In Times of War the Law Falls Silent
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges - In Times of War the Law Falls Silent.
Is this so?
I believe that anything is to be done in order to protect the lives of innocent American civilians.
Yes
Side Score: 4
|
 |
No
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I always figured that one of our most important laws (laws against murder) are blatantly ignored when it comes to murder, so it would only make sense that the law no longer applies. I'm not saying that our soldiers can act on their desires despite what the law says, but Generals and Intelligence Agents hold a right to make sure that we WIN this war by any means necessary. The fact that we actually have rules saying "it's okay to kill the guy, just don't dump water on him or blind fold him... or shoot in the air to scare him... or call him a name" shows how ridiculous political correctness has gotten. Side: yes
1
point
Murder is, by definition, unlawful killing. As contrasted with a justified killing. Like in, for example, war. The law against murder is not in any way "put aside" during wartime. And "political correctness" has nothing at all to do with the laws of warfare and prohibitions against torture. The basic fortitude to conduct the affairs of your nation with honor and to prevent, to as great a degree as possible, the infliction of unconscionable atrocities upon your combatants does. Side: No
How is killing another man more justified than dumping water on him for information that will save millions of lives. You can TRY and make the argument that the man is shooting at you, so you commit self-defense, but that's to save one life (compared to millions of lives). Then there's the fact that we have assassinations, air-raids, and fire-fights that kill more than just the guy who was shooting at you. Are you saying that because it's a war killing is justified? Or are you just picking and choosing in order to create an argument? And atrocity? Let's start with the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention is an agreement to keep uniformed personnel comfortable if ever captured by the enemy. Governments abide by these rules, and therefore we can trust that our soldiers will be safe if captured by other UNIFORMED PERSONNEL. Terrorists and insurgents, on the other hand, are not uniformed personnel and from we've witnessed, they do not have ANY intentions, what so ever, in abiding by this agreement at all. Therefore, we can safely do what we must to our prisoners of war to prevent attacks and find leaders. This is a new breed of enemy and are probably the most dangerous we have ever faced. Water boarding itself is the worst we have ever done to them, and it was to three. The worst they have done to our captured men is beyond comprehension. We would never stoop to their level mainly because it is just sickening on what they do. The idea that people are worried about simple water boarding is one of the reasons why I have no hope for humanity. and, just to add, Japanese soldiers were uniformed personnel, which is why we tried them for torturing our soldiers. They went against agreement (the nazis didn't). Side: yes
|
I find it telling you felt the need to italicize "American" for emphasis in your closing sentence. Are you implying that the nationality of the people torture is being conducted on behalf of determines whether it's ok or not? In any case, the fact that we have such a thing as war crimes would hopefully tell you something about the truth of the debate topic. It's false. The law does not fall silent during times of war. It may be violated, but there are supposed to be consequences just like any other time it's violated. Side: No
Let me clarify my position. The law does become incredibly weak during wartime, but it is never silent. The law is never mute. It is always kicking, screaming, and telling us to stop acting like a bunch of uncivilized idiots. Whenever issues of law breakage during war occur, some important individual or collection of individuals will condemn the breaking: this is the law yelling at us. Even if the condemnation falls on deaf ears, the law was not silent; we were just not listening to it. Side: No
1
point
No, laws are what a society is based off of and, thus, are ultimately guarded from harm. Throughout every war there are legal issues that are brought up to battle every controversial wartime issue.Sometimes the law will be bent to accommodate policies needed to prevent the collapse of the society but for the most part they stand strong. The main reason for this is that people will not lay down and do nothing when they are being abused by a government. There is only so much a populace can handle before it will snap back up and fight the imposing war policies. We can't use war as an excuse to ignore the law... the law may bend but it will never break. Side: No
|
