Is this famous movie quote generally correct?

We've heard a lot of stuff in the past months about "torture" and various things that are viewed as necessary or unnecessary during a time of war. These lead me to remember a rather famous quote from a well known movie that seemed to be addressing philosophically just this kind of situation. Now, it came from the general "bad guy" of the film yet, like many powerful films, even the bad guys have a tinge of truth or realism inherent in it.

So, I am curious what the people on the forum think of this quote and the general philosophy surrounding it.

(Context; a high ranking military officer is on the stand answering questions in regards to the death of a soldier who had undergone an unofficial means of punishment for failing to meet the requirements that his superiors had for him in the service)

A Few Good Men said:

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Click to expand...

I would not call it "correct", but Colonel Jessep's monologue does frame a substantive ethical issue--what is the price of freedom?

If people are not willing to shoulder the burdens and obligations of a Colonel Jessep and his contingent of Marines, do those people have a right to sit in judgment on how he meets those burdens and obligations? If people are not willing to "walk a post," as it were, are they therefore required to accept the actions of a Colonel Jessep, no matter how disturbing they may be?

I'm not prepared to say that Jessep's monologue is correct, because his perspective places him beyond all accountability, and that does not easily reconcile with the mandate of the military being subordinate to the civilian government, and the government being subordinate to the people in general, which is the proper ordering of things under the Constitution. However, within the accountability that is required under the Constitution, giving the widest latitude to the most challenging tasks in defense of the United States and her citizens is nothing more than simple justice and fairness.

celticlord said:

I would not call it "correct", but Colonel Jessep's monologue does frame a substantive ethical issue--what is the price of freedom?

Click to expand...

This is exactly right.

I wonder how many of those that have been whining and crying about the supposed torture of terrorists would prefer that they, their families and friends die, over the torture of that terrorist.

Zyphlin said:

We've heard a lot of stuff in the past months about "torture" and various things that are viewed as necessary or unnecessary during a time of war. These lead me to remember a rather famous quote from a well known movie that seemed to be addressing philosophically just this kind of situation. Now, it came from the general "bad guy" of the film yet, like many powerful films, even the bad guys have a tinge of truth or realism inherent in it.

So, I am curious what the people on the forum think of this quote and the general philosophy surrounding it.

(Context; a high ranking military officer is on the stand answering questions in regards to the death of a soldier who had undergone an unofficial means of punishment for failing to meet the requirements that his superiors had for him in the service)

Click to expand...

I don't agree because it's an incredibly arrogant statement and unfortunately the kind of illusion that we live under currently. While I am grateful for the protections afforded me by the military, I certainly don't consider them all infallible or above the law. Military people are still, at the end of the day, people. They are capable of being assholes and jerks just like the rest of us. Personally, I find the suggestion that I should have to automatically kiss anyone's ass a bit ridiculous. Does that mean that I don't appreciate what they do for me? Absolutely not. But in my personal opinion I think respect is earned and not something that is automatically given. On an overall level I completely respect our military and appreciate their sacrifices, but that kind of general respect doesn't work the same way on a personal or individual level and I don't think it should be given on that level.

Though, maybe I'd feel differently if Jack Nicholson's hadn't ordered that damned Code Red.

When it comes to war and such I think most of us have no stomach for it, no means of relating to it, and no context from which to judge it fairly without having played any part.

To that end the quote has merit. However it's also true that with great power comes great capacity to get out of control.

When it comes to torture and other stuff I'd prefer that less of it were made generally public as I don't think many of us have any real understanding of all that goes on when fighting an enemy. I don't believe that all of our military will suddenly all go bad overnight. So I trust them for the most part to police themselves and call each other out on atrocities from a position of knowledge vs having a public airing of laundry where hysterical peace loving pacifists vilify our armed forces.

dclxvinoise said:

I don't agree because it's an incredibly arrogant statement and unfortunately the kind of illusion that we live under currently. While I am grateful for the protections afforded me by the military, I certainly don't consider them all infallible or above the law.

Click to expand...

Question: Are you willing to "walk a post," as challenged by Colonel Jessep?

dclxvinoise said:

I don't agree because it's an incredibly arrogant statement and unfortunately the kind of illusion that we live under currently. While I am grateful for the protections afforded me by the military, I certainly don't consider them all infallible or above the law. Military people are still, at the end of the day, people. They are capable of being assholes and jerks just like the rest of us. Personally, I find the suggestion that I should have to automatically kiss anyone's ass a bit ridiculous. Does that mean that I don't appreciate what they do for me? Absolutely not. But in my personal opinion I think respect is earned and not something that is automatically given. On an overall level I completely respect our military and appreciate their sacrifices, but that kind of general respect doesn't work the same way on a personal or individual level and I don't think it should be given on that level.

Though, maybe I'd feel differently if Jack Nicholson's hadn't ordered that damned Code Red.

Click to expand...

I don't think you should kiss ass. However I do think there's something to be said for not being privy to everything when you weren't there and have little reference from which to judge.

Goobieman said:

This is exactly right.

I wonder how many of those that have been whining and crying about the supposed torture of terrorists would prefer that they, their families and friends die, over the torture of that terrorist.

Click to expand...

False diotchonomy much?

In terms of the respect thing....I view it like the office of the Presidency.

I would show respect to Bill Clinton, especially when he was the sitting President, because of the position he embodies. However, on a personal level, I have no respect for the man.

Likewise, I will always be respectful on first meeting to any and every military person for the position they embody. If, in the process of this, they show themselves to be a complete dick and asshole not worthy of respect on a personal level than so be it...I still respect their service to this country, but my respect of them on a personal level is gone.

Travelsonic said:

False diotchonomy much?

Click to expand...

How is that a false dichotomy?

Travelsonic said:

False diotchonomy much?

Click to expand...

No. Not at all.
But, a question to you: Avoid the issue much?

celticlord said:

Question: Are you willing to "walk a post," as challenged by Colonel Jessep?

Click to expand...

No I'm not, but that certainly doesn't mean that my opinion doesn't matter just as much as anyone else. Do I have to "walk a post" in order to be able to criticize? Either we have freedom of speech or we don't.

celticlord said:

I would not call it "correct", but Colonel Jessep's monologue does frame a substantive ethical issue--what is the price of freedom?

If people are not willing to shoulder the burdens and obligations of a Colonel Jessep and his contingent of Marines, do those people have a right to sit in judgment on how he meets those burdens and obligations? If people are not willing to "walk a post," as it were, are they therefore required to accept the actions of a Colonel Jessep, no matter how disturbing they may be?

I'm not prepared to say that Jessep's monologue is correct, because his perspective places him beyond all accountability, and that does not easily reconcile with the mandate of the military being subordinate to the civilian government, and the government being subordinate to the people in general, which is the proper ordering of things under the Constitution. However, within the accountability that is required under the Constitution, giving the widest latitude to the most challenging tasks in defense of the United States and her citizens is nothing more than simple justice and fairness.

Click to expand...

All true, but another perspective that some need reminding, is that the job of defending this country is not always as pretty as a Paramount movie, but sometimes (being nice) has ugly aspects where people have to get the job done. And furthermore nothing is perfect, not even the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. Not defending errors and omissions, but I would even go so far as to say that some aspects of politics are just as ugly as this torture business. Maybe even uglier, because one might even argue that the intentions are less pure.

Celticlord, wonderful post, you framed some of my thoughts, but much better than I could have written them.

When I was in the navy, I had a late night phone watch, and there was 4 or 5 of the officers, including our squadron skipper, sitting around in the room I was in and having a debate on wartime ethics. I wish I could remember the exact words our skipper spoke, he was a well spoken guy, but his argument went something like this: since we are the ones at the point of our nations spear, it is in fact especially important that we try and do what is right. We represent our service and our nation in every action we do, and when we engage in any misconduct with other countries, we shame not just ourselves, but our service and our nation. We have to strive to not just do what is best militarily, but morally, to the best of our ability.

I thought enough of his statements that I can still remember them in general 18 years later. I think that is how things should be, but I suspect that Colonel Jessep's attitude is far too prevalent.

dclxvinoise said:

No I'm not, but that certainly doesn't mean that my opinion doesn't matter just as much as anyone else. Do I have to "walk a post" in order to be able to criticize? Either we have freedom of speech or we don't.

Click to expand...

The point is whether your criticism should have any weight. Should you be privy to bits and pieces and then render judgment that bears weight when you have no real framework from which to see or understand the whole?

talloulou said:

I don't think you should kiss ass. However I do think there's something to be said for not being privy to everything when you weren't there and have little reference from which to judge.

Click to expand...

Of course, but that still doesn't somehow make my opinion invalid. From what I'm aware of from my perspective, it's completely valid. Just because I have little reference doesn't automatically mean that my opinion would change if I did have more reference. Obviously the only way I could have more of a reference point is to be in a similar situation and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

talloulou said:

The point is whether your criticism should have any weight. Should you be privy to bits and pieces and then render judgment that bears weight when you have no real framework from which to see or understand the whole?

Click to expand...

I fully admit that my criticism carries little weight because I don't have the same exact reference as that person does.

I can kind of understand the point though of the "walk the post" thing.

Should we not be able to criticize? Not at all. HOWEVER, I think we need to all take a step back and understand that we criticize from an IGNORANT position...IE, we do not have the first hand knowledge of the situation that they are in and the ramifications of such.

For example, an analogy.

Lets say a doctor in the midst of a perhaps questionable surgery gone bad makes the call to take an extreme measure in trying to save the patients life rather than the conventional method, and the person ends up dieing.

We, the layman with no medical experience, can criticize. That is our right. We can say that the surgery wasn't 100% "needed" so he shouldn't have done it. Or we could say he should not be taking such extreme measures. We could say he should not have risked the patients life on a whim, that it was unethical. We can criticize to our hearts content.

But are we doing it from a truly educated point of view.

However, we do not have the full knowledge of the situations nor the specific expertise to be an expert in it. Perhaps the surgery, while not needed, was likely the best chance for a full recovery instead of a life of constant hospital visits and that is why the patient elected to listen to the doctor. Perhaps the conventional method still would've had a good chance to fail, and even if succeeded caused further risks while the more "extreme" way gave a higher chance of failure but could potentially fix him completely if it was done. Perhaps the patient or their family had expressed the desire for the doctor to do all they could to cure him, not just to keep him alive, etc.

We can criticize our military and law enforcement for the things they do. This is our rights as Americans. But it is also our DUTY as Americans to try and take a step back and accept our ignorance on some of these issues, recognize politicians attempts ON BOTH SIDES to turn things into a partisan issue rather than focus on the actual legitiamte facts, and to recognize that we do not know all the situations that go on in a world that is frankly alien to us. Its the same thing when Citizens criticize cops for how they use their weapons based on what "they would do" when they honestly don't know WHAT they'd do in reality because they never have, and likely never will, be in anywhere near a similar situation.

I think its for these reasons its tantamount that we have good men and women in the top portions of our military, law enforcement, and portions of the legislature that oversee such things. There are often things in this world that are dark, cruel, and difficult and yet are needed or advantageous that, if left to the masses, would never happen. Is torture one of these things? That is debatable, but I think it definitly falls in the realm enough to be debated.

Ultimately, for me, I think much of what our law enforcement and military does should be oversaw, but due to the nature of it I believe its best oversaw in a classified type of way where this information is for one, not out to the enemy, and two, not something that can be used by politicians to drive answers through emotion rather than logic and facts.

celticlord said:

Question: Are you willing to "walk a post," as challenged by Colonel Jessep?

Click to expand...

Been there, done that.

dclxvinoise said:

No I'm not, but that certainly doesn't mean that my opinion doesn't matter just as much as anyone else. Do I have to "walk a post" in order to be able to criticize? Either we have freedom of speech or we don't.

Click to expand...

No, you don't have to "walk a post" just to be able to criticize.

However, if we go beyond mere criticism and venture into formulating policy, not only justice and fairness but simple prudence demands that we ask of ourselves whether or not we could discharge that obligation ourselves, if the Colonel Jesseps were removed from their positions, or, alternatively, could we sustain the society we hold dear in the absence of that obligation being discharged. For all that one may plausibly find fault regarding the "Jessep" position, to what extent does it sustain and preserve our society?

It is, if you will, an alternate take on Juvenal's famous question "Quis custōdiet ipsōs custōdēs?" Not so much "who watches the watchmen?" but "who is qualified to watch the watchmen?"

I will note, in regards to the quote in question, the person "questioning" Jessep is not a private citizen, but a military lawyer. Frankly, this is what I think needs to be happening in cases more involved with national security and such; the military/law enforcement, and those in government that are supposed to oversee them, monitoring their own and taking action. I'd much rather that then it being thrown to the public to be decided by mob mentality based more off emotion than facts and circumstance.

celticlord said:

It is, if you will, an alternate take on Juvenal's famous question "Quis custōdiet ipsōs custōdēs?" Not so much "who watches the watchmen?" but "who is qualified to watch the watchmen?"

Click to expand...

No one after the first weekend.

Redress said:

We have to strive to not just do what is best militarily, but morally, to the best of our ability.

Click to expand...

The great challenge is identifying what is the "moral" position. In the current debate on waterboarding, what is the moral stance? If waterboarding produces information that helps preserve American lives, is that moral? If not waterboarding led to an intelligence failure, producing another 9/11-type attack and costing American lives, is that immoral?

For myself, the moral argument is simple and straightforward: Protect my home and family, protect my friends, protect my country, and only then protect the rest of humanity. Even then, I am disinclined to offer any protection to anyone who seeks to harm family, friends, or country. I do not argue that any of these are morally superior to any other family or country, merely that they are mine, and are thus of far greater importance to me. While I would not go so far as a Colonel Jessep to demand a "thank you," I do easily make the moral exchange of the comfort of a detainee at Gitmo for the security of my family. If waterboarding gets the information, then let's have at it and with a vengeance. To my mind, that is the morally proper thing to do.

Zyphlin said:

So, I am curious what the people on the forum think of this quote and the general philosophy surrounding it.

(Context; a high ranking military officer is on the stand answering questions in regards to the death of a soldier who had undergone an unofficial means of punishment for failing to meet the requirements that his superiors had for him in the service)

Click to expand...

I understand you've put tried to put this in some context. But as one who's seen the film, I have a difficult time dismissing the actual context... a Hollywood production in which these words were uttered by a fictional villainous military character who bears little resemblance to the service members most of us have come to know and love in our real lives.

:doh

Interesting thing with Morality too is its so hard to judge at times. Lets take an age old story.

Robin Hood.

Is stealing moral? Many people will say one could not make a blanket statement in regards to the morality of stealing, stating the circumstances matter. Others will say it always is morally wrong.

If circumstances come into play, what are those? How much one steals? Why one steals? From who one steals? How often one steals? Do different answers in these things change the "morality" of stealing?

And if morality is not gray, but black and white, and stealing is always morally wrong, does that mean one should not do it in any circumstance. Can something that is "morally wrong" also be understandable or perhaps even "correct" to do?

I see these "interrogation techniques" or "torture" much in the same way as I see stealing, or even killing. I don't believe many things are simply "morally" wrong or "morally" right in a universal sense. I DO think circumstances and the many different factors revolving around it to matter. If you can say that stealing is not always morally wrong, and killing someone is not always morally wrong, and lying is not always morally wrong, and imprisonment is not always morally wrong, than how can one say that "torture" in any and every form is always morally wrong?

And, more than that, I shall draw off another thing of pop culture...

South Park (oh how I love this show).

They had an episode some time back parodying both the anti-war and the pro-war crowds. The "lesson" of the show (let me put my Kyle hat on, "I learned something today") was that essentially the Founders had created a way to all the country to be morally ambiguous, to do things that were necessary for its survival while at the same time showing itself, through the hearts and minds of some of its people, to still be decent moral people.

I do not believe that if a member of our military does an attrocity, or someone in law enforcement steps over the boundry far to often over a length of time, that it somehow ruins the morality of all of this country. I applaud those citizens that would decry some of those things because it shows that America, at its heart, still is a nation that truly does wish for peace and for the best in all men. At the same time, I curse those that seek to allow information to be revealed to the public that frankly they don't need to have at the time because it is beyond the comprehension of the public in regards to the potential necessity or benefit of something. It essentially puts the two possabilities at odds, disallowing the government to sometimes take the necessary steps to insure the thing it was put in place to insure...the safety of the country and her citizens...if its to also allow for the ability to let its population retain its morality.

Its an extremely tricky situation, and one that I think many of us...including even those that were in the military but in it many many years ago...can not TRULY and FULLy grasp.

grateful heart said:

i understand you've put tried to put this in some context. But as one who's seen the film, i have a difficult time dismissing the actual context... A hollywood production in which these words were uttered by a fictional villainous military character who bears little resemblance to the service members most of us have come to know and love in our real lives.

:doh

Click to expand...

you just can't handle the truth!