_hit.mpg Can someone clarify for me that killing a wounded man is considered standard practice by the US army (or not)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #19 April 21, 2006 anyone who uses or orders the use of depleted uranium(WMDitself) is a war criminalwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #20 April 21, 2006 > In a line unit on patrol a tank commander opens fire with a 50 cal machine gun on a unarmed group of 30 villagers. As Clint Estwood (A man's man) would say, "they should have armed themselves." Therefore the 30 villagers are criminally negligent for thinking they could take on a guy armed with a .50 cal machine gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #21 April 21, 2006 Quoteok using this example, you be the judge. In a line unit on patrol a tank commander opens fire with a 50 cal machine gun on a unarmed group of 30 villagers. Are the people up the chain of command, say 4 or 5 levels as guilty of the war crime as the tank commander. Did this actually happen? Otherwise, "what if a frog bumped his ass a-hoppin?" Who cares? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #22 April 21, 2006 Wow. Just read down some and saw your post. Thought you were dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #23 April 21, 2006 Cough... did you see the date of Kevs post ...cough N.B there have been a lot of old posts bumped here recently.. wierd (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #24 April 21, 2006 QuoteCough... did you see the date of Kevs post ...cough N.B there have been a lot of old posts bumped here recently.. wierd MAN!!! I fell right for that one. A.D.D. kicking my ass right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
