•L.1.F.3.•MeMe•E-Zine•

[23]. Teach a man to kill

Universal Human Rights and the boundaries there of are always being tested. In a world of numerous societies where various cultures hold a vast number of conflicting values, establishing an absolute definition of human rights becomes a complicated matter. In one culture an accepted means of dealing with and enforcing societal mores and norms might be considered cruel and unusual punishment by a neighboring society (as is the case with the strict adherence to the ancient Caste systems of India or the accepted practice of genital mutilation in some Muslim societies as viewed by many Americans (Schaefer, 2010) ). In times of war human rights issues become both more complicated while easier to locate stratification by which to determine who is guilty and who is innocent of such crimes.

The violation of human rights during times of war, while not arbitrarily excusable, can be cataloged depending upon the context from which the purported crime may or may not have been committed. Soldiers, trained specifically in the methodology of killing other human beings, should not be held as accountable for their actions as the persons giving them the orders they have been trained to follow. In turn, criminal intent can be more easily discerned in the actions of those further up the chain of command, accountability best being placed upon those who give the orders that might ultimately lead to criminal activity. Furthermore, the heads of society, who are most responsible for setting into motion the gears of warfare should be first and foremost held accountable for the actions of their military machinations, which are more often than not the end result of political decisions made by the ubiquitous power of the men and women who wield great power from behind the scenes.

Even in times of relative peace, the Universal Rights of human beings are impinged upon with stunning regularity via slave trading, racial persecution and rape to name a handful of the most common transgressions. Terrorism defies the usual definition of warfare in that terrorists do not represent any national identities therefore are viewed as individuals attacking the universal social structure. The individuals captured, interrogated and incarcerated in the aftermath of these attacks were treated as civilians convicted of individual acts against Human Rights. Their treatment at the hands of U.S. military officials and representative reflected badly upon the U.S. national image within the Global community but such treatment is common in less scrutinized areas of our war torn world. Torture, psychological warfare and even summary executions have taken place in the course of war throughout history. Such things will inevitably happen in warfare and, in the face of the fact that people kill each other for less "noble" reasons with redundant regularity makes human rights a moot point in every case.

To teach a man to kill and then expect him to act in accordance with Universal Human Rights in mind, especially in the bloody grip of war, death and destruction is the height of paradox. Civil rights are for the people for whom soldiers fight and die for. That men are trained to murder and then expected to follow a code of equal rights for all while being ordered to fight, survive and kill for their country at all costs is ultimately the fault of the societies that expect their soldiers to act one way and perform another. Soldiers should always be expected to perform exactly as they have been trained and the people in command should always be the ones held accountable for any impingement upon the rights of those "innocents" who are inevitably caught in the crossfire.

Schaefer, R. T. (2010). Sociology: A Brief Introduction 8th Edition. McGraw, Hill.