• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this famous movie quote generally correct?

Do you agree with the general implications of this quote.


  • Total voters
    5
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.
Colonel Jessep, as a fictional character, is an archetype. He takes a moral perspective that is not uncommon among military personnel to an extreme. No, most military personnel do not think as he does, but I dare say most military personnel can at least grasp where he's coming from.
 
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?

I agree that identifying the moral thing is not easy, and it is easy to second guess those in the firing line, who have to sometimes make snap decisions. As a general rule, I tend to allow a whole lot of leeway to those in our military who are in harms way. Of Course, as a military vet, and a vet of the first gulf war, I am somewhat biased when it comes to our military.

When it comes to waterboarding and other torture/interrogation methods, I have argued against any prosecution of those involved, despite the fact I think that torture(and I do consider a large number of the techniques used as such) is wrong. We need to clearly set out the rules, remove the ambiguities that led to the debate we are having these days on the subject, so that our soldiers and CIA operatives and whoever know for sure what is expected.
 
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?

Yes, criticism from civilians does carry weight.

For example, the people doing the torturing at Gitmo are only privy to bits and pieces of information themselves. Chances are, they haven't studied sociology to understand how torture and/or the prison conditions at Gitmo affect people. They've probably never studied criminology or been part of an FBI unit to understand whether or not "enhanced interrogation" actually produces the desired result, and if so, which forms of interrogation are the most effective. They probably don't have law degrees to understand the legality (or lack thereof) of their actions under the US Military Code of Conduct, federal law, or international law. They've probably never studied international diplomacy to understand how their torture of prisoners might alienate our allies and make cooperation on other issues more difficult, or how it might result in our enemies using it as justification to torture Americans. Similarly, I've never been a part of the US Military to understand the conditions that soldiers face when confronted with ideological extremists.

Since very few people have done ALL of those things, nearly everyone "renders judgment that bears weight when you have no real framework from which to see or understand the whole," as you said. In light of that, I don't see how my opinion is any less valid than theirs. It's not like THEY have all the answers just by nature of their position. And they certainly aren't above criticism. Granted, their frame of reference is different than mine...but that doesn't mean their frame of reference is BETTER than mine.
 
Last edited:
Colonel Jessep, as a fictional character, is an archetype. He takes a moral perspective that is not uncommon among military personnel to an extreme. No, most military personnel do not think as he does, but I dare say most military personnel can at least grasp where he's coming from.

It's absolutely not an uncommon sentiment among our military, and it is definitely taken to an extreme. I think that people who have not been in the military really don't grasp what it's like(and why in some ways I would love to see a national service based on the military model for every 18 year old for 4 years). People have these bizarre ideas about soldiers. I remember when that airliner exploded off the coast of NY I think it was, there were people who where convinced that the Navy accidentally shot it down, and just would not listen as I tried to explain that there is no way that those sailors would not just keep quite on it if ordered to do so. Almost every one I met in the military was what I would describe as good people, but often working under stress that most people just don't ever deal with just during peacetime let alone at war.
 
Well to be honest, the people doing the torturing at Gitmo (for example) are only privy to bits and pieces themselves. Chances are, they haven't studied sociology to understand how torture and/or the prison conditions at Gitmo affect people. They've probably never studied criminology or been part of an FBI unit to understand whether or not torture actually produces the desired result. They probably don't have law degrees to understand the legality (or lack thereof) of their actions under the US Military Code of Conduct, federal law, or international law. They've probably never studied international diplomacy to understand how their torture of prisoners might alienate our allies and make cooperation on other issues more difficult, or how it might result in our enemies using it as justification to torture Americans. Similarly, I've never been a part of the US Military to understand the conditions that soldiers face when confronted with ideological extremists.

Since very few people have done ALL of those things, nearly everyone "renders judgment that bears weight when you have no real framework from which to see or understand the whole," as you said. In light of that, I don't see how my opinion is any less valid than theirs. It's not like THEY have all the answers just by nature of their position.

However, I'd dare say those creating the procedures for such things that deciminate it down into the lower ranks likely do have information and experience in a number of those areas or have input from people that do, not to mention have the insight into the information that has been shown through practice from intelligence agencies if any have used similar techniques, not to mention information concerning the people in question that are having these things done to them and what, if any, information they may have.

You're trying to grab the lowest person on the totem pole and use that as your standard, which is rather incorrect when talking about this topic as it would more accurately be those that are creating and ordering these things. Even more than that though, I think you are highly under estimating the knowledge and possible information available to those in the position of these interrogators based on nothing but preconcieved stereotypes. I highly doubt that there are first step enlisted men fresh out of boot camp that walk in, get handed a cup of water, and say pour as you seem to be making it out to be in trying to state that they have little to no better understanding of the situation we're currently in and the effects and possible benefits of these things than the average citizen.
 
However, I'd dare say those creating the procedures for such things that deciminate it down into the lower ranks likely do have information and experience in a number of those areas or have input from people that do, not to mention have the insight into the information that has been shown through practice from intelligence agencies if any have used similar techniques, not to mention information concerning the people in question that are having these things done to them and what, if any, information they may have.

OK, well the people at the top of the command chain get information from all those fields from a variety of different people (rather than having all those experiences themselves). That's basically the same way that most Americans, including those criticizing the policy, get their information as well. So I don't think that one can say that they're above criticism since the average citizen doesn't understand every facet of the issue, when chances are the people making the decisions don't understand every facet of the issue themselves.

Zyphlin said:
You're trying to grab the lowest person on the totem pole and use that as your standard, which is rather incorrect when talking about this topic as it would more accurately be those that are creating and ordering these things. Even more than that though, I think you are highly under estimating the knowledge and possible information available to those in the position of these interrogators based on nothing but preconcieved stereotypes. I highly doubt that there are first step enlisted men fresh out of boot camp that walk in, get handed a cup of water, and say pour as you seem to be making it out to be in trying to state that they have little to no better understanding of the situation we're currently in and the effects and possible benefits of these things than the average citizen.

Even if they are highly educated and have a wide range of experiences (which may or may not be the case), it is unlikely that they have a deep knowledge of everything I mentioned...or even a majority of the things I mentioned.
 
Well whats also missing, and I feel this is important to note, is that Jessup was arressted by the very military he served in, and charged with violations of the UCMJ to be tried by the government in a military courtroom by a jury of his peers. It was enlisted Marine MPs that kept him from ****ting down Lt. Caffey's neck.

So while civilian opinion has merit as far as freely voicing it, we do not put civilians on the jury for just that reason. They are not our peers when it comes to military matters, and thus lack the perspective necessary to commute a verdict.
 
Back
Top Bottom