Dealing with ethical and/or legal issues in operations

[vonGarvin]

What are you saying? Are you saying that other countries in the world have different morals than us? If you are then thank you for proving my original point which, some seemed to have missed. The person originally said in what world can you do such a thing. Well, guess what it may not just be our country that doesn't do it but a lot of the world DOES do it.

Save your thanks.  I am referring to LAWS and not MORALS.  There is a huge gap/void between them.  In short, "laws" are agreed upon by a society/state and then enforced by that society/state.  Morals, ethical codes, etc, are a whole different bowl of noodles. 

I'm pointing out the illogical argument that asserts that if act (a) is legal "somewhere", then it's acceptable to act in that manner. 

 

[vonGarvin]

You're a section commander leading your section in battle against an enemy force. You are in a village clearing small buildings. 

You enter a room and find one of your soldiers with his rifle in his hand, barrel smoking.  In front of him is a dead enemy soldier, clearly shot by your man. The enemy soldiers AK47 is leaning up against a wall on the otherside of the room clearly out of reach.
Laying on the floor is a dead middle age woman with a gunshot wound in her head, looks like an AK bullet.  On the floor beside her is her  young teenage girl who was clearly being raped and then dies herself from a gunshot would, inflicted by the enemy soldier previously.

Question was, what do you do. Report your soldier to your chain of command for the shooting of the unarmed soldier or forget what you saw. As far as you're concerned the enemy soldier was shot while reaching for his gun.

I would ask the soldier "WTF?"  From what I see, it looks like the enemy soldier had been committing aggravated assault, and the soldier took the only steps available at the time to stop it.  So, not "ratting him out", but trying to find the truth: eg: what happened.  If it turns out that the man was the son of the middle aged woman, and older brother of the dead girl, and had in fact just come into the room when the soldier shot him, or whatever.  But the first act is to find out what happened.  IMHO.

 

[Good2Golf]

^ concur.

That people immediately think 'murder' because the dead man's AK-47 is out of reach, does not consider that a combatant trained in close-combat/unarmed combat can be just as lethal to a soldier entering a room, no matter how far an AK-47 may be from the man.  Knife?  Hands?  Maybe a close-quarter snap shot from the soldier's weapon was the quickest action for the soldier's own defence, and the correct action to take.  There is always much in the details provided in the specific scenario, but in this one, initially asking the soldier before jumping to conclusions is the appropriate action -- subsequent action would follow.  People who say "asking for more info" is an ethical copp-out are perhaps seeing things a bit more black and white.

Me own two cents,
G2G

 

[dogger1936]

I'd ask him wtf he hasnt called room clear , cover him to check out the badger and woman/ child for vitals. Provide aid where needed and inform higher and carry on. There would be time for debreifs later/AAR. Unfortunately people in these ethical class's seem to forget there usually isnt time/ security to sit around and talk at the time. No time outs can be called.  I would take trust in my troops that they did the right thing (guy was charging at me sarge etc). Give him praise and carry on.

Edit to add the guy would quickly have to spout off what the hell happened anyway. I.E The ****** charged me/ reached for his gun" Call higher inform.

 

[kincanucks]

You shouldn't talk as if you've exerienced the same thing as 2nd Lt. Semrau. It just makes you look foolish. Oh, hey! Look it's illegal around the world. Are you saying you've been in the same experience? Not to mention your taking things out of context and assuming things about a situation you have no idea about. For all you know this person could have been missing half a torso and still alive (if you can't tell what exaggeraton is then that's just hilarious).

EDIT: To clarify for those who are still misunderstanding: IT HAPPENS around the world. No one said international law agrees with it.

Seriously WTF are you going on about? Now we are suddenly in a dick measuring contest?  WTF is your background? Your argument is flawed.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'd ask him wtf he hasnt called room clear , cover him to check out the badger and woman/ child for vitals.

(slight tangent)
Although I know what is taught on the UOIC, please refer to "people in the battlespace" as friendly, enemy, non-combatants, PWs, detainees, etc. 
(/slight tangent)

There would be time for debreifs later/AAR. Unfortunately people in these ethical class's seem to forget there usually isnt time/ security to sit around and talk at the time. No time outs can be called.  I would take trust in my troops that they did the right thing (guy was charging at me sarge etc). Give him praise and carry on.

Edit to add the guy would quickly have to spout off what the hell happened anyway. I.E The ****** charged me/ reached for his gun" Call higher inform.

Agreed.  No time outs, ensure the safety/security of the situation, and when able (after calling consolidation, or as you dudes say, "out out out", but only in a building... ), attempt to find out what happened.  Just with any situation.

 

[dogger1936]

(slight tangent)
Although I know what is taught on the UOIC, please refer to "people in the battlespace" as friendly, enemy, non-combatants, PWs, detainees, etc. 
(/slight tangent)
Agreed.  No time outs, ensure the safety/security of the situation, and when able (after calling consolidation, or as you dudes say, "out out out", but only in a building... ), attempt to find out what happened.  Just with any situation.

Ahh but you knew what the heck I was talking about back in the TOC either way! I've also called in contact reports using "I got 3!" My radio procedure dissapears under contact.  :nod:

 

[ArmyRick]

I have had more time to think about it and right now am in a heated dispute via PM with another forum member over this issue. Its between me and him, so don't ask for names.

However I want to point out one thing, for those that feel what Semrau did was absolutely wrong, why was he not convicted of murder? There is an answer and it was not clear cut and dry. Period. For those that refer to the Army ethics program scenarios, there is a reason we do those situations and discuss them (Am I qualified a unit ethics coordinator) because situations are not always clear cut.

The final thing I really want to get off my chest. The comparison between Clayton Matchee and 2Lt Semrau is completely uncalled for. Not in any universe should that ever be made.

 

[vonGarvin]

However I want to point out one thing, for those that feel what Semrau did was absolutely wrong, why was he not convicted of murder?

In this case, I don't think that there was sufficient evidence to meet the requirements, or burden, of proof (eg: no body, insufficient witnesses, etc and so forth).

But, I'm not certain if I'm ready to say "right" or "wrong".  That's why in this case, I stick to the law.


So, back on target, for me, ethics has no place in the military.
































































Did I shock you?  I hope I did.  It was deliberate.  All that I expect of my subordinates (other than good performance, attention to detail and all that jazz) is to work within the law.  All applicable laws.  "Ethics" are a personal choice, and no one person can force a set of ethics upon the other.  I realise that a former Army Commander solved what thousands of years of philosophers could not, and that was codify a set of universally applicable ethics.  (yes, that is sarcasm).  So, just as I cannot force anyone to become Roman Catholic, even though I am a practicing RC, neither can I force anyone to adopt my set of ethical values.  I can, however, force my subordinates to comply with the law.  And that's all I can do.
Sure, try to "what if" this to death, but in the end, we don't face moral judgement here on Earth.  You instead face legal judgement, and that's enough for me.

 

[bdave]

Save your thanks.  I am referring to LAWS and not MORALS.  There is a huge gap/void between them.  In short, "laws" are agreed upon by a society/state and then enforced by that society/state.  Morals, ethical codes, etc, are a whole different bowl of noodles. 

I'm pointing out the illogical argument that asserts that if act (a) is legal "somewhere", then it's acceptable to act in that manner.

I thought laws were supposed to reflect the morality and ethical code of whatever society. Society sees killing someone in "normal (civi) life" as immoral, except for special circumstances. As such, they created a law that would punish anyone going against this social construct.

 

[Gunner98]

You enter a room and find one of your soldiers with his rifle in his hand, barrel smoking.  In front of him is a dead enemy soldier, clearly shot by your man. The enemy soldiers AK47 is leaning up against a wall on the otherside of the room clearly out of reach.
Laying on the floor is a dead middle age woman with a gunshot wound in her head, looks like an AK bullet.  On the floor beside her is her  young teenage girl who was clearly being raped and then dies herself from a gunshot would, inflicted by the enemy soldier previously.

When I presented this scenario to my subordinates, the first question they asked was...How can you tell from a gunshot wound that it was an AK bullet, are we suppose to be CSI.  Their second question was...how did you we know he was a dead enemy soldier when in Afghanistan they don't wear uniforms?  The third was...How do you know that the soldier did not shoot everyone?  Therefore, they all said we had better report him so that an investigation could be conducted.

 

[vonGarvin]

When I presented this scenario to my subordinates, the first question they asked was...How can you tell from a gunshot wound that it was an AK bullet, are we suppose to be CSI.  Their second question was...how did you we know he was a dead enemy soldier when in Afghanistan they don't wear uniforms?  The third was...How do you know that the soldier did not shoot everyone?  Therefore, they all said we had better report him so that an investigation could be conducted.

And therein lies a problem: the original problem mentioned "fighting an enemy force".  It could have been in Bavaria, fighting to retake Ulm from elements of the 28th Army for all they knew.
As for questions 1 and 2, assume that you are just outside the room when the soldier enters, and you hear one gun shot.  You enter right after, and see the scene described earlier, and that dude who's just starting to bleed out is wearing the uniform of the Nationale Volksarmee.

 

[Gunner98]

TVK,

With young subordinates you need to stick with what they know and whether they were in Bavaria, I don't think the Germans used AK rifles - did they?

 

[armyvern]

TVK,

With young subordinates you need to stick with what they know and whether they were in Bavaria, I don't think the Germans used AK rifles - did they?

I too had the same scenario ... PSTC Kingston - the year was 2000.

Our whole course answered in the affirmative that we'd report him; I too was a parent at that time & so were many others on that course with whom I subsequntly deployed.

The situation is old and has probably been adapted many times. Even were it Afghanistan specific and AK47 specific - I don`t think I`d change my answer.

 

[dogger1936]

One thing I like about ethic breifings is it get's young minds who maybe havent pulled a trigger thinking. And sometimes you are surprised by some of the answers you get!

One thing you never want is hesitation. I watched a Snr WO in Afganistan get shot at by a recoiless and didnt return fire. He was unsure if a grape hut was too much collateral. He endangered his troops and everyone else around him by questioning if he should shoot. I tried to jockey around to get the taliban myself, however two kiowas took care of it for him with 50.cal.

Again hesitation at a higher level causes hesitation at their subordniates and in the end runs the risk of mission failure/ per's going home in bodybags.

As for my ethical standpoint on the situation....The next time I see him in civilian land I'm gonna knock him out.

 

[armyvern]

As for my ethical standpoint on the situation....The next time I see him in civilian land I'm gonna knock him out.

:

Nuff said.

Yep, must be his TI.

 

[vonGarvin]

TVK,

With young subordinates you need to stick with what they know and whether they were in Bavaria, I don't think the Germans used AK rifles - did they?

Now, don't tell any Ulmer that they are in Bavaria: they are in Baden-Württemberg.  Neu Ulm is in Bayern (aka "Bavaria") ;D (They are in fact one city on the border) But just for anyone reading this, get them out of Afghanistan and get them into the problem.  If you have to tell them "the freshly dead person is wearing the uniform of your enemy", and if further explanation is required, tell them that yes, sometimes the enemy DO wear uniforms.

The NVA used the AK series of weapons:

 

[Jarnhamar]

In the officers example it was a given that you believed the soldier basically shot an unarmed man that wasn't a threat at the moemnt but commited a henious crime,your soldier acted spur of the moment.

I think the goal of our officer giving us soon to be JNCO's this situation wasn't to get too caught up in the what if's but to;

1.  Show us that the right thing to do isn't always the same as what feels right (depending on the person)
2.  Point out that even a smoking gun isn't always a smoking gun (Enter the what if arguments)
3.  Show us how being a parent can (thought not always of course) make a huge difference in someones views.
4.  Introduce us to the line between protecting your buddies and upholding the laws.

 

[dogger1936]

:

Nuff said.

Yep, must be his TI.

Nope it wasnt anything to do with his TI...It had everything to do with his lack of understanding of the ROE etc which lead him to question himself thus putting more people in danger. I used the rank to point out it isnt the young guys...we personally believe his out of uniform ethics were what kept his barrel cool all tour.

The face punch was uncalled for and I retract that.

Sorry for the anger there.

 

[wildman0101]

Captain Sereau was
A) Demoted in rank
B) Dishonourably Discharged
Let's give the man a rest.
He has certainly earned his
privacy.
Sir 
Scoty B