jus in bello

[Owl]

Even if there were rules that ought to be followed before going to war, if you do go to war, does it make any sense to follow rules in war?

e.g. R1: don't shoot at para-troopers until they hit the ground.

Does this rule have any force? Why or why not?

What, if any, principles govern proper behavior in war?

 

[prplchknz]

I think don't kill civilians should be followed. And though it's unfair to shoot the paratrooper before they hit the ground, it's war. But in reality war has no rules accept kill or be killed or both so even though it should be both sides having the same kind of weapons and man power it rarely is, and it make more sense to use all your man power in the beginning or fight really hard at first in hopes of getting out sooner because both sides are their to win. If not one of the sides would have given into the demands of the other. So even though you kill a lot more people then the other side in the long run they may have the upper advantage/ even more people will die. Unless the other side is tough enough to hold out and then you're fucked.


(I'm not a military person at all so I'm probably very wrong about opinion)

 

[Journey]

I don't know much about war, but if these rules were agreed to by a nation fighting a war, then they should be followed by the soldiers unless something extraordinary happens or they are ordered not to by someone in authority over them. That person takes the responsibility for disobeying the rules of war. In the gray areas, mercy from their superiors should prevail. But as a general rule, I don't think they should be disobeyed. If they are not right, the nation should withdraw from them. I haven't ever fought in a war, but I hope this would still be my opinion.

What does "jus in bello" mean, anyway?

 

[Valiant]

The civilian thing is understandable. However troublesome it might be at times =S
But other than that I think war rules are a pain in the ass, at least most of the time. It's about killing the other guys.

Bad side effects from not behaving properly is, for an example, cancer and deformation etc.
Like with the depleted uranium shells and agent orange etc. Definitely don't like that stuff.

 

[prplchknz]

I don't like war, but I just see it as if we have to go, lets do what ever we can to get it over with quick as possible.

 

[elfinchilde]

Even if there were rules that ought to be followed before going to war, if you do go to war, does it make any sense to follow rules in war?

What, if any, principles govern proper behavior in war?

If you're interested in the topic of war, you may like to check out the Just War Theory. Part of it forms the backbone of the Geneva Conventions, which is the internationally drawn up agreement for military engagement between countries.

There are three concepts in all:

Jus ad bellum

Jus in bello

jus post bellum

The first sets out the acceptable conditions for going to war. Seven concepts in all.

The second sets out the conditions for right engagement in a war. Three principles governing.

The third--a newer addition to the theory--concerns the administration of justice after the war. 5 concepts in all.

wiki has quite a good beginning article on the Just War Theory, as well as the comparative arguments for and against Just War. Just War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For me: no, it makes no sense to follow rules in war. The fact that you're going to war, means you want to win. If so, whatever and any methods necessary for success have to be taken. After all, it is the winners who write the history books.

random aside: Those who were for the Iraq war may like to note that under the international codes of war, it was not a just cause. Nor was it ever sanctioned by the rest of the world.

 

[Journey]

Thanks for the information, elfinchilde.

I am a librarian I should have looked it upl

 

[Geoff]

If you're interested in the topic of war, you may like to check out the Just War Theory. Part of it forms the backbone of the Geneva Conventions, which is the internationally drawn up agreement for military engagement between countries.

There are three concepts in all:

Jus ad bellum

Jus in bello

jus post bellum

The first sets out the acceptable conditions for going to war. Seven concepts in all.

The second sets out the conditions for right engagement in a war. Three principles governing.

The third--a newer addition to the theory--concerns the administration of justice after the war. 5 concepts in all.

wiki has quite a good beginning article on the Just War Theory, as well as the comparative arguments for and against Just War. Just War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For me: no, it makes no sense to follow rules in war. The fact that you're going to war, means you want to win. If so, whatever and any methods necessary for success have to be taken. After all, it is the winners who write the history books.

random aside: Those who were for the Iraq war may like to note that under the international codes of war, it was not a just cause. Nor was it ever sanctioned by the rest of the world.

Bizarre isn't it that we are so horrified by using chemical weapons or poisonous gas or whatever, but accept the concept of bayonetting someone, or blowing their legs off with a bomb.

Humans are WEIRD.

 

[Owl]

n reality war has no rules accept kill or be killed or both... I don't like war, but I just see it as if we have to go, lets do what ever we can to get it over with quick as possible

I think don't kill civilians should be followed.

What if killing civilians lead to the end of the war with less loss of blood and treasure overall? Should you still refrain from killing civilians?

I don't know much about war, but if these rules were agreed to by a nation fighting a war, then they should be followed by the soldiers unless something extraordinary happens or they are ordered not to by someone in authority over them. That person takes the responsibility for disobeying the rules of war. In the gray areas, mercy from their superiors should prevail. But as a general rule, I don't think they should be disobeyed. If they are not right, the nation should withdraw from them. I haven't ever fought in a war, but I hope this would still be my opinion.

What does "jus in bello" mean, anyway?

How does a soldier know if the rules set by national agreement or his superiors are right or wrong and ought to be obeyed or disobeyed?

(jus in bello means something like justice in war--I don't know Latin.)

The civilian thing is understandable. However troublesome it might be at times =S
But other than that I think war rules are a pain in the ass, at least most of the time. It's about killing the other guys.

Bad side effects from not behaving properly is, for an example, cancer and deformation etc.
Like with the depleted uranium shells and agent orange etc. Definitely don't like that stuff.

If the end of war is killing the other guys, and that can be done more effectivley even if some friendly casualites occur, then why should it matter if our own guys are killed/deformed in the process?

If you're interested in the topic of war, you may like to check out the Just War Theory. Part of it forms the backbone of the Geneva Conventions, which is the internationally drawn up agreement for military engagement between countries.

For me: no, it makes no sense to follow rules in war. The fact that you're going to war, means you want to win. If so, whatever and any methods necessary for success have to be taken. After all, it is the winners who write the history books.

Is it permissible to rape and eat civillians or POW's in order to increase moral or instill fear in the enemy?

Bizarre isn't it that we are so horrified by using chemical weapons or poisonous gas or whatever, but accept the concept of bayonetting someone, or blowing their legs off with a bomb.

Humans are WEIRD.

WEIRD = thoughtless

 

[elfinchilde]

Geoff: yea, i agree fully. I think their standpoint is that of the scale of damage done. One bayonet kills one person. but one chemical bomb may kill hundreds, if not thousands. it's the viewing of life via statistics, not via faces.

Owl: Theoretically not permissible. But let's face it. Even if you look just at Guantanamo Bay. Look what people do to people. A routine tactic done by enemy troops is always to rape the women, especially in front of their husbands and relatives. Because it is a form of shame that breaks up families at the basic level, even if the war is not successful. in the serbian-montenegro-bosnian crisis, back in 1994 (?), the serbs would rape the montenegrian women, and as they did so, they would curse that the children they bore would turn against their mothers. It's ethnic cleansing by other names. Brutal? of course. that is the face of war.

that's why, personally, i'm against all forms of war and violence. to me, there can't ever be a 'just war'. The concept is oxymoronic in itself. A war is waged for winning. How can it then be just, to both sides?

 

[Metamorphosis]

Rules of war don't exist to be fair. They exist because they benefit those using them.