The Experts below are selected from a list of 2232 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jason E Schillerstrom - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Documented combat‐related mental health problems in military Noncombatants
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2010Co-Authors: Alan L Peterson, Vanessa Wong, Margaret F Haynes, Anneke C Bush, Jason E SchillerstromAbstract:Although combat related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been documented for military combatants, little is known about PTSD in Noncombatants. Active-duty U.S. Air Force Noncombatants (N = 5,367) completed a Post-Deployment Health Assessment upon return from combat zones in Iraq (n = 4,408) or a noncombat zone in Qatar (n = 959). Those deployed to Iraq were significantly more likely to report exposure to someone who was wounded or killed (20.8% vs. 6.3%), feeling in great danger of being killed at some point during deployment (18.9% vs. 3.5%), symptoms of PTSD (4.1% vs. 0.7%), and symptoms of major depression (9.9% vs. 5.4%). These findings suggest that deployment to a war zone is associated with increased mental health problems, even for Noncombatants.
-
documented combat related mental health problems in military Noncombatants
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2010Co-Authors: Alan L Peterson, Vanessa Wong, Margaret F Haynes, Anneke C Bush, Jason E SchillerstromAbstract:Although combat related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been documented for military combatants, little is known about PTSD in Noncombatants. Active-duty U.S. Air Force Noncombatants (N = 5,367) completed a Post-Deployment Health Assessment upon return from combat zones in Iraq (n = 4,408) or a noncombat zone in Qatar (n = 959). Those deployed to Iraq were significantly more likely to report exposure to someone who was wounded or killed (20.8% vs. 6.3%), feeling in great danger of being killed at some point during deployment (18.9% vs. 3.5%), symptoms of PTSD (4.1% vs. 0.7%), and symptoms of major depression (9.9% vs. 5.4%). These findings suggest that deployment to a war zone is associated with increased mental health problems, even for Noncombatants.
Chris Mayer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
nonlethal weapons and noncombatant immunity is it permissible to target Noncombatants
Journal of Military Ethics, 2007Co-Authors: Chris MayerAbstract:Abstract The concept of noncombatant immunity prohibits the intentional targeting of Noncombatants. The availability of nonlethal weapons (NLW) may weaken this prohibition, especially since using NLWs against Noncombatants may, in some cases, actually save the Noncombatants’ lives. Given the advancement of NLWs, I argue that their probable appearance on the battlefield demands close scrutiny due to the moral problems associated with their use. In this paper, I examine four distinct cases and determine whether the use of NLWs is morally permissible. While it seems that the reduced harm caused by NLWs makes their use more acceptable, adhering to noncombatant immunity requires more than not killing Noncombatants. It also requires that military forces treat Noncombatants a certain way. In the cases I present, to use NLWs against Noncombatants treats them as combatants and coerces them to do something against their will. While a consequentialist foundation for noncombatant immunity may permit this action, a ri...
George R. Kaplan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Kappan Special Report: Friends, Foes & Noncombatants - Notes on Public Education's Pressure Groups
Phi Delta Kappan, 2000Co-Authors: George R. KaplanAbstract:IT SEEMS THAT wherever one turns these days, once-unlikely advocates and activists are expounding about public schools and demanding a piece of the action to change them. To understate the obvious, tracking the pressure groups that now move education policy has seldom been trickier. In simpler times - say, 25 years ago - a hardy staple of the received wisdom about the politics of education, as of most domains of public policy, was that an "iron triangle" of legislatures, governments, and issue-focused interest groups could hammer out enough deals and compromises to set public agendas and, when the stars were aligned, translate them into child- and school-friendly policies. But that was then and this is now, a time when the eminences of public education must reckon with realities and concepts that until recently were below the radar or even alien to the triangulators. If, as we must fervently hope never happens, we were to have a national education czar, that overmatched mortal would face a lineup of "external" forces and upheavals as complex as any that have ever confronted the schools. Leading public education may not qualify as a daily exercise in postdoctoral quantum physics, but the demographic, political, and economic convulsions that are pounding on the institution at the turn of the century are complicated enough. Some were not even visible only a decade ago. Although their dots don't always connect, the futurists are having a grand time with millennial forecasting. Predictably, much of what they are offering stresses the centrality of electronic and digital technology, an inescapable focus when our children are growing, learning, and being entertained in what the social critic Sven Birkets labels a "data-and-image-saturated culture." Our nonstop information- producing extravaganza shows no signs of quieting down. Dealing with it as a vital feature of 21st-century education poses core issues of usage, resources, training, attitudes, and perhaps most cogent, influence. We still have no clear sense of who will ultimately advocate sensibly on those issues. What we do know is that most children have decent access to the evolving miracles of applied science but that literally millions of others don't. Accompanying our near-universal obsession with technology is a deep- seated popular mistrust of most things public, including "government schools" or "education camps," locutions some conservatives have adopted to stigmatize public education. Despite countless anecdotes of inspirational dedication and generosity, and a lot of editorializing and political cheerleading, we are also witnessing an erosion of public-spiritedness on the part of the nation's new "haves" in what the writer Gregg Easterbrook calls "America the OK."1 As we grope for a political path somewhere between the Right and what passes for today's American Left, there is no telling how enthusiastically a skeptical public will continue to back schools and school systems that, nearly a generation after A Nation at Risk, are being reviled daily, even as they begin to gain strength. At a moment of unprecedented prosperity in which corporate chiefs and successful investors are national icons, budget surpluses seem achievable, and materialism is no longer sinful, talk of privatizing anything public that isn't bolted down has become commonplace. Education, we are reminded daily, is a prime target. The overwhelmingly conservative talk show culture inherited from the 1990s echoes the call - indeed, some privateers call for nothing less than the elimination of the public schools - but the same culture provides pitifully few opportunities for education's spokespersons to spotlight their case. When they get the rare chance to counter the naysayers, too many mainstream educators still lapse into a murky blend of self-protective officialese, edujargon, and policy patois. Regrettably, too, even as it became the centerpiece of the new century's first Presidential campaign, too many Americans still believe education reform to be the ultimate national soporific. …
-
kappan special report friends foes Noncombatants notes on public education s pressure groups
Phi Delta Kappan, 2000Co-Authors: George R. KaplanAbstract:IT SEEMS THAT wherever one turns these days, once-unlikely advocates and activists are expounding about public schools and demanding a piece of the action to change them. To understate the obvious, tracking the pressure groups that now move education policy has seldom been trickier. In simpler times - say, 25 years ago - a hardy staple of the received wisdom about the politics of education, as of most domains of public policy, was that an "iron triangle" of legislatures, governments, and issue-focused interest groups could hammer out enough deals and compromises to set public agendas and, when the stars were aligned, translate them into child- and school-friendly policies. But that was then and this is now, a time when the eminences of public education must reckon with realities and concepts that until recently were below the radar or even alien to the triangulators. If, as we must fervently hope never happens, we were to have a national education czar, that overmatched mortal would face a lineup of "external" forces and upheavals as complex as any that have ever confronted the schools. Leading public education may not qualify as a daily exercise in postdoctoral quantum physics, but the demographic, political, and economic convulsions that are pounding on the institution at the turn of the century are complicated enough. Some were not even visible only a decade ago. Although their dots don't always connect, the futurists are having a grand time with millennial forecasting. Predictably, much of what they are offering stresses the centrality of electronic and digital technology, an inescapable focus when our children are growing, learning, and being entertained in what the social critic Sven Birkets labels a "data-and-image-saturated culture." Our nonstop information- producing extravaganza shows no signs of quieting down. Dealing with it as a vital feature of 21st-century education poses core issues of usage, resources, training, attitudes, and perhaps most cogent, influence. We still have no clear sense of who will ultimately advocate sensibly on those issues. What we do know is that most children have decent access to the evolving miracles of applied science but that literally millions of others don't. Accompanying our near-universal obsession with technology is a deep- seated popular mistrust of most things public, including "government schools" or "education camps," locutions some conservatives have adopted to stigmatize public education. Despite countless anecdotes of inspirational dedication and generosity, and a lot of editorializing and political cheerleading, we are also witnessing an erosion of public-spiritedness on the part of the nation's new "haves" in what the writer Gregg Easterbrook calls "America the OK."1 As we grope for a political path somewhere between the Right and what passes for today's American Left, there is no telling how enthusiastically a skeptical public will continue to back schools and school systems that, nearly a generation after A Nation at Risk, are being reviled daily, even as they begin to gain strength. At a moment of unprecedented prosperity in which corporate chiefs and successful investors are national icons, budget surpluses seem achievable, and materialism is no longer sinful, talk of privatizing anything public that isn't bolted down has become commonplace. Education, we are reminded daily, is a prime target. The overwhelmingly conservative talk show culture inherited from the 1990s echoes the call - indeed, some privateers call for nothing less than the elimination of the public schools - but the same culture provides pitifully few opportunities for education's spokespersons to spotlight their case. When they get the rare chance to counter the naysayers, too many mainstream educators still lapse into a murky blend of self-protective officialese, edujargon, and policy patois. Regrettably, too, even as it became the centerpiece of the new century's first Presidential campaign, too many Americans still believe education reform to be the ultimate national soporific. …
Alec D. Walen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Conclusions
The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War, 2019Co-Authors: Alec D. WalenAbstract:The final chapter offers concluding thoughts on the permissibility of eliminatively killing Noncombatants who help unjust combatants. The limits of necessity and proportionality are profound. In addition, some Noncombatants have a right to do what they do that helps unjust combatants. Practical difficulties and the law provide other limits. The chapter identifies four reasons why it may not be justifiable to eliminatively kill Noncombatants, all things considered. The chapter also offers some concluding thoughts about rights, emphasizing the way the mechanics of claims enables us to avoid the normative gulf opened up by using the infringement model with its emphasis on forfeiture.
-
The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War - Avoiding a Misplaced Emphasis on Intentions
The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War, 2019Co-Authors: Alec D. WalenAbstract:This chapter is meant to defuse the objection that intentions have been given short shrift. It starts with a discussion of Seth Lazar’s use of intentions in his effort to shore up the idea that it is harder to justify targeting Noncombatants than it is to justify targeting combatants in war (the principle of distinction). It also adds a more general argument in defense of giving intentions relatively little significance in accounting for the permissible use of defensive force. The chapter concludes by applying the lesson of these arguments to Lazar’s argument that eliminatively killing Noncombatants is generally impermissible and to the use of intentions in just war theory generally.
-
The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War - From Innocent Threats to Noncombatants Innocently Aiding Unjust Combatants
The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War, 2019Co-Authors: Alec D. WalenAbstract:This chapter is the second part of the argument that there is no fundamental, principled reason why Noncombatants who help unjust combatants to wage war may not be eliminatively killed. It argues that non-culpable aggressors and those who act without aggressing but who threaten have weaker claims not to be killed than innocent threats. It then argues that intervening agency does not generally strengthen an indirect threat’s claim not to be killed. Finally, the chapter argues that bearing a threat only because many others also contribute to that threat also does not strengthen a threat’s claim not to be killed. The primary restrictions on killing that protect Noncombatants are necessity and proportionality.
-
eliminative killing and the targeting of Noncombatants comments on seth lazar s sparing civilians
Law and Philosophy, 2017Co-Authors: Alec D. WalenAbstract:At the heart of Seth Lazar’s arguments in support of what he calls Moral Distinction – ‘In war, with rare exceptions, killing Noncombatants is worse than killing combatants’ – is his treatment of eliminative and opportunistic killing. He adopts the standard line, that eliminative killing is easier to justify than opportunistic killing. And he acknowledges that there are various circumstances in which one might be able to justify killing Noncombatants on eliminative grounds. Nonetheless, he relies on the notion of a mixed kind of agency to argue that intentionally killing civilians is normally ‘more opportunistic than intentionally killing soldiers’, and is therefore normally more wrongful. I argue that his argument in favor of this claim fails. If we distinguish objectively available reasons from subjectively motivating ones, and pay attention to the limited relevance of subjectively motivating reasons, then it becomes clear that mixed agency cannot do the sort of work for just war theory that Lazar wants it to do. This failure need not impugn other parts of his defense of Moral Distinction. But it takes the heart out of his defense of it, putting a greater burden on the other parts of his argument.
Phillip W Gray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
weaponized Noncombatants a moral conundrum of future asymmetrical warfare
Journal of Military Ethics, 2014Co-Authors: Phillip W GrayAbstract:Do Noncombatants in warfare receive immunity because of their subjective or objective characteristics? Can a noncombatant be ‘weaponized’, and if so, how does this weaponization change the noncombatant's moral status as protected from direct attack? The purpose of this article is to analyze the moral issues that arise when Noncombatants are made into weapons, specifically as delivery systems for biological weaponry. Examining such a tactic, I go on to explore how the problems that arise from ‘weaponized’ Noncombatants illustrate deeper problems in the (under-)theorization of noncombatant status.