American Sniper Hung out to dry - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 03-30-2008, 09:26 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...ut_to_dry.html

Quote:

On a mountain ridge in Afghanistan in June 2005, on a mission to capture or kill a Taliban commander, the four Navy SEALs were discussing ... the American media. Three shepherds, including a 14-year-old, had crossed their path, and the SEALs had to decide what to do: kill them, or let them go and risk exposure to Taliban forces.

On elevated ground near Iskandariyah, Iraq, two years later, American snipers faced the same dilemma: kill or release two civilians who had discovered their hideout, Genei Nesir Khudair al-Janabi and his 17-year-old son, Mustafa.

In Afghanistan, fearful the media would report the killing of unarmed Afghan farmers and worried they might be charged with murder, the SEALs let the shepherds go. The shepherds then alerted the Taliban, who returned with about 100 warriors.

The four SEALs fought valiantly down the sheer mountain. Three, including Michael Murphy of Patchogue, L.I., died in the firefight.

The guys in Iraq shot the guy, they were court marshaled, damned if you, dead if you don't.

Wildo7 · 03-30-2008, 09:30 PM

And so they should have been. Oh that's right, troops should murder 14 year old children if they inadvertently get in the way of their war, I forgot we were living in psychoville.

***patsfan13*** · 03-30-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7

And so they should have been. Oh that's right, troops should murder 14 year old children if they inadvertently get in the way of their war, I forgot we were living in psychoville.

Did you read the article?

sdaniels7114 · 03-30-2008, 09:43 PM

These were SEAL teams, it had to occur to someone during the planning that they might get spotted. If you're operating in Sheep country you have to expect to see a couple of Shepards. What were their orders? Why didn't they check in with their Command? Why didn't they just move to a new spot?

***patsfan13*** · 03-30-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

These were SEAL teams, it had to occur to someone during the planning that they might get spotted. If you're operating in Sheep country you have to expect to see a couple of Shepards. What were their orders? Why didn't they check in with their Command? Why didn't they just move to a new spot?

They didn't have much time to make a decision, for a sniper team in that sort of terrain moving anywhere in daylight is suicide, they want to move at night. It sounds as if they were after a particular target.

Wildo7 · 03-30-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Did you read the article?

Yes. I'm glad they were court-marshaled. You can't just murder innocent people because they happen to walk by you. I hope they go to prison for life. And not that I should have to explain to an adult why murder is wrong, but how many more terrorists will be created and soldiers killed because of the story that American troops are killing innocent shepherds. I wonder what the son they let go will end up doing......

***reflexblue*** · 03-30-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7

Yes. I'm glad they were court-marshaled. You can't just murder innocent people because they happen to walk by you. I hope they go to prison for life. And not that I should have to explain to an adult why murder is wrong, but how many more terrorists will be created and soldiers killed because of the story that American troops are killing innocent shepherds. I wonder what the son they let go will end up doing......

I would not like to make that decision. The same thing happened in the first Gulf War. A group of sheppards camd across a Green Beret hide out,they let the shppards go including a kid of about 16. Shortly there-after truck loads of Iraqie army soldiers surrounded the team,they barely made it out. If I was face with kind of dilema I would use Rule Utilitarianism,a moral guidline for makeing such difficult decisions. Rule Ut provides a test for moral principles or rules based on the effect of the TOTAL wellbeing of the people involved. If applied here the act of killing the sheppards would have saved American lives,and inceased the well-being of the lives of the average Afganie. Its a real thin line here,but the sheppards were in a combat zone. So if I had to make the decision it would be that the sheppards would be killed if they could not be silanced some other way such as detaining them. AGAIN:
According to basic rule utilitarianism killing is wrong unless the total effect of killing those sheppards would be to maximise the well being of a greater number of people. If he sniper group completed its mission,and more people were free from Taliban opression then it would be morally correct to kill them.
Unfortunatly history is strewn with these kinds of moral dilemas,during war.

Wildo7 · 03-30-2008, 11:16 PM

Combat zone or not, the sheppards didn't choose to be in a war, it was forced on them. How about these guys be real heros and say "if we die, we die honorably, not as murderers." In my opinion, you can't just plug your conscience into a formula and then be satisfied with the outcome. If it feels wrong, it most likely is. I wouldn't be able to live with myself having murdered those people, so I really don't see the supposed moral ambiguity here. When you sign up to fight in a war, you are making a choice that assumes the risks involved. These people didn't make such a choice.

***reflexblue*** · 03-30-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7

Combat zone or not, the sheppards didn't choose to be in a war, it was forced on them. How about these guys be real heros and say "if we die, we die honorably, not as murderers." In my opinion, you can't just plug your conscience into a formula and then be satisfied with the outcome. If it feels wrong, it most likely is. I wouldn't be able to live with myself having murdered those people, so I really don't see the supposed moral ambiguity here. When you sign up to fight in a war, you are making a choice that assumes the risks involved. These people didn't make such a choice.

I would have a hard time, a very hard time makeing that kind of decision. But if I knew that MORE people would live a better life it would be the decision I'd have to make.
On you're point about dieing honorably,there there to do a covert mission most likely to take out a high level Taliban leader. To die in a fire-fight with a group of low level taliban would be a wast of their lives.
And if you have to make dicisions like this one I think its better to have some moral guidlines to go by.
There is another moral guidline called Act Utilitarianism, it has less latittude than rule ut. It states that its moraly right to do even if it produces more harm to more people . Ex. You're walking along a river bank in Austria in the late 1800's,you see a boy drownding, you jump in and save him . Tht was the morally right thing to do,even though he grows up to be Hitler.

I'm not tring to in anyway down-play the seriousness of this situation,but it would be a great topic of debate in a moral philosophy class. I really don't know how it would turn out I.E. the sheppards live,or die.

Wildo7 · 03-31-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

I would have a hard time, a very hard time makeing that kind of decision. But if I knew that MORE people would live a better life it would be the decision I'd have to make.
On you're point about dieing honorably,there there to do a covert mission most likely to take out a high level Taliban leader. To die in a fire-fight with a group of low level taliban would be a wast of their lives.
And if you have to make dicisions like this one I think its better to have some moral guidlines to go by.
There is another moral guidline called Act Utilitarianism, it has less latittude than rule ut. It states that its moraly right to do even if it produces more harm to more people . Ex. You're walking along a river bank in Austria in the late 1800's,you see a boy drownding, you jump in and save him . Tht was the morally right thing to do,even though he grows up to be Hitler.

I'm not tring to in anyway down-play the seriousness of this situation,but it would be a great topic of debate in a moral philosophy class. I really don't know how it would turn out I.E. the sheppards live,or die.

There is an interesting philosphical dilemma in certain situations. For example, you are a bus driver and the brakes have gone out. If you turn left you take out 12 adults, if you turn right you run over a five year old. I don't see the same dilemma here. First, lives cannot be weighed simply on numbers. The fact that the soldiers have chosen to engage in a war and the shepherd and his son have not is an extremely important element here.

The options, as you are describing them are A) kill the shepherd and his son, then either take out the Taliban leader or die trying or B) let them live and either they do not alert the Taliban to your whereabouts or they do and you get killed by low-level Taliban fighters.

Option A makes several assumptions. 1) The possibility of killing the Taliban leader (not the actual act of killing them as it is not assured) is worth taking the lives of the innocent men as the Taliban will be tangibly weaker and thus take less lives (saving more than the shepherd). 2)The act of killing an innocent shepherd is morally equivalent to taking the life of an American soldier. (choice of risk) 3) The act of killing the innocent shepherd and possibly his son won't indirectly lead to more lives being lost than it saves. 4) events will unfold as you predict them to. There are way too many intangibles here. This assumption is false as you could fail to kill the leader anyway or the Shepherd may not alert them to your whereabouts.

Once you allow soldiers the option of killing innocents to save themselves you are going to open the door to soldiers making bad decisions and committing atrocities. Not to mention that, as killing the leader v. killing low-level Taliban fighters may indirectly save more lives, killing innocents may indirectly cause not only the family members of the slain to take up arms against the U.S. but it increases the recruiting capability of Taliban/Al Qaeda propaganda.

When you consider all of these factors I don't see how you can choose option A. It's not the right of the soldiers to make these decisions of the value of human beings' lives. Refusing to kill the shepherd is, in a way, a decision to refuse to make such a decision over another human beings life. Sparing an innocent life can never be considered an immoral act, regardless of the unknown consequences.

The Hitler drowning as a child example is exactly correct. If you chose to sit there and watch a seemingly innocent child die and then were later told that he would have grown up to committ genocide, it doesn't mean you aren't a sociopath who would watch a child drown. The point is that you don't know the child is Hitler and you don't know what the sheprherd will do. It is imperative that the U.S. not condone the killing of innocent, unarmed civilians under any circumstances and so I'm glad that the snipers are behind bars.