Analysis Of The Bridge On The River Kwai

American soldiers are ethical warriors. Military ethics and warrior ethos constitute the two fundaments of the Army’s Code of Honor. One cannot be separated from the other. This obligation has applied for ages to those who held power: "science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul," as wrote Rabelais in the early seventeenth century. More than ever, soldiers need ethic references to guide their actions and prevail, especially in a Counter-insurgency environment where excessive use of force jeopardizes mission accomplishment. Whatever the situation might be, soldiers must be able to use their science of war with restraint, discernment, and ethics. Recent bad experiences proved that the Army should advocate this ethical military obligation with humility and determination.

The Third Geneva Convention is probably the most recognized and important treaty concerning prisoners of war to ever be put down on paper that is recognized by the world over. Though this treaty is very thorough and complete in its wording regarding those that are affected and bound by its wording, there still is one major defect in the treaty that needs to be rectified and dealt with. This flaw is that there is no independent court body or commission that oversees abuses by parties against others in regards to their mistreatment or torture. Persons who find themselves at the hands of captors only have international courts or commissions as well as domestic courts to hear their cases. This can cause an untimely delay in hearing these cases,

Lieutenant General Anthony R. Jones investigated the possible involvement of personnel higher in the chain of command (Jones 2005). Lieutenant General Jones concluded that abuse ranged from inadequate resources, confusion about allowable interrogation techniques, conflicting “policy memoranda,” to “leadership failure.” Lieutenant General Jones also noted that “leadership failure, at the brigade level and below, clearly was a factor in not sooner discovering and taking actions to prevent” the abuses.

In the years following World War one the worlds nations signed the Geneva accords, limiting the mistreatment to surrendered enemy combatants. The convention outlawed inhumane treatment and allowed the soldiers to write back home. Though the world new somewhat of the camps, some nonprofit organizations tried to help by sending relief packages, which were more than not stolen by the

The author states “When the orders we receive from a civilian authority pass legal, ethical or moral boundaries, any soldier of any rank has the right and the duty to first question those orders to receive clarification, and if necessary disobey them if they cross the line.” The author says this because he has been in the army for decades and to him it is the highest form of honor. The author is successful in using tone to express his disdain towards a particular candidate, and to warn other candidates of making the same

Matthew Lippman provides that the Lai Massacre violated the international humanitarian law of war. The Lai Massacre and the Vietnam War raises critical questions about how America conduct war and its military leadership in Vietnam. The massacre of innocent unarmed civilians illustrates the horrendous war crime committed by American soldiers. Lippman discusses how the United States tried to keep the events of My Lai Massacre from the public. The My Lai Massacre makes me wonder if this was only one of the many massacres in Vietnam War and if the higher US officials managed to cover-up the other massacres. The trials for the crimes committed in My Lai were held separately from the Nuremberg trails because officials wanted to avoid creating parallels between the two events. However, parallels can be drawn with American conduct in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Troops who were in violation of international law and committed war crimes in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were not held accountable for their action to their full extent. In fact, those who were convicted were not necessarily charged with war crimes. This leads us to question whether the events of my Lai and Nuremberg could ever be reconciled. Allan Ryan makes the argument that the Nuremberg Tribunals was the most significant development of international human rights law. I agree with Ryan as many tribunals following the events of World War II have been modeled after the Nuremberg Tribunals. For instance, this is true in

While these three points are extensively discussed and dissected, it is apparent that the key factor that makes us professionals is the ethical standard that we must hold every individual soldier, from the lowest private to the highest general, to. One of the major points that are missing is what happens when the ethical standard is breeched and how it is dealt with.

All of the ethical approaches described in this essay became part of my daily experiences in life. Being a soldier alone involves a great deal of ethical and immoral encompasses. By virtue of deontological approach, being an American soldier is ethical.

Combating in modern warfare does not simply mean killing the enemy. There are ethical rules and standards of behavior that soldiers must strictly follow because these rules are essential for defeating the enemy, winning "hearts and minds" of potential allies, and maintain the morale of the troops. These tasks have become especially challenging in the face of the proliferation of guerilla warfare that has been adopted by weaker military forces in the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries. In fighting insurgencies, abiding by the ethical standards of the Army behavior may be even harder than in fighting conventional battles. The ethical rules may sometimes put the soldiers in dangerous positions. Disregarding the acceptable standards of behavior, however, may have even graver consequences, putting innocent non-combatants at risk and risking total demoralization of the Army unit participating in disorderly behavior. It is therefore essential that Army leaders maintain an ethical command climate during the war.

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states

Articles 1, 55, and 56 are the center pieces for promoting and protecting human rights. During the cold war humanitarian intervention went stagnant because the two superpowers who were facing off (US & Russia) were at odds about ideology and this caused world peace to be thrown into turmoil. The UN was very new and did not have the international legal clout to stop either superpower from promoting its system of governance through invasion or indirect military support. The Cold War caused social, economic, and political upheaval globally which allowed for the UN to revise its interpretation of humanitarian intervention. This allowed for a larger consensus among nations about which circumstances required intervention. From 1945 to 1976 five major human rights documents were adopted; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Laws of War, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Cultural Economic Civil Rights. The end of the Cold War “liberated the UN which had established 20 new peace keeping missions from 1988-1993, more than it had taken in its entire 40 year history.” (Taha, 14) The major developments of the 1990‘s for international humanitarian

In 1949, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was created to prohibit immoral, cruel and degrading punishment toward prisoners during wartime. The United States ratified this covenant and became a member of the Geneva Conventions. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, a series of human abuses occurred from October through December of 2003 where American military personnel have conducted acts of brutality and immoral behavior toward Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. The inhumane “interrogation method” of the American military have clearly violated Article 2 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 2.2 states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state

In order to answer this question of rights in captivity, leaders must assess the situation through the lens of an overarching value and a criterion, or means to achieve the value. Executive Order 10631 lays out the duties and responsibilities of US service members in captivity. According to Article III, it is the responsibility of the captured to “continue to resist by all means necessary” (Executive Order No. 10631, 1955). We thus accept this responsibility as the mission of the POW, and ultimately, the value under which we will assess this ethical dilemma.

Lasswell describes politics as, “who gets what, when, and how.” This defines politics in its most basic form. The “who” and “what” of politics are quite simple. People tend to be the “who” and they are all trying to obtain something to better themselves. The “when” depends on the time frame for a particular situation, but the “how” is slightly more difficult. For a person to get something they want or need it involves some compromise, much cooperation, a few lies, and even a bribe here or there. That’s how politics work, and they are used every day to achieve specific goals. In “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, the relationship between the two main characters gives a clear example of Laswell’s definition of politics. It demonstrates the “how” through a number of different ways including compromise, cooperation, and discussions.

Using the same rural road bridge above the Dundas Subdivision that produced the cover photograph in the month of June, I returned in the middle of September, this time with a 400mm mounted up and hoped that the curve in the background would be lit as I was aware that it is open on the north side near there, while the foreground would be in shade from the trees and brush along the verges of the right of way.