Individual rights in war

[Tawasakm]

This is a question I often see pop up in one form or another. In our modern western democracies we have a balance between individual and collective rights - or perhaps it would be better to say that we pursue both. Since this is fundamental to our way of life I think we often unthinkingly extend it into the arena of armed conflict. I can see people asking why this should be an issue. Of course it is right to protect the rights of individuals (captured combatants and civilians for example). But is it realistic? Does it inhibit the ability to follow the objectives of our side in those conflicts? If it does then is it more moral to protect the individual or to pursue the objective?

Take Afghanistan as an example. What are the collective goals? Protecting democratic processes in the country, protecting womens rights, pursuing and dismantling al Quaedas capabilities etc. What happens when (and if) the collective goals become mutually exclusive with the individual goals? If it becomes too difficult to protect individual lives then is it more moral to alter or abandon those goals or to pursue them regardless? If the collective goals are abandoned you may see democracy collapse, women become enslaved and a resurgence in al Quaeda. If you continue to pursue these goals knowing that you can't protect the individuals then innocent people will die.

I wonder at times if we truely realise that we may not be able to have it all. I suppose the question is if we can't have both then should we be there in the first place? Our stable and peaceful lives where our individual rights are protected did not come without conflict. Can they ever?

[Bonam]

There's different types of wars, and civilized nations should follow different rules depending on the kind of war they find themselves engaged in.

In an all out war, a war where the existence of your nation is at stake, pretty much anything goes. Torture, targeting civilians, using weapons of mass destruction, etc. You do whatever you have to to make sure you win and your enemy doesn't. The western world hasn't had this kind of war since WWII, and it's quite possible that it never will again.

The wars we have had recently are different, when we decide we want to modify the regime in another nation to better suit us. We want to set up a democracy somewhere, and make it follow better human rights, expel terrorists, etc. When your nation's existence is not at stake, you can afford to be more restrained in your approach to war. If you want to build a society that respects human rights, it seems most effective to respect those rights throughout the process of building that society.

If the goal was only to destroy al-Qaeda, and we didn't care about the population and their attitudes, we should have gone in with all guns blazing, killed whatever got in the way of rooting out the terrorists, and then left, or applied an occupation that would have restricted the ability for terrorists to operate there. But that's clearly not the approach we have been taking.

In a war like Afghanistan, one of the goals is pretty much to make the population and government like the West in the end, to be grateful to us for having helped them to establish a freer and more peaceful society. Then we can eventually trade with them and mutually benefit, incorporate them into our western alliances, etc. If that is the goal, we need to play nice to be able to achieve it.

[Tawasakm]

There's different types of wars, and civilized nations should follow different rules depending on the kind of war they find themselves engaged in.

That may be true from our end - it may not be from our opponents end

The wars we have had recently are different

Its different in terms of the direct threat to ourselves. Its different in terms of technology available - in armaments, communications etc. It may not be different in the regards that the enemy needs to be killed to be defeated. We may see it as different because our goals are altruistic but that may only be us.

When your nation's existence is not at stake, you can afford to be more restrained in your approach to war. If you want to build a society that respects human rights, it seems most effective to respect those rights throughout the process of building that society.

Thats a fair point. But it gets to the crux of what I am asking. The existence of our nations may not be at stake but the achievement of our goals may be at stake. You speak of building a society that respects human rights. Thats the kind of thing I have been referring to as a collective goal. If we deem that to be the moral victory and the moral outcome then how far do we go to achieve it? At some point your enemy may blend into the population. Or I suppose it may be more relevant to point out Germany and Japan. The nazi's and the imperial japanese army had horrible humans rights abuses which were state sanctioned. I realise the allies had bloody hands as well but I don't think it was in the same degree (no holocaust and no mass mistreatment of POWs). The allied powers crushed these nations and occupied them. We now see these nations as examples of modern democracies which protect and advocate human rights. If I contrast this with wars like Afghanistan then we seem to be bogged down fighting weaker opposition while we ourselves are stronger. I am certainly not advocating we simply go in and slaughter everyone but I am questioning our expectations that the conflict itself can be so rosey. Why do we think we can do drastically effect a long term outcome by 'nice' conflict? Does history teach us it is better to win before using the carrot? And yes I do realise that Germany and Japan both had democratic structures in place previously but I would still consider the point and the question valid.

Do you rebuild after the conflict is definitively over or do you try to rebuild during the conflict?

If we go in to a country with a set of expecations that can conflict with each other (I am contending that in war sometimes the rights of an individual will be in direct opposition to the goals of the war) are we creating a situation where we are considerably less likely to succeed? If we fail to achieve our collective goals because we are concerned with the rights of individuals then we have started a war for nothing. The blood of our dead and their dead achieved nothing if we don't get 'the job done'. If we consider our objectives to be moral and humanitarium to the society as a whole long term should the emphasis then be on those objectives more? What if our enemy does not care about individual rights? I know we want to be distinct from them but what is the real price of doing so?

[Bonam]

I pretty much agree with you, if you go into a war, you need to have a clear set of goals, and the achievement of those goals should be of paramount importance, or you are setting yourself up for failure. The question is how to best achieve those goals. I am not convinced that applying all out war tactics in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan would best serve our goals. Not to mention that the reality of the situation is that conducting this type of war would face immense criticism from both a western country's own population and internationally, pretty much to the point where it would be basically impossible to do.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think if we don't throttle their ideologies (Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their Ilk), then it will flourish. They are already exporting that ideology over here (there is a once a day flight between northern pakistan and some tiny town in north englad, and first-cousin marriage is commonplace in many parts of england).

So if we don't try to throttle their ideology, then we need to stop it from coming here at least. If our borders are close and they don't change, then we run the "risk" of turning the world into that boardgame: Risk.

A bunch of isolated countries building up their armie's populations eventually bumping into eachother in a not so pleasant fashion.

[Tawasakm]

Not to mention that the reality of the situation is that conducting this type of war would face immense criticism from both a western country's own population and internationally, pretty much to the point where it would be basically impossible to do.

I guess this means the answer to the question is that we consider an individuals rights to be inviolable (although still taking into account collateral damage). What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan then? I'm not at all convinced that its realistic to expect victory against determined opponents under these conditions. We are killing people for nothing if we can't achieve our objectives and if we lose.

I am not saying it is wrong to make the decision that we don't want to violate the principle of individual rights and protections in our undertakings. I am saying that a decision like that may well be completely inconsistent with the reality of armed conflict and occupation. Should this determination be a deal breaker when deciding whether or not we go to war? The world is not ideal and war is not what we may want it to be.

[Tawasakm]

Perhaps if we're not prepared to really use force to create power shifts we should use our resources differently. There is a car called the Honda Civic which has an onboard electric generator. It sucks in air and separates the oxygen which it combines with hydrogen. It has few moving parts, does not use batteries (an environmental problem with most electric cars) and its only byproduct is water. It fuels up on hydrogen the same way a car is fueled with petrol. You go to a service station, you open the fuel door, you pump it in from the bowser. Its a great system - since everything about it allows us to go on as normal. The first electric car I am aware of that works as a normal every day car now does. However I understand that Hydrogen is a little tricky and expensive to collect. Apparently it is the most abundant atom in the universe but the difficult and expense comes from separating it from whatever it is attached to. So what if we pour resources into solving that problem instead? Solve the problem of sourcing and distributing hydrogen and reduce our need for oil. It wouldn't happen quickly of course but the kind of money and resources poured into Iraq, for example, could really speed things up. The economies of the middle east would weaken and so would their capacity to cause mischief. Of course this could lead to more death and suffering over there then a stepped up war would - but our hands would be clean and our emissions would be reduced.

[Pliny]

You haven't defined individual rights or collective rights.

Rights are not things that can be granted by governments or Armies because they require a guarantee of delivery that may or may not be possible.

The sanctity of person and property is a right that is defensible. It is not granted by government it is only defended by government and that is governments prime purpose. It does not have to provide you with that right it must defend that right. The right to food, clothing and shelter, as exists in the UN Charter of Human rights, is not a right that government can provide so is not a Human right. It is up to the individual and society to provide itself those essentials - if it can't then how can a government which extracts wealth from the society or the economy ever provide it? As much as government may consider itself above the masses and able to provide for it's citizens it is an impossibility.

In war, we must not degrade ourselves. The enemy is the enemy and it is kill or be killed. It is not degrading to ourselves to protect ourselves and kill the enemy. If we engage in torture because the enemy is the enemy and he deserves it we degrade ourselves. If torture is engaged to save lives or bring one closer to victory then torture should not be ruled out.

As far as I am concerned there are no collective rights as a collective is a group and within a society a government cannot provide anything to a collective because other individuals may fall outside that collective. Government need only protect and defend the sanctity of person and property, and in fact must only protect and defend the individual or it will lose sight of justice. It cannot grant collective rights to any group without forming bias against individuals outside that collective. The only bias it should exhibit, if at all, is between the citizen and the non-citizen.

What I say will sound simplistic but it does not encourage the populace to demand entitlement from government as a special interest. All deserve respect for their person and property. If someone should violate that they lose that right themselves and as long as there is damage to another that has not been recompensed or atoned they should not have that right. On a nation to nation basis the same should apply.

Justice is necessary and justice must remain blind. It cannot be granting rights of entitlement to one based upon the seizure of another's property or even an enforced participation in sharing. Society must be constructed and engineered by the citizen and not by government as fearful as that may sound to those used to having government be the great patriarch and provider of all things good.

[Remiel]

Rights are not things that can be granted by governments or Armies because they require a guarantee of delivery that may or may not be possible.

I think your argument may fall victim to a certain kind of meta-argument. Say, for instance, that you have the Right to have your Rights defended by your government. Yet, this defense is not guaranteed to be delivered, according to you argument. So, in fact, you do not have a Right to have your Rights defended by your government. And if you do not have a Right to having your Rights defended by your government, in what sense are they Rights at all?

[Borg]

Rights?

Bullets do not respect rights.

If rights are respected by both sides all usually goes well.

When one side uses people for shields as they shoot at the other side - rights often go out the window.

Right, wrong, agree or disagree - when you are the target and the only way to stop being the target is to shoot back - rights no longer matter

Borg

[Bonam]

I completely agree with you guys (Pliny, Borg, etc) but you have to bear in mind the reality of the mindset of the Western world right now.

[Borg]

I completely agree with you guys (Pliny, Borg, etc) but you have to bear in mind the reality of the mindset of the Western world right now.

You might be correct from your seat but despite all the talk at home - you shoot at me - it will come back

Only difference now is that we do not start the fight in the crowd

Perhaps that is because the decision makers do not live in a real world

Borg

[Bonam]

You might be correct from your seat but despite all the talk at home - you shoot at me - it will come back

Really? Western countries tend to just sit back and take it when someone is "shooting" them these days, and they get very displeased when their allies don't follow their example.

Citizens kidnapped? Let's negotiate. Terrorist attack? We must be discriminating against them too much, let's make them a protected group, then they won't terrorize us! Israelis trying to defend themselves again? Boycott! Afghans not embracing us with open arms? I know, let's set a deadline for withdrawal.

While this kind of mindset exists, we can't possibly fight a war in the way you guys are saying. And the only way it will ever change is if we face an imminent existential threat, if even then.

[Borg]

Really? Western countries tend to just sit back and take it when someone is "shooting" them these days, and they get very displeased when their allies don't follow their example.

Citizens kidnapped? Let's negotiate. Terrorist attack? We must be discriminating against them too much, let's make them a protected group, then they won't terrorize us! Israelis trying to defend themselves again? Boycott! Afghans not embracing us with open arms? I know, let's set a deadline for withdrawal.

While this kind of mindset exists, we can't possibly fight a war in the way you guys are saying. And the only way it will ever change is if we face an imminent existential threat, if even then.

Perhaps we are talking apples and oranges

You seem to be at the national level - policy and such - I happen to agree with you

I am talking about my boots on the ground - in the dust in the street - shoot at me and it will be returned

Borg

[Moonlight Graham]

Morality comes down to a simple principle IMO, though this principle is often difficult to calculate accurately. Individual rights vs collective rights etc. etc. it just always comes down to this, the basic principle of Utilitarianism: "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".

In terms of war, if usually comes down to a delicate balance of rights. It also comes down to what those who are waging these wars are willing to sacrifice to obtain these goals.

[Remiel]

There is an essay I read last year called War and Massacre, by Thomas Nagel, written sometime around the time of the Vietnam War. It proposes an argument for absolutist limitations on what you may do in war, while still allowing and justifying hostile actions. In a nutshell, it comes down to, " Attack that which is directly threatening about you opponent. "

[Oleg Bach]

War removes all collective human rights - war removes all individual rights also - war is the removal of rights.