after 40 years of dealing (professionally) with the critters."....human nature. People can be confoundedly difficult."
I should have asked the "turn on, turn off" question more clearly. The "turn on" part has to do with perception of a "danger signal" - correct or amplify if I am off base.
The "turn off" part is what I was getting at. Do most[*] folks turn off killing because (feel free to add to the list):
1. They perceive the danger is past.
2. They are stopped by "postive law" [**], which says "stop killing now".
3. Their "animal" (psychotic) state becomes a "humane" (sane) state.
Assuming that my theory - that operational law must correspond to what is a reality in the field (law serves the soldier; the soldier does not serve the law) - is in force [***], what turns folks off killing will shape how the law is stated.
Your thoughts on this basic question.
------------------------
[*] The reason for "most" is that we are looking for something that will fit a majority of cases. Outliers (like the poor in spirit or units) will always be with us - and can be handled by addenda, exceptions, etc. Have to establish the baseline first.
[**] I am using "postive law" very broadly - not only the "laws of war" (statutes, GCs, UCMJ), but also ROEs and orders (which I realize in doctrine are part of the military operational complex).
[***] I read your comments on the difficulties in selling this - agreed; but first you have to have something to sell. Also agree that the Armed Forces reflect society - and so do lawyers (all those bad "trial lawyers" would disappear quickly if there were few clients who wanted to bring the cases on).
Bookmarks