Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Young has psychologically crumbled and needs be removed from command.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    evilgrin,

    Originally posted by xxxevilgrinxxx View Post
    *scratches head*
    "I am in command and you need to trust me; and even if you don't, you need to do what I tell you."
    Military commanders have to get soldiers to do all sorts of things that the soldiers don't trust or don't want to do. I don't really see it as being much different than the above statement, but meh, whatever.
    The Nuremburg trials firmly established the principal that subordinates following what are illegal orders and who contribute to the harm of others by complying with illegal orders share culpability with the commander who gave those orders. Therefore, if Young were just spacing Telford without cause and Greer prevented Scott and Wray from stopping Young Greer shares culpability with Young for Telford's death.
    All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story... All plot and no character makes for a dull story...

    "Scott isn't out. Actually, he'll probably soon get back in, then out, then in, then out, then in, with rhythm and stamina." reddevil 4/22/2010

    Comment


      Originally posted by Ser Scot A Ellison View Post
      evilgrin,



      The Nuremburg trials firmly established the principal that subordinates following what are illegal orders and who contribute to the harm of others by complying with illegal orders share culpability with the commander who gave those orders. Therefore, if Young were just spacing Telford without cause and Greer prevented Scott and Wray from stopping Young Greer shares culpability with Young for Telford's death.
      I'm fully aware of Nuremberg. In fact, it's because of this that I think that Young especially wanted to keep Scott's hands clean, as in "it's on me". Not telling Scott causes problems sure. But telling Scott, if something goes terribly wrong, makes Scott responsible as well. I think Young was protecting an officer below him.
      sigpic


      SGU-RELATED FANART | IN YOUNG WE TRUST | FANDUMB

      Comment


        The comparison to Nuremburg doesn't really hold, because Brody, Scott, and Greer would still be liable. They were all following orders that would lead to the torture and death of another human being. Brody was ordered to vent the room, and Scott and Greer were ordered to stand guard and let it happen.

        So they are already involved, and thus telling them could actually lower their culpability. They wouldn't be guilty, because they could argue that Young was trying a risky technique to un-brainwash Telford. Instead, they are actually more guilty now, for letting a man with rights be tortured.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Kaiphantom View Post
          The comparison to Nuremburg doesn't really hold, because Brody, Scott, and Greer would still be liable. They were all following orders that would lead to the torture and death of another human being. Brody was ordered to vent the room, and Scott and Greer were ordered to stand guard and let it happen.

          So they are already involved, and thus telling them could actually lower their culpability. They wouldn't be guilty, because they could argue that Young was trying a risky technique to un-brainwash Telford. Instead, they are actually more guilty now, for letting a man with rights be tortured.
          I would agree with your interpretation the most. Although the whole illegal order train of thought is really moot imo. If Telford/Rush had died and everything went south having a 3 Star General in the room immediately before he vented it is as much a de facto sanctioning as is possible regardless of what O'Neill later said he had authorized. I don't think Young was particularly too worried about illegal orders. But if someone was held accountable I think it would be Young's head on the chopping block not anyone else's.
          Last edited by Blackhole; 20 June 2010, 02:16 PM.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Blackhole View Post
            I would agree with your interpretation the most. Although the whole illegal order train of thought is really moot imo. If Telford/Rush had died and everything went south having a 3 Star General in the room immediately before he vented it is as much a de facto sanctioning as is possible regardless of what O'Neill later said he had authorized. I don't think Young was particularly too worried about illegal orders.
            For me it's not so much the 'illegal orders' part of it for me that's driving his actions re: Scott as it is his wanting to shield Scott from it period. I tend to think that shielding Scott is the mistake here, rather than telling Scott for the sake of telling Scott. That boy's going to get his hands dirty at some point or he's never going to be able to do what he needs to do.
            sigpic


            SGU-RELATED FANART | IN YOUNG WE TRUST | FANDUMB

            Comment


              and replaced with telford?
              https://twitter.com/#!/Solar_wind84

              Comment


                Originally posted by Pharaoh Atem View Post
                and replaced with telford?
                I sincerely hope not!
                sigpic


                SGU-RELATED FANART | IN YOUNG WE TRUST | FANDUMB

                Comment


                  Originally posted by xxxevilgrinxxx View Post
                  For me it's not so much the 'illegal orders' part of it for me that's driving his actions re: Scott as it is his wanting to shield Scott from it period. I tend to think that shielding Scott is the mistake here, rather than telling Scott for the sake of telling Scott. That boy's going to get his hands dirty at some point or he's never going to be able to do what he needs to do.
                  That may have been a consideration of Young's; although, his response to Scott when asked by him: "Why didn't you tell me..." wasn't particularly father like.
                  Last edited by Blackhole; 20 June 2010, 01:37 PM.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Blackhole View Post
                    I would agree with your interpretation the most. Although the whole illegal order train of thought is really moot imo. If Telford/Rush had died and everything went south having a 3 Star General in the room immediately before he vented it is as much a de facto sanctioning as is possible regardless of what O'Neill later said he had authorized. I don't think Young was particularly too worried about illegal orders. But if someone was held accountable I think it would be Young's head on the chopping block not anyone else's.
                    Whether the order came from O'Neill or Telford, as far as Scott was aware, he had the responsibility to question any order that was potentially illegal.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by EllieVee View Post
                      Whether the order came from O'Neill or Telford, as far as Scott was aware, he had the responsibility to question any order that was potentially illegal.
                      However, the very word "potentially" is the problem. At risk of going in circles here, if we accept that most soldiers are trained to fire an automatic weapon into a house that may result in collateral damage, we have to accept that soldiers are trained to execute orders that may have dubious consequences. Scott is beginning to question his CO, but much like life, it is possible that he is human and unsure if Young knows something he doesn't. It's that doubt that often allows questionable orders to be followed and in fact very natural.

                      Trust is a double edged sword. Without it, most military units would probably get killed pretty quickly due to indecisiveness. With it, some pretty dark stuff can tend to happen.

                      Comment


                        Yes, but firing a gun in battle is different to watching someone being deprived of air for a reason that is unclear.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by EllieVee View Post
                          Whether the order came from O'Neill or Telford, as far as Scott was aware, he had the responsibility to question any order that was potentially illegal.
                          Point.

                          I think that most people back Young, besides being Young fans. Is a question of competence. Scott to me lacks the right to ask questions about right and wrong the moment he deserted his post back in Faith, and defended said desertion with a mystical belief that Young was wrong to leave the planet because they were meant to stay there.

                          Should Scott question an illiegal order. Yup.

                          Should Young have advised Scott that he had been given the all clear to go Black? ie Black Operational .'

                          Yup.

                          Was he obligated to take whiny Scott aside to make him feel better and ease his concerns while the clock was ticking.

                          Nope.

                          Was he obliged to have an open debate with Wray regarding his methods while the clock was ticking.

                          Um..yeah about that one I'm fifty on. It could have eased friction on her part, but seriously with the LA knocking on the door did he have time to go into detail etc etc and her demanding different tactics.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by PG15 View Post
                            But as Kiva said, if she's harmed, then all the hostages are going to be killed.
                            Young had to realize that would be a likely scenario when you put together the plans for the ambush and planned to go through with it. Like I said, someone killed with nothing to show for it. If he had made the tough call and gone through with it, sure, the other hostages *might* have died, but it would be over and everyone else would be safe.

                            Just another instance when he couldn't go through with a tough call. When the time came, he crumbled.

                            Comment


                              I disagree. His mission at the time was to rescue the hostages, and thus doing anything that would result in their massacre would be going against that mission and would thus count as a failure. He still thinks they are rescue-able while, had Young did what you did based on your rationale (hostages may die, it'd be over, everyone'd be safe - all assumptions, by the way; how do we know it'd be that easy?), it would seem like he's put them in the "acceptable losses" bin. That's not who Young is, and if I were a hostage, I'd be glad of that.

                              You really think Young would've been hailed as a hero if he went through with it and all the hostages died? People would just say he used his gun before he used his brain or something. He can't win.

                              Not on these forums, anyway.

                              As far as "Young had to realize" - let me just say that I place very little value on those arguments now that we're looking back with hindsight. It's far too easy to think something is obvious and should be foreseen when it's already happened, since whether it's obvious or not is highly subjective. For example, I can say that Young didn't go through with the plan because he foresaw the LA pulling some other surprise out of their sleeves after they kill the hostages and thus riding themselves of their only bargaining chip - after all, why would they do that if, afterward, Young could just kill them all by venting the atmosphere in the gateroom? Nah, they must have a contingency plan, maybe.

                              I also place very little value in the "because of what he did, this horrible thing happened" argument when its value rests on the "Young had to realize" argument (i.e. he should've realized that someone would be killed if he didn't go through with it), because it's meaningless to where the character was at the time when he made that decision.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by PG15 View Post
                                I disagree. His mission at the time was to rescue the hostages, and thus doing anything that would result in their massacre would be going against that mission and would thus count as a failure. He still thinks they are rescue-able while, had Young did what you did based on your rationale (hostages may die, it'd be over, everyone'd be safe - all assumptions, by the way; how do we know it'd be that easy?), it would seem like he's put them in the "acceptable losses" bin. That's not who Young is, and if I were a hostage, I'd be glad of that.
                                I think that a lot of people that are making these types of arguments are doing so from a belief in what THEY would do, knowing everything that we, the viewer, knows. I don't think it's done so much from a "what would YOUNG do", knowing what he knows (which is a lot less than what we the viewer sees).

                                You really think Young would've been hailed as a hero if he went through with it and all the hostages died? People would just say he used his gun before he used his brain or something. He can't win.

                                Not on these forums, anyway.
                                There's a lot of truth there. I don't think it would have mattered what he would have done; he'd be condemned in any case.

                                As far as "Young had to realize" - let me just say that I place very little value on those arguments now that we're looking back with hindsight. It's far too easy to think something is obvious and should be foreseen when it's already happened, since whether it's obvious or not is highly subjective. For example, I can say that Young didn't go through with the plan because he foresaw the LA pulling some other surprise out of their sleeves after they kill the hostages and thus riding themselves of their only bargaining chip - after all, why would they do that if, afterward, Young could just kill them all by venting the atmosphere in the gateroom? Nah, they must have a contingency plan, maybe.
                                The "Young had to realize" rests on the "I would have realized" idea, and we're a)not Young and b) we have access to all the information about what is going on. Young doesn't have that information.

                                I also place very little value in the "because of what he did, this horrible thing happened" argument when its value rests on the "Young had to realize" argument (i.e. he should've realized that someone would be killed if he didn't go through with it), because it's meaningless to where the character was at the time when he made that decision.
                                Horrible things happen and I think it's just easier to blame Young than accept that horrible things happen. It is tied to the "Young had to realize" which relies on the fact that we, the viewer, have the luxury of a) seeing everything at once and b) not having Young's psychological makeup where losing people isn't acceptable.

                                We can be cavalier with lives because they're not ours to care about, they're not on our conscience. We can be cavalier because we see everything at once and so, knowing more, we can say if something will work or not. Would I have done things differently? Sure, we all would do things according to our own information at the time and what makes us tick.
                                sigpic


                                SGU-RELATED FANART | IN YOUNG WE TRUST | FANDUMB

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X