Princes get army ethics lesson.

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,430
1,668
113
The Times March 08, 2006


Princes get ethics lesson: no torture and no revenge
By Ruth Gledhill

Sandhurst cadets are taught how to overcome the desire to abuse prisoners


ARMY officer cadets are being given training in how to overcome the desire to abuse prisoners and inflict revenge on the enemy, The Times has been told.

Princes William and Harry are among the first to take part in the revised course, which became part of the academic curriculum at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in the autumn. Prince Harry has already completed the course while Prince William, who entered Sandhurst in January, will take the course on “disordered passions” next term.

The changes were introduced by Sandhurst’s new senior chaplain, who is the first Free Church minister to hold the post. Baptist Padre Jonathan Woodhouse, who teaches the lessons with a staff officer, denied that they were in response to allegations of abuse by soldiers in Iraq.

However, the change comes after military commanders were stung by dozens of allegations of mistreatment by British soldiers against Iraqi civilians, and the scandal of Abu Ghraib. Twenty-one British soldiers have been charged with abuse in connection with service in Iraq.

The theory of disordered passions stems from the Just War theory and the 13th-century teachings of St Thomas Aquinas. Cadets are taught to beware of responding to passions caused by hatred, an overwhelming fear of death or capture, a desire to inflict revenge or “cold indifference”.

Padre Woodhouse said: “One of the key things we teach is the danger of disordered passions. For example, the disordered passion of wanting to torture, wanting to inflict unnecessary pain. The disordered passion of being so cold and emotionally detached can dehumanise people. One has to be very careful to make sure these disordered passions do not surface and, if they do, that we manage them.”

Padre Woodhouse, 50, one of three chaplains at Sandhurst who saw live action when he accompanied the Army into Iraq in the invasion in March 2003, arrived at the academy in July.

The six core values that the princes are taught to value include selfless commitment, courage both physical and moral, loyalty, discipline, respect for others and integrity.

Padre Woodhouse said: “People are being asked to come into the Army from a society that may have somewhat different values. The Army is asking its officers and soldiers to take on these core values and explore them. They are not push-button. You can’t suddenly engender selfless commitment when you go on operations.”

The two princes, like all officers, have been trained how to take religious services in the field, in case they need to hold a service and no chaplain is at hand. Padre Woodhouse said: “One of the reasons why faith is an important dimension in the Armed Forces is because we are dealing with issues of life and death. If someone goes on operations there will be thoughts about getting on with the job. But there will be reflections on their own mortality.”

The new emphasis on moral ethics at Sandhurst was welcomed by Charles Reed, the Church of England’s leading Just War theorist and editor of a forthcoming collection of essays, The Prince of Peace: Just War in the 21st Century, produced jointly by the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches.

Dr Reed said the ethical training was essential to equip officers and soldiers for situations such as Iraq, where the pressures were extreme and the “humanity” of the enemy could end up being denied.

ROYAL REVENGE


Torture to extract information is principally associated with the religious upheavals of the 16th and 17th centuries, when it became state policy

The rack, probably the most infamous instrument of torture, was used widely in the 16th century not only by the Catholic Queen Mary, but by Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I

One of the brainchilds of Henry VIII’s regime was the “Scavenger’s Daughter”, an iron restraint that tightened around the neck, hands and feet. The torturer slowly reduced the distance between the knees and chin

The widespread use of the rack by Elizabeth I was widely criticised abroad, which may explain why writs in the 1590s increasingly specified use of the manacles on the wrists, enabling victims to hang with feet off the floor

Torture was gradually abandoned from the mid-17th century onwards as it became clear that it was ineffective as a man on the rack would say anything to be released



thetimesonline.co.uk
 

cortez

Council Member
Feb 22, 2006
1,260
0
36
Its amusing to see the hypocrisy of the British monarchy-military apparatus in action-
LOL
thanks for thse post Blackleaf!
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Blackleaf/Cortez

It may be brutal - but having a fantastic history such as great stories are made of - has made Britian one of the most outstanding civilizations in our time.

It also is a marvelous demonstration why government/religion/and monarchy are a terrible mix. I think they've pretty much got it right now yes?

I don't believe in primogeniture rule myself, but if a country wishes to preserve the historical line of royals, let them do good works and public relations, providing a tourist attraction, as well as preserving historical record, while avoiding meddling in government....

I think the U.S. military should invite the good padre to speak to some of the pertinent groups who are in key positions of overseeing prisoners (or detainees).
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,430
1,668
113
Constitutional Monarchies are less corrput than Republics. Compare how corrupt republics such as France, the US and Germany are compared to Constitutional Monarchies such as Britain, Canada and Australia.

Here's what Australian monarchists say about the Monarchy -

"No Republic, on the face of the earth, comes close to displaying the liberty, prosperity and continuity of the Christian Constitutional Monarchies. It is yet to be proved that an Australian Republic would provide greater liberty, prosperity and continuity for the people of Australia. Australia's Westminster System of Government is the envy of the world. No one has had to flee a civil war on Australia's shores, nor fight for their life to escape political tyranny. Yet, this is the plight of many who suffer under Republican rule."



What is The Crown?



Republicans say that change to a republic is just a simple matter of changing The Crown for a President.



However of all the former British Colonies, it is only those Dominions, such as Australia, which have retained The Crown, which have been able to keep their freedoms and democracy intact.



What is so important about The Crown that makes republicans and particularly politicians intent on removing it?



In a Republic, Civil and Military Authority is vested in the State, which is controlled by Parliament, whereas in Australia such Authority is ultimately protected from political control because it is vested in The Crown which is responsible to the People. This was why the People and not Parliament alone had to vote on the proposal for constitutional change in 1999.



The Queen and Her Representative, the Governor-General are, in effect, Trustees of our Constitution. The hereditary principle of the Monarchy and the appointment and dismissal of the Governor-General by The Queen, although always on the recommendation and at the request of the Prime Minister, effectively protect the system from total political control.



Whilst the process may seem to be anachronistic and even cumbersome, it is nevertheless a system well tried and proven and one which has made Australia, one of the youngest nations, the seventh oldest democracy in the World.





Who is Australia’s Head of State?





The soundest authority on constitutional matters is, we believe, former Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs who has written “There is strong argument that the Governor-General, although the representative of The Queen, is the Head of State of Australia. It must be remembered that the expression “Head of State” does not appear in the Constitution and is an expression which is strictly used in international rather than domestic affairs”.



Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy which does not have a 'Head of State' as such, which is why there is no reference to this term in our Constitution.



Whilst republics have Heads of State, Australia has a Head of Government together with a Sovereign and the Sovereign’s representative, the Governor General, who upon Appointment assumes all the executive and ceremonial responsibilities of The Crown and, as such, exercises similar duties to that of a non executive Head of State in republican countries.





What is a Republic?





The Oxford English Dictionary description of a Republic is “A State in which supreme power is held by the People or its elected representatives or by elected or nominated president, not by monarch etc.”.



Whilst most republics cannot be compared with such former dictatorships as Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be true to say that the majority do not possess the sort of genuine democracy that we enjoy in Australia.



The likelihood for political abuse, as in so many ‘Third World’ countries, and the overt control of the political process by big business, such as in the USA, are far more likely to happen under a republic than under a Constitutional Monarchy. This is because under a Republic politicians have unfettered control of their constitutional arrangements, whereas under a Constitutional Monarchy such as in Australia where power is vested in The Crown, our politicians are restrained from assuming absolute control over our Constitution.





What will change if Australia becomes a republic?





We will have a President instead of The Queen and the Governor-General, but there will be no material benefit whatsoever. Indeed, quite the reverse as no republican has put forward any sensible reason why there should be constitutional change. Some say we must become a republic to enhance trade in Asian , but common sense dictates that in trade only three things really count: quality, availability and price. They also very conveniently fail to recognise that many of our trading neighbours in the Asia-Pacific Region are themselves monarchies! Others say “we want an Australian Head of State”, but ignore the fact that many senior republicans, including former Prime Minister Paul Keating, say that the Governor-General is Head of State.



What they mean is that they don’t want The Queen and they don’t want Prince Charles to be our future King. In Australia we have what is called an: 'Absent Monarchy' which means that The Queen does not reside in Australia, but then we do not pay for Her Majesty’s upkeep or day to day security, which we would have to do at enormous cost, were we to have a President. In fact the expenses of the Governor-General are far, far less than they would be for a President whose overheads would be many, many millions more than we currently pay.



If the President is to be elected by the Parliament, the foremost consideration would be that he or she would not oppose the political party in power. If the President is elected by the people, however, his or her presidential campaign would need to be well funded which would obviously the support of big business which, quite naturally, would expect a ‘quid-pro-quo’ which in itself would disturb the neutrality of the Office as exists under our current system.



During the recent Visit of The Prince of Wales, the republicans could only harness a handful of people at vantage points to promote their agenda. There were no large crowds in support of a republic anywhere which proves that there is no interest amongst the general public whatsoever for constitutional change.



It therefore does not make sense that whenever there is a Royal Visit, whether by The Queen or as recently occurred, by the Prince of Wales, the Labor Leader, Kim Beasley, in appalling bad taste, proclaims that if he were Prime Minister Australia would be a republic!



What he does not say is that should Australia become a Republic, absolute power will pass to the politicians not from The Queen or the Governor-General, but from the People themselves as this ‘power’ is always exercised by The Crown in the name of the People.



It is because The Crown withholds this ‘power’ from them that Labor proposes to spend many hundreds of millions of taxpayer’s dollars for a series of plebiscites and referendums which they openly admit will be designed to surreptitiously wear down any opposition to their objective.

www.monarchist.org
 

cortez

Council Member
Feb 22, 2006
1,260
0
36
hummmmm
oh please when instructing the monarchy on subtle points of the ethics of torture you may want to also include lessons indicating that it doesnt LOOK good to be an adulterer.... or to wear a NAZI uniform to parties

yes... some of us are well aware of the GRAND history of the warrior race......

o danny boy
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
There's some good points is there, Blackleaf.
 

cortez

Council Member
Feb 22, 2006
1,260
0
36
Re: RE: Princes get army ethics lesson.

Blackleaf said:
Constitutional Monarchies are less corrput than Republics. Compare how corrupt republics such as France, the US and Germany are compared to Constitutional Monarchies such as Britain, Canada and Australia.

www.monarchist.org

saying so does not make it so----yawn