Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Saturday, April 18, 2009

"I WAS ONLY FOLLOWING MY ORDERS"

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .



Dear Friends:

Napoleon once said that, "God is on the side of the heaviest artillery." In his brief, somewhat atheistic (or at least cynical) bit of philosophy, he made it quite clear that "might is right." Conventional wisdom abounds: "History is written by the winners," "No person is above the law unless he can invoke executive privilege," "You've won a judgment, but it cannot be enforced," "To make an omelet, you've got to break some eggs," "A few must suffer for the many," "Someone's got to take the fall for this,"... I will spare you the litany.

One of my favorites has to do with the Nuremberg Defense. The Nuremburg Trials of various Nazi war criminals were conducted as a concilliatory gesture to show the citizens of the world that the oft-denied Holocaust was a criminal act -- a terrible chapter in Human affairs where people were reduced to their lowest common denominator -- that of our inherent animal nature, of our capacity to de-humanize other people, of our herd mentality, or our sadistic propensities, and mostly, of our "expedient ethics" when we are under pressure.

The Holocaust was not an exception -- it was merely a demonstration. Its clones, its offspring, its legacy still thrives every single day in other parts of the world.

What invariably follows these "minicausts" are inquests, investigations, some trials and some punishments. The same questions are asked; the same excuses and explanations are proffered; and the same cycle continues. You cannot break the cycle without changing basic Human Behavior.

The Nuremberg Defense for torture and genocide was simple: "I was only following my orders."

An abdication of personal responsibility, combined with the contextual suspension of ethics, make war (and genocide) possible. The greatest human tragedies occur when they are merely viewed as "bad policies". It takes strength to be an individual, and to adhere to your ethics when those around you are weak, and in the thrall of the biggest bully on the block.

Following is an article from the ASSOCIATED PRESS:

UN expert criticizes US torture decision
By VERONIKA OLEKSYN,
Associated Press Writer Veronika Oleksyn,35 mins ago.

VIENNA – President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates international law, the U.N.'s top torture investigator said Saturday. But he said Washington is unlikely to face any legal sanctions.
On Thursday, Obama absolved CIA officers from prosecution for harsh, painful interrogation of terror suspects under the former Bush administration. The announcement was met with disappointment from human rights groups and former detainees who condemned such methods as torture.
In a brief telephone interview with The Associated Press, Manfred Nowak, an Austrian law professor who serves as a special rapporteur for the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, said the United States had committed itself under the U.N. Convention against Torture to make torture a crime and to prosecute those suspected of engaging in it.
"They are party to the convention and the convention is very, very clear," Nowak said when asked to confirm comments contained in an interview he gave Austria's Der Standard newspaper. "The fact that you carried out an order doesn't relieve you of your responsibility," he said, adding it could be a mitigating factor.
Nowak, who said he would soon travel to Washington for meetings with officials, also called for a comprehensive independent investigation into the matter and added it was important to compensate the victims.
"Now we need to know all the facts — not just bits and pieces," Nowak said. "First you need the truth and then you need justice."
The Obama administration on Thursday also released secret CIA memos detailing interrogation tactics sanctioned under Bush.
The memos authorized keeping detainees naked, in painful standing positions and in cold cells for long periods of time. Other techniques included depriving them of solid food and slapping them. Sleep deprivation, prolonged shackling and threats to a detainee's family also were used.
Washington is unlikely to face any legal sanctions, but "naming and shaming has its impact, and usually governments try not to be criticized," Nowak said.
####

The question I have is this: When the government gives you a license to torture, to kill or to do something which violates your proclaimed code of ethics, does it also give you license to become a beast?

We are, each of us, responsible for our own choices and our own actions. We choose the masters we serve, and we choose whether or not to follow rules or orders given by any third party. People without personal principles, principles worth living or dying for, principles which are inviolate -- are just puppets.

Faithfully,

Douglas Castle
Share/Save/Bookmark
Subscribe

__________________________________________________________
KEYWORDS, TERMS AND ORGANIZATIONS:

globalism, CFR, NGO, UN, WTO, IMF, central bank, outsourcing, offshoring, capital markets, import, export, international trade, strategic alliances, e-commerce, entrepreneurship, social networking, banking, finance, trade, ventures, business, securities, stock exchanges, indexes, futurism, trends, citizen ambassadorship, enterprise, capitalism, international politics, commodities, prime rate, LIBOR, foreign currencies, foreign exchange, blogs, blogging, bloggers, aol, google, yahoo, msn, AP, news, media alerts, world government, world governments, international affairs, treaties, tariffs, trade restrictions, marketing, advertising, business development, arbitrage, obtaining capital, promotion, publicity, EU, NATO, military affairs, government regulation, trade restrictions, liquidity crisis, business opportunities, web-based businesses, communication, communications, technology, intelligence, embassies, consulates, business resources, Douglas Castle,The Internationalist Page, The Global Futurist, international politics, elections, time management, cyberspace, AI, energy, industry, productivity, Mixx, Digg, Technorati, Sphere, Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, LinkedIn, advertising, economics, strategy, management, cooperation, widgets, blidgets, links, incoterms, CCH, UCC, freight forwarding, custom house brokers, diversity, employment, culture, micro-loans, technological convergence, trends, financial planning, FOREX, futures, stock index, inflation, recession, sub-contracting, Department of Commerce, the next generation, amnesty, humanitarianism, foreign aid, philanthropy, charity, cooperation, peaceful cooexistence, a world without walls...

Saturday, August 30, 2008

EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS versus INEFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .



Dear Friends:

I won't preach about organizational basics... a good charter and mission, leadership, management, acquiring talented and deicated employees, partners and volunteers, fiancial responsibility, teamwork, communications, command and control, or the cold fear of asking for needed investment or capital contributions that seems to paralyze so many of us.

On point, an organization exists to accomplish a mission or to solve a problem. Everything else is secondary, merely the means toward that noble end. When we lose sight of our Mission or purpose and begin to merely "take actions and make noise", we begin to fail. An effective organization has strength, consistency, integrity and generally, speaking, takes the moral and ethical "high road". They build multiple bridges and open channels, and don't invest i baiting and making enemies. They find friends, and do their best to convert enemies through a combination of education and emotional appeal. They look for common ground instead of for hurtful differences...and they exploit and expand that common ground. Successful organizations (for the longer term) grow by uniting instead of dividing.

I want to share some wisdom with you. Hatred kills. It kills us as individuals, it kills organizations and it destroys credibility and reputations. If you must be branded, be branded as a fighter...but never as a hater. Don't campaign against individuals and rake through the muck of their misdeeds. Ask them questions. Pose challenges. Offer to "help" them. Be morally unassailable. Do not be branded as a hater, a "negative campaigner", a persecutor or a prosecutor. If you appear concerned but not governed by emotions, people will tend to associate that with greater credibility and more objective, "mature" reasoning -- whether or not it is, in fact, true. And don't let your organization be any of those negative, "irrational" things;

1. A proponent of more legislation, regulation and government action concerning personal freedoms and choices, or of government intrusion into free enterprise or personal affairs. There is too much of this already, and it invariably generates poor and unforeseen results;

2. A street-corner screamer (with placard) at every "evil" institution or person that (or who) does something naughty or sells something unhealthy. Screamers (a 60's thing) are like sensitive car alarms. At first they are annoying. Then, they fall into the backdrop of unremarkable noises. Finally, they are either the butt of jokes, or they get disconnected (like the battery on the smoke detector over my stove in the kitchen);

3. A collection of fanatics who want to hate and denounce, instead of inform, question and solve problems. When fanatics fall out of fashion, they are generally exiled, laughed about, beheaded, burned at the stake or crucified. None of these makes for an enviable retirement plan;

4. A fringe player joining in the fray of partisans with their own agendas and "wrongs" to avenge. These people and organizations cannot ever raise funds -- people don't want to go on record as supporting them. They are seen as eccentric. They tilt at windmills, like Don Quixote de La Mancha, but without his romantic virtue;

5. A negatively-themed, exclusionist group.

As smart organizations, we have to applaud the good (no matter who is attempting to do it); question or challenge the policies (not the people or the companies) of people and companies with respect to obesity; conduct research, support programs and produce a good product or service; encourage positive thinking and efforts; provide newsworthy, interesting content and campaigns to heighten awareness; and, to provide incentives for problem-solving and productivity.

Let's be like a virus and infiltrate the social machine so that we can transform it: Let's not be protesters on the Whitehouse lawn. Let's convert and absorb our enemies, or obscure them by being superior and inclusive.

Our organizations will be judged by the company we keep, and by the words that we say.

Faithfully,

Douglas

DOUGLAS CASTLE
at http://www.linkedIn.com/in/douglascastle
CHILDREN'S INTERNATIONAL OBESITY FOUNDATION - HELP SAVE A CHILD'S LIFE.
THE GLOBAL FUTURIST
THE INTERNATIONALIST PAGE
HUMANITAS MAXIMUS

Blog Archive

Bookmark and Share