Tuesday, February 5, 2013
A Rumor of War
Lieutenant Philip Caputo blames the Vietnam War for making his "thoughts and feelings...irretrievably jumbled..." Undoubtedly, fighting any war is extraordinarily difficult and unimaginable for those who have never experienced it. Despite all the training, the realities of war can create unbelievable stress. However, does this excuse him of the awful orders and events that resulted in the deaths of two innocent civilians? Should the just war ideas concerning discrimination between combatants and noncombatants apply in this situation? Should Lt. Caputo have been punished more severely for his terrible decision? Please post by Wednesday, February 6.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a very hard question to answer for me. You have the voice the tells you that killing anyone is wrong under any circumstance. But, when you look at a situation by the name of war when you are forced to kill or be killed, you must kill to survive. But in Lieutenant Philip's case he gave an order to eliminate a percieved threat. He was under pressure because his company wasnt performing, "the company has killed only three guerillas and captured two more, while suffering six times as many casualties itself." He knew he had to kill more so he gave out an order to capture the two "VC's". "I will retaliate", "my mind did more then focus on them; it fixed on them like a heat seeking missile... they became an obsession." He then created the plan, the plan was carried out and in the end they found no evidence to prove them has "vc's", they were inoccent people. From a black and white view point, you read that two innocent citizens were killed, you would probably just say he should be more harshly punished because of the death of inoccents. But if you look at what he was going through can you really punish a man for this decision? I say no, His "boss" wanted bodies, his mental health was inquestion, he had been in the "Fog of War" for almost a year and he couldnt stand the pressure so he snapped. When you finally do snap you arnt the same person you really are."the killings had occured in war. They had occured, moreover, in a war whose sole aim was to kill viet cong, a war in which those ordered to do the killings often could not distinguish the viet cong from civilians."That is why Lt.Caputo should not be punished more severly for this decision there were way to many factors that caused his decision to hold him 100% responcible.
ReplyDeleteTommy Janicki
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tommy in that from a Black and White view point, yes it was a terrible decision which led to the death of innocent civilians. However I can understand how the pressure of war can "fog" his decisions. One piece of the text that I disagree with is "the fact that we had been charged in the first place was absurd. They had taught us to kill and had told us to kill, and now they were going to court-martial for killing". I have never been trained for the military, but from experience from Call Of Duty I believe that the military explicitly stresses the importance of civilian lives. A military official should have basic morals to know the difference between killing an enemy and killing an innocent, unarmed civilian. This leads me to my next statement, yes he should have received a harsher punishment. Although war may have fogged up his mind, he should be mentally strong enough to overcome that and make rational decisions. There were many things that could have prevented the death of two innocent casualties and Lt.Caputo did nothing.
ReplyDeleteDue to the immense amount of factors contributing to Lieutenant Philip Caputo’s decision to “retaliate” it is hard for one to decipher whether or not his actions were justifiable. However, I believe that Lt. Caputo’s actions were not all his own fault and misdoing but rather they were the culmination of three important factors including: Captain Neal’s “reprehensible policy not at all keeping with the traditions of the U.S Marine Corps”, Lt. Caputo’s “turbulent emotions and disordered thoughts” brought on by the unspeakable and incomprehensible hardships of the Vietnam War, and the fact that Lt. Caputo never actually told Crowe or any of his other men to kill the Viet Cong but to capture them instead. Before I begin with my reasoning I feel it is important for the reader to realize that the following justifications are not meant in any way to diminish or disregard the fact that two young, defenseless, and innocent people lost their lives regardless of the fact that they were unarmed and non- resistant.
ReplyDelete“From now on, any Marine in the company who killed a confirmed Viet Cong would be given an extra beer ration and the time to drink it. Because our men were so exhausted, we knew the promise of time off would be as great an inducement as the extra ration of beer.” This quote clearly illustrates the fact that Captain Neal encouraged quick killing and less insightful decision making. The Captain was well aware that the Marines were tired of “rain that would have impressed Noah” and he himself was becoming fed up with the disappointment of his company having “killed only three guerillas and capturing two more while suffering six times as many casualties itself.” The Captain needed Lt. Caputo to start producing the bodies of Viet Cong and essentially that’s that he did. In a way Lt. Philip Caputo was simply following the orders of a reckless higher ranking officer. “All the higher-ups want is bodies.” “Well I would give them bodies, and then my platoon would be rewarded instead of reproved.”
Imagine being fully immersed in a world where “land mines, infiltrators, mortars, and snipers” are common place. This was Lt. Caputo’s world for the six long months he spent in Vietnam. Thus, it is appropriate to say that the horrifying and tortuous “war in general” can be attributed as a reason why the deaths of Le Dung and Le Du occurred. It is arguable that troops in such relentless and gruesome combat should be trained to handle such situations but can a human being really be “trained” to deal with the horrors displayed of the battle field that was Vietnam. Is anyone trained to handle “the smell of blood, the stunned faces, a young platoon leader wrapped up like a mummy with plastic tubes inserted in his kidneys, and an eighteen year old private, blinded by shellfire, a bandage wrapped around his eyes.” In my opinion no one is prepared for such sights and it was such sights that caused Lt. Philip Caputo to develop “a secret and savage desire that the two men should die” thus resulting in the accidental murder of two innocent civilians in “The Fog of War.” It was that such fog that momentarily clouded the judgment of a normally morally sound Lieutenant.
“You get those VC” Lt. Caputo told his men. “Snatch em’ up and bring em’ back here, but if they give you any problems, kill em’.” After reviewing Lt. Philip’s orders above it is clear that he did not say for his men to only kill the Viet Cong members but instead told them to act using their discretion as soldiers. Therefore, it is not the fault of Lt. Caputo that the two men died because his orders did not say to arbitrarily kill the VC members. Now, is the Lt. guilty of attempting to cover up the truth, absolutely and there lies the area in which I personally believe that his punishment should have been made more severe. I believe that the Lt. should have received more than a slap on the wrist for his wrong doing.
---Nick Palumbo
Overall, it is apparent to me that Lt. Caputo was not responsible for the killing of the two innocent Viet Cong and I agree with the majority of his punishment accept in the area mentioned above. War can make a man do the craziest of things and mix that with bad leaders and a misinterpretation of orders and you have a recipe for disaster.
ReplyDelete---Nick Palumbo
I believe that Lt. Caputo should not have gone through what he did. When at war people will die and mistakes will be made. Everyday innocent people die. When in war you could tell from the story he told that he was going crazy. He had all these orders to kill and get bodies of the VC and he was under tremendous pressure to deliver. By then end he had seen many men die that were his close friends and he cracked. In the war he knew what he had to do, he made the mistake of letting his anger cloud his judgment. He wanted the revenge that he believed her deserved. He thought he was going to kill some members of the VC he had believed they were present and so he went after them. He truly believed he was going after the enemy. War will change you and by the end he was lost, he lost who he was and was not bothered by deaths as he once was. In the fog of the war he got lost. For him to get in trouble for going out and fighting for our country seems crazy to me. Although he did kill innocent people his mind was in the right place, he really believed he was going after the enemy. He didn't want to kill the innocent people and you could see his pain after he did. He has gone through enough and he didn't need this to add on top of everything else.
ReplyDelete-Pamela Whatley
Lt. Philips made a controversial decision in the heat of the war that I feel is excusable considering the circumstance. Philips was in a very stressful position, commanding men in a dangerous sector of Vietnam. With his men dying all around him, Philips felt that he had to rely on some very questionable intel in order to protect their lives. “It was then that my chaotic thoughts began to focus on the two men whom Le Dung, Crowe’s informant, had identified as Viet Cong. My mind did more than focus on them; it fixed on them like a heat-seeking missile fixing on the tailpipe of a jet. They became an obsession. I would get them. I would get them before they got any more of us; before they got me.” These crazed thoughts are simply out of a stressed mind who’s only intentions are protecting his men, even if it meant killing two suspected VC’s. Only after having a squad assassinate the two VC’s did Philips get any evidence, or lack thereof. The two VC’s turned out to be two innocent civilian boys. As soon as Philips and his men found out that they had killed innocent boys, they all lost the giddy motivation that they had before the kill. “Did you find anything that looked like booby-trap gear in the house?” “No, sir.” The laughter had stopped. I turned to Crowe. “Are you sure this was one of the two that kid pointed out?” “Yes, sir,” Crowe said, but he looked away from me. “Tell me again why you shot him.” This right here is where the men realized that they got caught up in the fog of war, they acted in a uncivilized manner that they at the time thought was ok because their war torn minds didn’t know better. “The sensation was like snapping out of a hypnotic trance. It was as jarring as suddenly awakening from a nightmare, except that I had awakened from one nightmare into another.” The fog of war had prevented them from carrying out a complete investigation and lead to a rash decision to be made. Only after the assassination did the men break out of the fog of war and realize the evils that they have done. I feel that Lt. Philips shouldn’t suffer more severe consequences for his orders because he was simply blinded by the fog of war.
ReplyDelete-Ian Borzain
While I do think that Lieutenant Philip Caputo should not have given the orders that he did, I do think it is excusable. To be in a strange country for that long under the conditions he was under is something that most people would have cracked much earlier than he did. Not only did he have untreatable tropical impetigo, but he, along with the other men, did not have the best diet there. You could also tell he was saddened by the death of the two innocents, especially after seeing the face of the murdered young boy. He even stated "I kept looking at the corpse, and a wave of horror rolled through me as I recognized the face. The sensation was like snaming out of a hypnotic trance" (Philip Caputo). It is clearly shown here that he was remorseful and felt guilty. Also, knowing that he has clearly seen many bloody dead bodies since he is in the midst of a war, and he is shocked by this innocent face shows he is ultimately a good person.
ReplyDeleteGilisa Paternina
In my opinion, his orders were not awful, and he should not have been punished. He was a Marine on the "front" (though the enemy was everywhere) lines. The job of a Marine is to improvise, adapt, and overcome in order to bring about victory and the fall of the enemy. Lt. Caputo took a group of worn out fire-pissing young men, excercised some personal initiative and kicked ass. That was his job, he did it well. Its easy for someone to look back now and say oh he should have known not to attack that they were civilians, but you werent there. You didnt live through the seemingly innocent and unarmed women and children that would walk up to soldiers, soldiers who thought there was an innocent little kid coming up to hug them, and then explode killing the soldiers. There was no way to tell the enemy from the civilians they lived together worked together and supported eachother. He had intel that two men were VC in a VC controlled village and they were of perfect age to be VC. He had more than enough material necessary to make this decision, a decision that i agree with.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, his orders were not awful, and he should not have been punished. He was a Marine on the "front" (though the enemy was everywhere) lines. The job of a Marine is to improvise, adapt, and overcome in order to bring about victory and the fall of the enemy. Lt. Caputo took a group of worn out fire-pissing young men, excercised some personal initiative and kicked ass. That was his job, he did it well. Its easy for someone to look back now and say oh he should have known not to attack that they were civilians, but you werent there. You didnt live through the seemingly innocent and unarmed women and children that would walk up to soldiers, soldiers who thought there was an innocent little kid coming up to hug them, and then explode killing the soldiers. There was no way to tell the enemy from the civilians they lived together worked together and supported eachother. He had intel that two men were VC in a VC controlled village and they were of perfect age to be VC. He had more than enough material necessary to make this decision, a decision that i agree with.
ReplyDeleteWas the purpose of the war noble? Bring freedom and democracy to Vietnam? If the purpose is noble, should we expect the actions to also be noble? If they cannot be so, then should a nation refrain from entering into these types of "adventures?"
DeleteI believe that Lt. Caputo should not have been more severely punished. In war there are always casualties. In war men try to not hurt civilians but their attempts are feeble because no matter how hard you try it is unavoidable. Like Lt. Caputo stated “In a guerrilla war, it read, the line between legitimate and il¬legitimate killing is blurred. The policies of free-fire zones, in which a soldier is permitted to shoot at any human target, armed or unarmed, and body counts further confuse the fighting man’s moral senses. My patrol had gone out think¬ing they were going after enemy soldiers.”This statement completely proves Lt. Caputo point that the killings are justified due to a lack of information of the location of the VC and the high suspicion level surrounding the innocents, especially in a free fire zone in a guerilla war were you never know where your enemy is. Overall it can’t be Lt. Caputo’s fault due to the very nature of his situation. The stress level created in Vietnam lead to hasty and not well thought out decisions. While the consequences are awful for such decisions they are still understandable through the high stress environment, with unclear information, and civilian in the war-zone. This however does not agree with the ideas of just war. In just war civilian casualties are unacceptable. However this is idealistic because in the rigors of war there are no rules. In Conclusion, Lt. Caputo should not have a more severe punishment because of the circumstances revolving around it. This does not apply to all cases but it certainly does in this one.
ReplyDelete-Colin Krohto
The blood, the gunshots, the screams, the explosions, dead bodies scattered everywhere, the look of terror in civilians’ eyes- I cannot even begin to imagine the extraordinarily difficult hardships that soldiers face during war. However, I can begin to understand that among the chaos and confusion that proper military tactics presented in the Just War Theory will not always be followed. The Just War ideas concerning the discrimination between combatants and noncombatants apply in this situation. According to jus in bello, the second part of the Just War theory, soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population and the military, political, and industrial targets. It is considered wrong according to this theory to take deliberate aim at civilian targets, like Lieutenant Philip Caputo ordered his small group of men to snatch up the two “VC” and to kill them. While Caputo does not tell the men to immediately kill the “VC” he states that it was his “secret and savage desire that the two men die. In my heart, I hoped Allen would find some excuse for killing them…there was a silent communication between us, an unspoken understanding: blood was to be shed.” Lieutenant Caputo claims to be a victim of the ‘fog of war’. The fog of war is defined as the uncertainty in situational awareness experienced by participants in military operations. He claims to be a victim of “turbulent emotions and disordered thoughts” brought on by the hell-like conditions of the war. The majority of the company have been killed, including some of Caputo’s friends, they experienced monsoon storms and hot, sticky tropical weather, different diseases, and were under a great deal of pressure from Captain Neal’s demand for bodies. It is understandable that despite long and tedious training, the realities of war can create an unbelievable deal of stress; human beings can only withstand so many traumas before they ‘crack’. However, this does not justify the death of two unarmed and defenseless, innocent young men. I believe that Lt. Caputo should have received a severe punishment for this decision to capture and kill the V.C.’s. Additionally he should have received a greater punishment for the third charge, attempting to hide the truth by lying to the court, instead of a simple letter of reprimand. The concept of ‘fog of war’ is just an excuse for an individual’s terrible decision(s) during a time of warfare. The ‘fog of war’ theory is simply a poor excuse for letting the situation get to your head and ‘crack you’ and for the unspeakable act of murdering two harmless civilians.
ReplyDelete- Jillian
Soldiers suffer from many psychological effects during and after war such as PTSD. War has many negative effects and can cause mental deterioration which can lead to poor decision making. So often in war a leader such as Lt. Philips can give an order to his soldiers that may have negative results. This always happens in war and cannot be easily prevented. However there should consequences to those who make poor decisions that lead to the death of other, given the situation however. If a civilian is killed because they got I'm the line of fire during combat then the soldier is not at fault. However if the soldier decides to go and kill civilians in cold blood then action should be taken. In Lt. Philips case he is not at fault with the death of the civilians. I believe this because he didn't give the order to kill the civilians. Also, based upon how he talks about all of the awful things happening in the war, he clearly isn't in a right state if mind to be making rational decisions at all times.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Brehio
War. What a beautiful thing is it not? How elegant are its ways in crushing men. How graceful are its techniques in degrading the human soul. How simply it reaches into the human heart and poisons it. War is a master in the art of tormenting its participants. Lieutenant Caputo’s actions were just another byproduct of the grand celebration of power that we call war. Just another soldier he was. Just another man caught up in the web of the hell storm that is war. It is hard to truly determine whether or not Lieutenant Caputo’s orders, which would cause the death of two innocent Vietnamese men, were justified. However, saying that a soldier’s actions are always justified because they are in a war is foolish. To say that a soldier can do anything just because they are caught in the middle of a conflict is irrational. In determining whether or not a soldier’s actions are justified, one must review it on a case by case basis. A blanket statement cannot be made on whether or not all of the decisions made in war are justified. Rather, a look into the psyche of the person, and understanding how their brain was functioning at the moment is extremely important in coming up with a verdict such as in Lieutenant Caputo’s case.
ReplyDeleteIt came as a great shock when Lieutenant Caputo’s defense counsel said, “I’m not worried about your psyche.” For this is what one uses for decision making. It is the brain that controls one’s actions and tells them what to do. The fact that the defense counsel and the rest of the court did not care about Lieutenant Caputo’s thought process was astonishing. To truly tell whether or not Lieutenant Caputo’s actions were justified, determining why he made these decisions must be done. These decisions were made because of the immense amount stress that overwhelmed Lieutenant Caputo. The unbearable conditions such as, “rain that would have impressed Noah,” or the lack of sensitivity to death, as mentioned by McKenna when he say, “I mean the thing that bothers me about killing her is that it doesn’t bother me,” all played a part in diminishing his psyche. When it had diminished so much, Lieutenant Caputo executed the order to, “Snatch ‘em up and bring ‘em back here, but if they give you any problems, kill ‘em.” This lack of judgment and reason is usually only shown in psychopaths.
There is no way around it; the deaths of the two innocent Vietnamese men were Lieutenant Caputo’s fault. If it had not been, Lieutenant Caputo would not have felt the amount of guilt and grief that he did after the deaths of the men. However, given the situation he was in, one can argue that Lieutenant Caputo’s actions were justified. If a normal human being had given these orders, they could not be justified. Lieutenant Caputo and his men were no longer normal human beings however. War had changed them. It “had awakened something evil in us, some dark, malicious power that allowed us to kill without feeling.” A normal human being could not do this. Humans have morals and standards, and are able to reason. These men however, had their morals and ability to reason stripped away from them. This was when they ceased to be normal human beings. Therefore, their psyche was not normal and should be a huge factor in determining if they were guilty or innocent.
Because someone is in a war should never be an automatic excuse for their actions. However, their mental state because of war makes a compelling argument in helping to prove their innocence.
I am not sure his actions were "justified" - in fact, they are not and can never be justified. However, were the circumstances, i.e., the "fog of war," enough to rationalize how these killings occurred and mitigate some of his responsibility for the tragedy? As brutal as war may be, can one's "morals and standards" ever be stripped away from them? At the end of the terrible circumstances and deprivations of war, aren't we left only with our sense of morality and ethics?
DeleteYip the Great
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe that Lieutenant Caputo was not in the wrong in this situation. War is in no doubt a scary and unpredictable environment in which the human mind can be distorted. Plenty of soldiers have come back to the states with Post Traumatic stress due to warfare. I believe that caputo was not in the wrong because he was simply not fit for duty at that point. He was mentally unstable due to the circumstances of the war and he believed he was in danger. He ordered the 2 civilians to be killed because he thought that they were viet cong and therefor a threat to him and his country. He should be held accountable, but should not face any penalty because he was mentally unstable and vietnam was a very scary and dangerous place.
ReplyDelete-ben Guyette
This excuses Lt. Caputo. He was in a war, it wasn't all his fault he killed civilians. He sent a patrol to get the two viet cong soldiers. They killed one because he tried to run away, and then the other was killed when he slapped one soldier with a branch. Under these circumstances this wasn't Lt. Caputo's fault that two civilians died, he could have been more careful, but the two civilians refused to go with the soldiers.
ReplyDelete-Connor Lanoie
Given this circumstances, Lt. Caputo's actions are understandable. He had reason to believe the village was controlled by VCs, and in the chaos of war, it is understandable his frame of mind was not 100%. Soldiers in battle are likely to suffer from many things, namely post traumatic stress disorder, so it is understandable that his frame of mind is not ideal, and him being lead to believe that the village was controlled by VCs, his actions are understandable, although not justified.
ReplyDeleteNick De Gennaro
This was a difficult question for me to answer. Caputo technically was doing the right thing though he made the mistake of killing the wrong people. From Caputo's point of view I get that he's there to kill and was pretty used to following the orders and giving them. Caputo said at the last minute before the plan began He still had the conscience to want to stop what he was doing but he was ordered to kill anyone who stands in his way. This is what makes me wonder if he deserves a punishment. It is not completely his fault that two innocent young men had to die for no good reason, it's the fault of the war. Anywhere else it'd be murder, but in war it's a job. I don't believe that it's right, but it is what it is. They kill to save their own lives no matter how mean or selfish they have to be. My answer is that he shouldn't need to be punished because he made the mistake of searching the wrong people. It's not okay if it's a accident but I guess he's not a criminal for serving his country the way he was told to do it.
ReplyDelete- megan taylor
Lt.Caputo's decisions were definitly not the best and to me should have been severly punished but when there is other things like people having ptsd then thats when I think that Caputo is not as guilty as he seems. He in all this mess was to blame even though he was really stressed and scared. His stress was only bad because he thought of two other soldiers who only had a few days till their service was done but they died so thats what drove him to the brink of craziness. As his service was coming to an end he was now worried so to me he shouldn't have been given a worse punshment for killing since he was most likely insane.
ReplyDelete-Jesus Garcia
I can only imagine how horrible it must have been being put into the position that Lt.Caputo was in, but the choices he made should not have been so excused so easily. While Caputo was in the middle of a war with men dropping like flies, killing innocent civilians can is in no way permissible. The three young men who were suspected to be VC had already been cleared by McCloy and the ARVN so they knew that they were not the enemy. I suppose you could say that Crowe gained reasonable suspicion from the young man who said they were VC, but even that wasn't reliable. Caputo's decisions may have been caused by the "Fog of War" but it doesn't make it okay that he two innocent people were killed because of his decision.
ReplyDelete-Wyatt
War does take it's toll on all the fight or take part in it, but it does not justify something as bad as killing innocent civilians. In the situation that Lt Caputo found himself in, it can be understood why he would kill the civilians. The war was really getting to him and he was going insane. This does not justify the killing, but it does make us think about how it was not completely his fault. He was in a free-fire zone and he was only trying to do his job. There was also the presser that was on by his superiors to get more bodies. He was just trying to follow orders.
ReplyDeleteAfter todays discussion I have changed my views alittle bit. I stick to my original thought that Lt. was under the fog of war. But I do not believe that can be used has an excuse for the murder of two innocent people. I think that the Lt. should have served 2-4 years in prison for his crimes. I feel this way because there was alot of factors invovled in his decision, Pressure from bosses, the fog of war, and a mental snap. But he still gave orders with the intent to kill two people that were not 100% enemy targets.
ReplyDeleteAbove comment was from your truely
ReplyDeleteThomas Janicki
As I did not speak during the seminar today, i will give my three talking points now. I was on the fence on whether the fog of war was enough to be an excuse for killing innocent civilians. The fog of war definitely is strong enough to make soldiers go crazy but it can't ever justify something as horrid as killing unarmed civilians. One example of how bad the fog of war can be is when one of the soldiers shot an elderly woman in the chest and then told his men to patch her up, not realizing that he had killed her. It certainly does have a big impact on how these soldiers are thinking. In this situation where it was a free-fire zone and the soldiers were pressured to get bodies, i can understand why they were killed, but the soldiers still must be punished. As we went over in the seminar, there are lots of situations where these circumstances would not be an acceptable reason to kill.
ReplyDeleteI didn't speak in the seminar mostly because I wan't exactly sure which side I was on. I really felt that someone was to be punished but the blame wasn't on one person. So that's why this is difficult, I believe that it was a mistake and if Caputo were in his right mind then he would've known better. However he did say he wanted to kill the enemy and that's what he thought he was doing at the time. So I guess at war people are going to get killed regardless. It's horrible but it's true and I doubt they were the only innocent people killed. But anyway I had a hard time deciding what I wanted to say so my talking points were as I said before that he had a conscience to know right from wrong at the last minute but war just changed his way of thinking and took over his mind in a way. I also agreed with Jillian I think we both had generally the same idea, yet I still was a little on the other side as well. But either way it was his duty and his responsibility so Caputo is at fault , he wasn't insane he was traumatized to a point where it didn't matter anymore and he was just getting the job done.
ReplyDeleteI didn't speak at all during the seminar so my three talking points on why Caputo should have been given an honorable discharge is because he was paranoid, he heard his comrades died 4 days before their tour of duty was done and he misunderstood the orders he was given. First of all his paranoya was caused because he was under pressure of getting bodies and his tour of duty was going to be over in a month. My second talking point was that he heard that two other soldiers died 4 days before the end of their deployment was over so since he was a month away till his was over he was nervous about getting attacked. My final talking point is that he was given orders and since he was paeanoyed sent his patrol out there to mostly kill them not really capture them.Throughout the discussion I did start realizing that most of this packet was a confession of porpusly wanting to kill the two innocent men which makes me reconsider if he was a war criminal or not.
ReplyDelete-Jesus Garcia
After the seminar i still stand by that the "Fog of War" should excuse soldiers from both civil and military law, but it must deoend on the circumstances. In the case of Phillip Caputo I say that he should not be punished. In vietnam life was awful. The constant rain, disease filled swamps, and the thought that at any given time you could be ambushed by the VC can mentally cripple anyone. This along with pressure from your peers and the 6:1 body count against you further impairs your mind. All these factors led Phillip Caputo to make his desicion to try to capture and kill if necessesary the two suspected VC. Under these circumstances it is lawfully understandable but not morally understandable. However if the circumstances were different then him being punished or not punished would be different. In todays world it is much harder to make mistakes like Phillip Caputo did. Being more technologically advanced means that intel can be more easily gotten, and proven or disproven. This means it is much harder to bad intel decreasing the chances civilian deaths. Since these circumstances are different it may be that the perpetrator should be punished. However you still need to make decisions based on the circumstances of the situation.
ReplyDelete-Colin Krohto
Going into the seminar I agreed that Philip Caputo should have an honorable discharge. However before we began the seminar Mr. Yip commented on someone’s blog saying that what Caputo did can be rationalized but not justified. This made me switch my position to having Caputo be a war criminal. I then thought that he had no excuse for sending those troops to kill those innocent civilians. I also believe that he was not the only one to blame. Caputo was pressured, he was constantly told to get bodies. He had the idea implemented in his head, “Bodies. Bodies. Bodies. Bat¬talion wanted bodies. Neal wanted bodies.” (A Rumor of War). Not only was he told to get bodies, but also he received incentives if he retrieved bodies. I think that Captains should not be putting pressure on their men to get bodies because it clearly pushed Caputo to tell his men to go into that village. Although the Captain does share some blame, Caputo ultimately made the decision and should be held responsible and should have served more jail time.
ReplyDeleteGilisa Paternina
When i first went into the seminar I believed Lt. Philip Caputo should have gotten an honorable discharge and not be claimed as a war criminal. After the discussion went on, all the evidence from the text and from people's point of views showed how Lt. Caputo deserved jail time, and should of been considered a war criminal. He murdered two innoncent people, they were not soldiers, Lt. Caputo wasn't insane. He had the intent of going into the village, taking the two guys and most likely killing them. Lt. Caputo should have been classified as a war criminal for his murders caused in Vietnam.
ReplyDelete- Connor Lanoie
I was extremely torn before and during the debate as to whether or not Lieutenant Caputo should have to be punishment for his actions. I was leaning towards yes however I felt that my emotions were clouding my thoughts. I assumed that I only wanted vengeance for those two innocent men, who were Vietnamese such as myself. I thought maybe the history of what happened to my people was angering me and I didn’t want it to get the best of me. And so I entered the seminar believing that Caputo was an innocent man. That what he did was surely wrong, but it could be excused by this so called “fog of war.” However, as the discussion evolved, I came to realize that a wrong decision was made by the court martial. I realized that my argument about Caputo’s psyche was almost irrelevant in this case. So I guess now I’m explaining why I was wrong.
ReplyDeleteI had previously argued that Caputo’s mental state was so impaired that he could be excused of his crimes. However, the only people that are excused of crimes in this country are those who are insane. And as Caputo’s defense counsel stated, “Don’t try temporary insanity. There’s a legal definition for that, and unless you were bouncing off walls, you won’t fit it.” Caputo was not an insane man. What happened to those two innocent men was the doing of a sane man and his also sane allies.
To further prove Caputo’s totally adequate mental state, Caputo is quoted several times stating how he knew the two men were going to die, and was fine with it. Once, he states that, “In my heart, I hoped Allen would find some excuse for killing them, and Allen had read my heart. He smiled and I smiled back, and we both knew in that moment what was going to happen. There was a silent communication between us, an unspoken understanding: blood was to be shed. There is no mystery about such unspoken communica¬tion.” Here, Caputo even states that he hoped that the men would die. Yes he gave orders to capture them alive, but in unspoken words, he told Allen to kill those men. Once he sent those troops of to kill innocent civilians, he still had the power to stop them. However he says that, “but I could not bring myself to do it.” He was a bloodthirsty man now. He knew those two were going to die and he didn't stop it because he and his higher-ups wanted bodies.