Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics of war
Walzer states that if a soldier believes a command to be unjust, he is morally bound to disobey it, even if he has to adopt different ways to respond, such as, “postponement, evasion, deliberate misunderstanding, loose construction, overly literal construction, and so on” (Walzer, p.315). This claim is supported by the example of the German soldier at the Netherlands, who refused to obey an unjust order from his commander and ended up being imprisoned and eventually killed (Walzer, p.314). However, soldiers are not required to “plead self-preservation when they violate the rules of war” (Walzer, p. 313). This leads to the second exception to the responsibility of soldiers I mentioned earlier. There are some circumstances when the soldiers …show more content…
I maintain that the severity of punishment sentenced to the convicted soldiers was extreme. This is to say on the basis of Harry Morant’s claim that he was only obeying superior orders. But his commander who had given unjust orders had died before the trial. Unfortunate on the behalf of the convicted soldiers, they couldn’t get a solid testification in their defense and were charged with the sole responsibility of war crimes. Indeed, the soldiers did violate the rules of war convention and their claim of merely obeying the orders cannot protect them from criminal culpability. They could have disobeyed the unjust commands if the coercion of superior orders was not life-threatening. However, in cases like these when the soldiers receive direct orders to violate the rules of war, the superiors are to be held responsible equally for the war crimes. In Breaker Morant’s case, the superior who directed the soldiers to kill the Boer prisoners had already died, however, Lord Kitchener, the head of the English troops had also allowed indiscriminate killings. I argue that Lord Kitchener is also to be held equally responsible for the crimes committed during the war. Moreover, I also argue that the convicted soldiers were used as scapegoats for political expediency to end the war, not caring that convictions could and probably will lead to execution sentences. Hence, the punishment sentenced to the soldiers was
Overall, it seems that the tragedy that happened in Boston of the night of March 5th could have been avoided if the citizen of Boston had acted differently. If the crowd had not been in such mayhem, the soldiers would have been able to hear the Captain more clearly and they never would have fired without the proper command. As for Captain Preston, he received the verdict he deserved because as witnesses can attest he never yelled fire, he actually yelled the opposite. The overall massacre was one big misunderstand that sadly ended in tragedy with average Bostonians losing their lives.
The atrocities of war can take an “ordinary man” and turn him into a ruthless killer under the right circumstances. This is exactly what Browning argues happened to the “ordinary Germans” of Reserve Police Battalion 101 during the mass murders and deportations during the Final Solution in Poland. Browning argues that a superiority complex was instilled in the German soldiers because of the mass publications of Nazi propaganda and the ideological education provided to German soldiers, both of which were rooted in hatred, racism, and anti-Semitism. Browning provides proof of Nazi propaganda and first-hand witness accounts of commanders disobeying orders and excusing reservists from duties to convince the reader that many of the men contributing to the mass
"Dear Mom and Dad: The war that has taken my life, and many thousands of others before me, is immoral, unlawful, and an atrocity," (letter of anonymous soldier qtd. In Fussell 653).
The soldiers at My Lai were in an environment conducive to obeying orders. They have been trained to follow the orders of their commanders; respect for authority is weighed heavily upon. It is hard for them to disobey because they have been integrated into the social structure of the military and when in the middle of a war they would have nowhere to turn if they choose to disobey the orders of their commanders. The consequences of disobedience for them could be sent to death. A classic example of the power of authoritative factors is provided by Stanley Milgram’s
Powers, Rod. About.com, US Military. Military Orders: To Obey or Not to Obey? N.D. Web. 6 November 2011.
In the film “ A Few Good Men” the rule of law and fundamental justice were not followed by Lance Cpl. Harold and Pfc. Louden Downey. The rule of law was disobeyed as soon as Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden acted above the law. They committed a criminal offence and disregarded Pvt. Santiago's rights. Although, the orders were given by superior officer, Col. Nathan Joseph, the fact of the matter still remains the same, a crime was committed . Pvt. Santiago’s rights were not taken into consideration, which inevitably lead to his death. Although Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden clearly disregarded the rules of law and acted above the law, procedural justice was still exercised. Both Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden were given rights to a fair trial and the
„h I lieutenant Harry Breaker Morant, state to you all today, as god as my witness, in the fight for justice, that my actions and behavior did not at any time breach those of orders given to me by the British High Command during periods of combat. However it was ironically clear that the corrupt jury did not listen, appreciate, or respect Handcock, Whitten or myself in the one eyed courtroom. It was as if we Australians where playing a tails, on a double headed penny, there was no possibility of victory.
as show, were subjected to brisk trials where some were killed, and some imprisoned for
On March 16, 1968, in the Quang Ngai region of Vietnam, specifically My Lai, the United States military was involved in an appalling slaughter of approximately 500 Vietnamese civilians. There are numerous arguments as to why this incident even had the capacity to occur. Although some of the arguments seem valid, can one really make excuses for the slaughter of innocent people? The company that was responsible for the My Lai incident was the Charlie Company and throughout the company there were many different accounts of what happened that reprehensible day. Therefore there are a few contradictions about what had occurred, such as what the commanding officers exact instructions for the soldiers were. Even with these contradictions the results are obvious. The question that must be posed is whether these results make the American soldiers involved that day “guilty”. There is the fact that the environment of the Vietnam War made it very confusing to the soldiers exactly who the enemy was, as well as providing a pent up frustration due to the inability to even engage in real combat with the enemy. If this is the case though, why did some soldiers with the same frustrations refuse the orders and sit out on the action, why did some cry while firing, and why then did one man go so far as to place himself between the Vietnamese and the firing soldiers? If these men who did not see the sense in killing innocents were right with their actions, then how come the ones who did partake were all found not guilty in court? The questions can keep going back and forth on this issue, but first what happened that day must be examined.
I feel the verdict of the trial of the Boston Massacre should have been “guilty';. The victims were unarmed and brutally murdered. I soldier enraged the citizens and were guilty of many other crimes. The order to fire give from Preston proves he’s guilty of the crime of manslaughter. My conclusion is that the soldiers and/or Preston are guilty. “Half a pale of blood had been spilled into he snow'; (Mahin 2).
Middle Captain Shigehira’s plea to the Buddha, before his execution, exemplifies this. Shigehira declared “I was not acting of my own free will when I committed my grave sins; I was merely trying to do my duty. Who that lives can spurn an imperial command?” Regardless of what was commanded, the warrior was obligated to obey. Director of the Military Stores Bureau Yorimasa confirms this decree when he is ordered to restrain an invisible monster.
During the Thirty Years War, men and women had to experience trials and tribulations. Solders and officials, putting fear into the eyes of the countrymen, were testing all their patience, tolerance, and rights. The soldiers thought they could do anything they wanted because they abuse their powers. Citizens were often tortured by water boarding, daggers and hung if they did not satisfy the needs and wants of the officials. Martin Botzinger briefly describes his experience saying, “they beat me to the ground with daggers… both my feet were bound together, and the other took the rope round my left arm, and they shoved me in water.” Scenes like this caused so ...
He has not seen the blood or heard the screams of suffering soldiers. He has not watched his best friend die in his arms after being hit by enemy fire. He is an onlooker, free to analyze and critique every aspect of the war from the safety of his office. He is free and safe to talk about ethics and proper war etiquette. The soldier, immersed in battle, fighting for his life, can think of only one thing.
should face the punishment by the command. The AD is very clear and to the point “These
Their distasteful personas shed light on their common misinterpretations by Australians. Morant and Handcock were indeed advocates of cold-blooded murder. Morant and three other officers (P.J. Handcock, G.R. Witton and Lieutenant Picton) apparently decided to shoot any Boer prisoners who fell into their hands. Morant was charged three ... ...