This poses an interesting dilemma.

Back in the halcyon days of my mispent youth, I took a summer philosophy class dealing with Ethics. We covered a wide range of topics, including the suitability of homosexuals as teachers (one student stated he would pull his sons out of school rather than have then taught by a homosexual), ethical obligations to report crimes, and other related issues.

We also watched an old PBS program (see Lesson 8) dealing with this issue. In the program, a panel of pundits, including retired General William Westmoreland (yes, THAT Westmoreland), various reporters, and a moderator.

In the program, the panel members were presented with this situation: the United States has invaded a South or Central American country -- let's call it ThirdWorldistan -- to free it from a Marxist revolt. During the course of the occupation, a local military commander learns that the Marxist rebels are planning a surprise attack on American forces. Fortunately, the American commander has a prisoner who knows all the details of the attack, but won't reveal them. To what lengths can the commander go to get the information?

The question is interesting because it really asks to what extent we are willing to commit an evil act to achieve a good end. Some military members of the panel indicated they would use torture if they felt it necessary to save the lives of their troops. Other panelists (primarily those outside the media) objected. Memorably, a journalist on the panel stated that, were the rebels to give him information as to the time and place of the attack (so that he could have camera crews ready to record the carnage), he would not inform the Americans or otherwise warn his fellow citizen out of a sense of "journalistic ethics".

Obviously, the current case doesn't involve actual physical torture. Instead, Colonel West fired two rounds away from the suspect in order to coerce a confession. The suspect, who was involved in a plot to kill Colonel West and some of his men, confessed, thus averting the attack.

Now Colonel West is being charged with aggravated assault under the UCMJ, and faces loss of his pension (his a career officer), loss of rank, humiliation, and utter destruction. All for taking the steps he felt necessary to safeguard himself and his men.

Frankly, I think prosecuting Colonel West sends a very bad message to our troops and our enemies. It reminds one of the restrictions placed on American forces in Vietnam that prevented us from going after known enemy concentrations just on the other side of the border.

Part of the problem lies squarely with George Bush: when he declared major hostilities were over, many people took that to mean the fighting was finished. While that was true in the sense that organized Iraqi military units had stopped fighting, it did not mean we would be free from the type of low-intensity guerilla fighting we have seen over the past five months. Unfortunately, the belief the fighting was over has allowed the military's peacetime bureaucracy mindset to take over in Iraq.

Would anyone have questioned a similar action by a United States officer in World War II? I doubt it. Prosecution would almost certainly have been out of the question. Which leads me to wonder whether we are now more civilized, or just more naive?

I fear it is the latter.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 08:18 0 comments

 
Michael Schiavo appeared on Larry King last night.

Now, I usually don't watch Larry. I find him pedantic, and think he softballs his guests far too much. However, I watched a bit of this.

I was pretty disgusted.

A few samples:

KING: And what, Michael, is their {the Schindlers, Terri's parents} motive?

SCHIAVO: What their motive is?

KING: In order to keep their daughter alive. They don't have a motive, do they?

SCHIAVO: Probably just to make my life hell, I guess.

Right. Her parents have darn near put themselves in hock just to make an adulterous son-in-law miserable. That's why they offered Michael $500,000 to divorce Terri and let them take over as guardian.

CALLER: Yes. Does it bother you that the death is so slow? Maybe Dr. Kevorkian-style would be a faster, more peaceful way?

SCHIAVO: Removing somebody's feeding is very painless. It is a very easy way to die. Probably the second better way to die, being the first being an aneurysm.

And it doesn't bother me at all. I've seen it happen. I had to do it with my own parents.

FELOS: You know, Larry, I want to make something very clear about that.
The law is very clear. This is not euthanasia. This is not assisted suicide. This is letting nature take its course.

Right. Starvation -- nature's safe, comfortable way to die.

I'd post more, but it's time for lunch.

Not that I have much appetite after rehashing this.

Steve


- posted by MrSpkr @ 12:16 0 comments

 
What a surprise.

I've commented extensively on this issue at the Battlefront.com forums, but have decided to take it here as part of my ongoing effort to reward all three people who mistakenly drift to this pageoff a Google search gone bad. Let me make it simple: I think Michael Schiavo is a perjurous scumbag and an adulterer who is only interested in the money contained in a trust fund that is supposed to care for Terri's rehabilitation. Of course, there are those who believe Michael Schiavo is responsible for Terri's condition, and now wants to kill the only witness to his crime.

The real question, in my mind, is why Michael has not been charged with a criminal violation of Fla.Stat.Ann. 798.02, "Lewd and Lascivious Behavior". If convicted, this crime of moral turpitude would disqualify Mr. Schiavo from serving as Terri's Guardian ad Litem, allowing another person who does not stand to gain from Terri's death to make the decision regarding her life.

Given the high profile of this case, I really wonder why State Attorney Bernie McCabe has not brought criminal charges against Schiavo? McCabe has certainly tackled controversial cases and issues in the past, so his reluctance to do so in this case is puzzling.

Other bloggers have chimed in on this issue.

In a new twist, it seems Schiavo's attorney may have failed to disclose his prior relationship with the "independent" examining physician in the case. Here in Texas, that is grounds not only for tossing the decision, but is also a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Here in Texas, such a breach of the Rules could lead to anything from a slap on the wrist to disbarment.

Frankly, it couldn't happen to a nicer fellow. Schiavo's attorney reminds me of a lawyer version of Jack Kevorkian (be warned, the ABC bio on Kevorkian is more pro-Jack than anti-Jack).

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 12:50 0 comments

 
You know, when stuff like this happens, I am glad most conservatives are not as radical/crazy as the Left pretends.

If they were, I would have expected far more assassinations or attempts against liberal politicians.

Thankfully, most conservatives are not only far more grounded than the Left wants to admit, but they also realize we are winning the war of ideas. The net result is that articles like the aforementioned merely disgust us, rather than incite us to violence.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 11:39 0 comments