Topic awaiting preservation: Metallica and Ethical War (Page 1 of 2)

Ah, mind me for not finding a link.

I remember hearing somewhere on the news somewhere what during the war American Soldiers used stereo systems playing "Metallica: Enter Sandman" to ward off or intrude upon iraqi soldiers. Appearantly using this tactic makes Iraqi soldiers jump out of their hiding places only to be shot down instantly by U.S. soldiers. Also, U.S. tend to shout insults such as "IRAQI MEN HAVE NO BALLS," to get the same jump-out-of-hiding result. Well lead singer of Metallica James Hetfield has spoken out against using Metallica's songs in warfare for the jump-out-of-hiding purpose. My stepmom and I were having a discussion about this at the dinner table last night. And I couldn't help but agree with James, I think shouting insults and playing metal to ward off the enemy is both an embarassment to our country and a lack of efficiency in war, whether or not it seems to work. My stepmom (jewish and very proud) made a comment that went something like "Well it works, and they're obviously stupid enough to buy it so I don't see a problem with it." I said something about it being not how a war is meant to be faught and then she replied with: "But if they're stupid enough to buy it, it's simple. I think that we should rid the genepool of all stupid people like that, they're a waste of humanity." To which I replied: "Is that not the same idea Hitler had when he exterminated 6 million Jews? You're being a hypocrite." Then my dad stepped in and told us to eat...

Usually my stepmother speaks much more sense than that (to me at least). I was wondering, if maybe anyone else had an opinion on how this is ethical/unethical, and whether or not it is ok to do it?

i have to say, i agree with your step-mom. whatever works!

i would think it would be stupid on the part of the military to NOT use such a simple
tactic to get the response they're looking for. i mean really, if all it takes to
get them outta their hiding spots is a lil heavy metal and a few insults, then by all
means, do that, rather than send a few young people to their deaths trying to roust
them.
i don't think it simply comes down to a case of 'just stupidity' either. don't get me
wrong, i'm all for eradicating the earth of idiots.. but i think there's a bit of a
cultural thing going on there as well.
i could be way off base there..but....
your step-mom's comment about stupid people comes across as being a bit flippant so i
don't think you throwing hitler at her was at all appropriate.
as for such tactics being an embarrassment... well...really, who's it more of an
embarrassment for? us or them??

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

The short answer is that when your own life is at risk, ethics go out the window. The golden rule applies here: we don't use shotguns and poison gas, we don't torture POWs, because we want the same protection under the rules of war. But yelling insults? Playing annoying music? Give me a break. Say I'm fighting a man in a tournament of some sort: a code of gentlemanly conduct certainly applies. But put me with the same man in a dark alley, and give him a knife, and all of a sudden I'm going to do whatever it takes to defeat him. If that means calling his mother fat, well, oops. Not my fault he's got a fat mother.

As part of not being how war is fought, music and sound has long been a tool of war. Bagpipes, drums and trumpts have all been used to intimadate, demoralize, and frighten the enemy. Not to mention signaling. Thou I'm sure there is a United Nations charter about playing Hanson.

J. Stuart J.

[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 06-16-2003).]

Psychological warfare is as old as war itself. Armies have been taunting their enemies since the first man figured out he could kill someone by throttling them or hitting them in the head with a rock.

I find your comment about "how a war is meant to be fought" interesting. Exactly how is a war meant to be fought? With honor and in a gentlemanly fashion? War is not honorable, it is not glorious and it is not gentlemanly--it is horrific and dirty, and you do what it takes to win so you can stay alive. There are certain rules, and certain lines that are not crossed (or shouldn't be crossed), but pyschological warfare is definitely not one of them.

Actually, I heard that the Barney theme song was used in interrogation, and it practically drove the prisoners insane...




www.liminality.org

I can understand James Hetfield's aversion to his music being associated with this type of battle tactic. I'm sure at the song's creation, it was not intended as a weapon of war. (I've not seen the article so I don't know if he disapproved of the tactic itself or not.) However, I can't say that I condemn the technique. In my opinion, it's rather clever. If you can startle or enrage the enemy out of hiding, then it is using their own weaknesses against them. Would I go so far as to say it's stupidity? No. Startle tactics and insults have been a part of war since the act began. An embarrassment to the US to use such tactics? I don't think so. Why do you feel it is an embarrassment? I don't believe it points to a lack of efficiency either. It is a very simple tool. All it requires is a boombox with batteries- cheap, low-tech, readily available and easy to use. Or, in the case of insults, soldiers that can project their voices well. And the most important part- they are effective.

quote:

---

And the most important part- they are effective.

---

I'd have to agree full heartedly with this part. Do whatever it takes too win and use whatever makes it easier to win, as long as your not using something overtly "unethical."

On a side note, can someone tell me why shotguns aren't allowed? SWAT teams use them, so why not use them for breaching teams in the army, or just general close quarters combat?

Am I to understand, Insider, that you have no problem with the general killing, but the calling of names bothers you?

Sure, shoot each other all you want, but for God's sake, don't call each other nutless!

I think that shotguns are outlawed in field combat because they tend to mutilate and disable instead of killing cleanly. Same with hollow-pointed bullets. Of course, there are all sorts of equally-messy weapons that we can use freely, like land mines or flamethrowers, so I don't know what the deal is here. Guess I should let one of our resident military experts answer this one.

InSiDeR: I must admit to being confused about the term 'Ethical' here - what is unethical about this? You also said:

quote:

---

think shouting insults and playing metal to ward off the enemy is both an embarassment to our country and a lack of efficiency in war, whether or not it seems to work.

---

I don't see anything embarassing or inefficient - in fact it seems very efficient to me. Its the job of the military strategists to minimise losses on our side and if this can be acheived simply and easily with techniques like that then all power to them. We have used far worse to minimise our losses - Churchill gassed the natives when he was in the army and we nuked 2 Japanese cities to end WWII early. Compared to this playing some music at them seems pretty mild.......

That said I had heard that this kind of music was being used in interrogations and that is a different kettle of fish - this kind of torture lite (with sleep and sensory deprivation) is something you should be concerned about.



___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

As has been said, I can see James and the boys not wanting to be drawn into that association, but that aside, I'm lost as to your objection here...?

What about this (in particular) is inethical?
What could *possilbly* be inefficient?

I mean....we're killing people. Should we be *nice* while doing it? Maybe introduce ourselves, show pictures of the family, have a drink. "Nice to have met you, time to kill you now. Sorry chap"

=)

DL: Perhaps Metallica is considered 'cruel and unusual punishment'!! I think they should play the Bee Gees or Abba and then shoot them when they pop out of cover to have a little boogie (although persoanlly I'd think that that was cruel ).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

^ Heh. Not bad...lol.

Actually, I find the tactics actually kind of mild, in comparison to others used...

In the end, though, the only thing that counts on the battlefield, is being able to leave it in one piece, and alive. Anything that helps one achieve this, is good tactics, IMHO. The sort of questions and opinions voiced over 'fairplay' in warfare normally come from those who have never actually experienced one. Fairplay is a weakness, to be exploited.

Interrogation tactics are a very different subject, but I'd like to defend the use of sleep deprivation and psychological tactics. We currently draw the line at actual physical abuse: if you accept the line where it is, wearing someone down through means other than physical harm is allowable.

As far as I can see, there is no clear ethical guideline. Look at the post-9/11 debate about whether torture should have been used to interrogate terrorism suspects. It's easy to say "if it can save lives, let's do it" ... given that tendency, I think we're doing pretty well with what we've got.

edit: And yes, if you compare us to most other countries, we're extremely polite. But that sort of comparison makes it too easy to justify things. You can say "well, we're doing X, but at least we're not doing Y," even if both X and Y are unsupportable from an absolute standpoint.

[This message has been edited by Perfect Thunder (edited 06-16-2003).]

Flippant or not, being Jewish, I imagine your step-mom probably feels pretty strongly about any of the Arab nations...
There's a political line there that I'm surprised you crossed... Good for your dad - telling you to eat instead of getting into that argument further!

James Hetfield appears to have a lot of gripes about how his music ought to be played. Most musicians are pretty pleased their music is being played at all - let alone getting overseas exposure! I bet he's pissed about not coming up with the idea himself, and then getting paid for it!
I liked Metallica at one time...

Yeah - I'd probably break too if they played the Barney theme song to me... *shudder* no, no, I don't love you!




Bodhi - Cell 617

So a bad with an album titled "Kill 'Em All" doesn't want their music used during a war to help do just that?

:::11oh1:::

[This message has been edited by krets (edited 06-16-2003).]

First let's get the noise out of the way

Music as torture in Iraq

Metallica's music (along with Seasame Street Tunes) are being used to make uncooperative prisnors more talkative. They're not making Iraqi's jump out of their hidey holes to be shot like clay pigeons. And on a scale of one to ten on the torture-meter I'd put this on 2 (it would be zero if it were just metallica but Barney singing would drive me slightly nuts).



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Of course 'torture lite' isn't as bad as inserting a cattle prod into someone's rectum or some similarly brutal technique but:

1. They wouldn't be used if they didn't cause psychological damage.

2. Do you really think it stops there? If you've gone this far why not just a little further if it gets you what you want?

Read this article:
www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,882002,00.html

quote:

---

The United States is condoning the torture and illegal interrogation of prisoners held in the wake of September 11, in defiance of international law and its own constitution, according to lawyers, former US intelligence officers and human rights groups.
They claim prisoners have been beaten, hooded and had painkillers withheld.

Some prisoners inside American penal institutions and detention camps have been subjected to interrogation techniques which do not leave injuries, but which lawyers consider to be abusive. Others have been sent to countries where electric shocks and more conventional forms of torture have been used, according to the claims.

---

Once you start this kind of thing where do you draw the line? How serious does it have to be before you are prepared to go to the next level? It may sound amusing and 'fluffy' with them playing Seasame Street to people but I wonder how you would feel about it after 24 hours of sleep deprivation and 'strees and duress'?

All, of course, while being held without trial.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

Of course 'torture lite' isn't as bad as inserting a cattle prod into someone's rectum or some similarly brutal technique but

---

Hmm... does that mean I have to take that out of my shock therapy repertoire? And it worked so well, too...

Whatever gets the job done.

I don't know, Suho... I always kind of liked that part.

...wait, is this thing on? Damn...

Cell 1250 :: alanmacdougall.com :: Illustrator tips

A lot of you seem to go along the lines of saying "Whatever works in war works for me!"

Does this mean if we were to start suicide bombing Iraq you would support it? That would be effective in the least. How about nuking the hell out of our enemies? That too would seem to work.

Insider, need it be pointed out to you that there is a HUGE difference between playing Metallica music as an interrogation tactic and detonating a nuclear weapon or suicide bombing?

Your kneejerk, ill-informed reaction to a story you didn't even get straight speaks volumes. Do us all a favor and the next time you try to start a debate about the morality of our war actions at least get the gist of the article right.

I support any amount of force is unnecessay and approprate to the resolve a given situation. Right now it appears unnecessary in Iraq to use nukes, chemical weapons. I wouldn't fault iraq for using them, In fact I would expect it.

There are some considerations to be had for civilians. If it came right down to it and completly selfish, but my personal well being comes first. I wouldn't feel good about it, but if nuking millons people keeps me and mine from harm then my decision would be clear.

I do question the usefulness of suicide bombing the suicide mission may be effective -- when used to gain a tactical advantage but a greater stratgic plan is necessary. Random suicide bombing seems to ineffective as a tool of war. Having been used in repeatedly thou out the middle east and else where in history. When has it ever been effective in resolving any confect? At best it's a weapon of protest, deperation, and terror and not a truely effect one for war.

J. Stuart J.



[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 06-18-2003).]

cfb:

quote:

---

Whatever gets the job done.

---

You mean like slowly squeezing someone's testicles in a jewler's vice or raping their family in front of them or cutting off their nose, ears and lips, etc.?

Don't you then become the thing you are trying to defeat and then they win by dragging you down to their level?

The problem with the thin end of the wedge is that it is never clear where to draw the line - the US are clearly doing more than 'torture lite' and then shipping people off to places like Algeria for the full works if need be.

Responding with violence is a very human reaction (its part of our built in survival mechanisms) but as a society I'd hope we can say that there are things that we don't find acceptable anymore otherwise we haven't really moved on or learnt anything from the horrors of the past century. Perhaps we are too impulsive and stupid to move far beyond being smart apes - I'd like to think not (more fool me).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This murky question of where to draw the line when it comes to ensuring one's one survival/comfort/etc is one of humanity's recurring difficulties. Last night I was at a poetry reading, and one of the young women on stage recited a poem excoriating the eating of meat. Graphic descriptions of pigs being butchered and so forth. I'm not trying to change the topic -- I'm simply mentioning that nearly every question in this general category is a point of fierce contention among very intelligent and wise people.

Cell 1250 :: alanmacdougall.com :: Illustrator tips

Hey, I've got a loopy idea! Let's just abolish war!

*dodges the stones and flees back down to the basement*

Emps: If your country is threatened by nuclear war, theres a dirty bomb in Denver, or you have captured an accomplice to Ed Gein, would you support squeezing their testicles in a vice grip? I know it sounds horrible, and is horrible, but...Personally, I think that that's where the line is crossed, or where the line becomes very vague. If saving millions of people by squeezing someones testicles in a vice grip would be possible, well, I'm not sure if I'd support it or not.

(^^^Note, hypothetical situations. I have no idea if our country is threatened by nuclear war, if there is a dirty bomb in Denver, or if we had ever captured an accomplice to Ed Gein.)

My comment, though, was reffering to the situation at hand: Is playing Metallica music to help kill Iraqi soldiers ethical? Well, it gets the job done, right? Quickly, more efficiently, with less loss to American/British/German (? I'm not sure if German troops are there ?) troops? Well, the answer is yes. So, then I would support it, because it gets the job done.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 06-18-2003).]

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 06-18-2003).]

Suho: Look, though, at the good that comes from war. That's why I say we don't abolish it.

Now, there are tactics...and methods of warfare.

Using different tactics in an actual warfare situation that saves lives, is good. Using tactics that don't, is bad. That much should be obvious.

So, nuking an area, is mostly a bad tactic...because of the huge loss of lives, both during, and after the actual nuking. That's one of the reasons it's not used that much...in fact, almost not at all. Also, it tends to make the area and surrounds unusable for quite some time - not a very good tactic.

However, for a terrorist (or guerilla fighter), a nuke would be very desirable...from a terrorist aspect, using a nuke would be a good tactic.

Tactics, in and of themselves, have no 'right' or 'wrong' attached to them - only the effectiveness (or lack thereof) is deciding.

Enter human rights, and such, into the equation - in end effect, adding 'rules' to warfare - these are methods of warfare, not actual tactics...though such rules do have an effect on tactics - namely, it 'narrows' the available tactical ability, or choices, to those 'acceptable'. As long as all sides in a conflict (war situation, etc) abide by them, fine. However (and this is normally the case) not all sides do - this creates a tactical advantage for the side that does not abide by the aforementioned 'rules'. Examples of this, are the Revolutionary war (America vs England), and the Vietnam war, for example.

So much for tactics in actual warfare (and it's a huge area anyway, no need to go into it in great detail here, I think).

Psychological Warfare (a tactic) - this type of tactic has been used for thousands of years - the first actual evidence of such was in eastern Europe, way, way back - the lobbing of chopped off heads of the enemy over the walls of a beleagered town, to de-moralize the enemy. It has a long tradition in warfare. The painting of ones face, to de-moralize the enemy...using music, to de-moralize the enemy...etc.

So, using such to gain a tactical advantage over the enemy is normally a good tactic...and using sound (music, screams, etc) does work, within reason...I personally see no real 'harm' done here...unless the sound levels are so high, that people are dying from it (very unlikely). It does what it should do, without any colateral damage - this is a 'clean' form of tactics, IMHO.

Torture, on the otherhand, is not normally a warfare tactic. It has very little to do with actual combat. It is a method used to normally extract information from someone. It can be used, as a psychological warfare tactic, but is not very effective - it normally forces the enemy to fight harder, and to the death (the knowledge that one will be tortured if captured, especially if the torture methods are gruesome enough, normally lead to this).

Methods of torture fall normally under Human Rights - humane treatment of prisoners. There is a document that most countries have signed with the UN about this (what is allowed, what is not). Different countries also have different rules, regarding this, as well. Normally, within the territorial boundries of the US, America has pretty strict rules governing what is allowed, and what is not. In the past, different areas around the wrold that are under the control of the US have been used to carry out normally 'illegal' methods - these areas are not within the territorial boundaries, therefore, do not fall under these type of rules. Guantanimo Bay is such an example.

As for sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, these are very effective torture methods, for obtaining information (depending on how they are instrumented). That they leave no physical signs of torture, it is very hard to actually prove that someone was tortured with these methods. The psycological damage, however, can be great, and can be very lasting...however, it is very difficult, to measure this. It is one of the 'cleanest' methods of torture.

So, using Metallica and Barney songs as a tactic in Warfare, etc, if effective, are good, 'clean' tactics - nobody is really being harmed physically...and there is no colateral damage.

cfb: Um, you're being facetious, right?

quote:

---

and there is no colateral damage.

---

Unless you're James Hetfield, and you're not getting paid for it...


Bodhi - Cell 617

Well, I wouldn't exactly call that colateral damage...more a Rights issue...

rights? if I understand what you meant correctly, no - it's not about rights.

I'm sure hetfield isn't worried baout getting paid...I'd say he's a bit more concerned about being associated with the "bad guy" here...

Former album titles aside, Metallica has never been the violent evil metal band they are often thought to be or associated with (I mean come on...you want that, there's plenty of it out there...). They have often written very anti-war songs in fact.

But anyway....

At least he hasn't done such inethical and inefficient things as yelling "iraqi men have no balls!"

Don't mind me - just doing some Hetfield bashing ... I never thought they were evil either... they just seem to make a lot of noise regarding the use of their music...

I probably shouldn't - their noise is regarding intellectual property rights... I'm just not sure I agree with all of the arguments surrounding the sharing of music online...

Back to the thread...


Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-18-2003).]

Hmmm...well, DL (and yes, Metallica has produced some very nice anti-war songs - One is very good, IMHO), isn't it a rights issue? I mean, doesn't the Artist (or Artists, in this example) have the right to decide how their art is displayed, used, etc? I can understand why Metallica would be against the use of their songs, for topics purpose...but it does fall under Law, right? Or am I wrong here?

I mean...well, does it? Hmmm...a DJ can play just about any song, doesn't have to pay royalties...unless it is over radio, TV...or wait. Is that even correct?

Hmmm...I don't really know the legal aspect of this...anyone? It seems that it might fall into a legal area...

I can't see how it possibly could....

If you want to blast metallica over your backyard fence at your neighbor who pisses you off, you are free to do so without metallica's consent

This isn't much different from the copyright/intellectual property rights standpoint.

That's actually entirely untrue.

Any time music is played on the radio or television there is a royalty paid to the artist (usually relatively small and this can be waived in the case of new artists trying to get airplay).

Technically I think Metallica should be getting paid royalties on this use.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

On the radio or tv, sure. But then it's the radio or tv station paying royalties. We don't have to write a check to them anytime we listen to them on the radio...

I certainly don't pay royalties when I play the CD that I bought, even if I turn it up real loud and blast it over the neighbor's fence (or bring it to a party, or play it at work, or lend it to a friend, etc, etc, etc).

So I don't see how this is any different.....? (or what part of what I said you think is untrue...?)



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 06-19-2003).]

I agree - if they paid for the CD - they ought to be able to play it anyway and anywhere they want. They certainly aren't making any money off of playing it... Just unnerving the Iraqi's...

It must be just the ethical use that Mr. Hetfield disagrees with...



Cell 617