Under Orders, Under Fire

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

James LaPorta
@JimLaPorta
·
Follow
Hypothetical: an American reporter has embedded with an enemy unit of the United States during war and they are preparing to ambush an American platoon. Do you film/report it or do you warn the American platoon of the ambush? Westmoreland, Scowcroft, Jennings, and Wallace discuss


Watch on Twitter
5:29 PM · Sep 8, 2022

Under Orders, Under Fire (Part I)

https://www.learner.org/series/ethics-in-america/under-orders-under-fire-part-i/

How do we wage war when the enemy dresses as civilians and children throw bombs? Generals William Westmoreland, David Jones, and Brent Scowcroft, correspondents Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace, and others question the duty to follow orders and a commander's obligation to protect soldiers.

Under Orders, Under Fire (Part II)

https://www.learner.org/series/ethics-in-america/under-orders-under-fire-part-ii/

The carnage of My Lai raises the issue of confidentiality between the soldier, his religious confessor, and military justice. Generals debate the clash between military tribunals and the right of confidentiality with Chaplain Timothy Tatum of the U.S. Army War College, the Reverend J. Bryan Hehir of the U.S. Catholic Conference, and others.

[Haggard Celine]

1. It's a hell of a dilemma.

I certainly wouldn't want to get Americans killed, but I think that if there had been more up close reporting about Americans dying in the senseless war in Vietnam, it might not have lasted as long as it did. So maybe if a reporter covered the ambush, it would serve a higher purpose that might save lives in the future. So there are good arguments for and against. You'll probably have guilt no matter which one you choose.