Answer:

Introduction:

The case study presents a challenging situation involving an army Major who used a civilian as a human shield during a counter-terrorist operation in a state facing internal security problems. The major’s action, although successful in apprehending terrorists, has raised ethical concerns and sparked public criticism.

1. Ethical issues involved in the case:

• • Human rights violation: The major’s decision to use a civilian as a human shield raises concerns about the violation of the individual’s human rights. This action infringes upon the civilian’s right to safety and protection.
  • Moral integrity: The major’s action challenges the principles of moral integrity and ethical conduct. It raises questions about the use of force and the duty to protect civilians during military operations.
  • Balancing priorities: The case highlights the ethical dilemma faced by the major in balancing the need to capture terrorists with ensuring the safety and rights of civilians. It poses a question about the appropriate response in situations where civilians become obstacles to counter- terrorism efforts.
  • Public perception and trust: The major’s action, captured on video and shared on social media, has led to public criticism and damaged the trust between the army and the local population. This raises ethical concerns regarding the army’s reputation and its relationship with the community.

2. Repercussions of punishing/not punishing the army major:

Punishing the army major:

• Deterrence and discipline: Taking action against the major sends a strong message about the importance of adhering to ethical standards and following rules of engagement. It reinforces discipline within the military and discourages similar actions in the future.
• Upholding human rights: Punishment demonstrates the commitment to upholding human rights and the rule of law. It ensures that such violations are not tolerated and sets a precedent for responsible conduct in counter-terrorism operations.
• Restoring public trust: Holding the major accountable can help restore public trust in the army’s commitment to protecting civilian rights. It shows a willingness to address concerns and work towards rebuilding community relations.
• Legal consequences: Punishing the major may involve legal proceedings, ensuring that the appropriate legal frameworks are followed and justice is served.

Not punishing the army major:

• Erosion of discipline: Failing to take action against the major can undermine discipline and ethical standards within the military. It may send a message that such actions are permissible, leading to a potential breakdown of command and control.
• Human rights concerns: The decision not to punish the major may be seen as condoning human rights violations. It can damage the army’s reputation and credibility, both nationally and internationally.
• Loss of public trust: Not holding the major accountable can further erode public trust in the army’s ability to protect civilian rights. It may perpetuate a negative perception of the army and hinder cooperation in counter-terrorism efforts.
• Legal implications: The failure to address the major’s actions may have legal implications, both domestically and in terms of international human rights obligations. It can expose the army and the government to potential legal challenges and consequences.
  

3. Advice and course of action:

In the report, the following recommendations can be made:

• Conduct a thorough investigation: Initiate a comprehensive investigation into the incident to gather all relevant facts and evidence. This will provide a basis for an informed decision- making process.
• Assess the intent and context: Evaluate the major’s intent, considering the immediate threat posed by the stone-pelting civilians and the need to protect the lives of army officials involved in the operation. Consider the difficult circumstances and the potential alternatives available at the time.
• Consider disciplinary action: Based on the findings of the investigation and the assessment of the major’s actions, evaluate the need for disciplinary action. Taking into account the potential repercussions of both punishing and not punishing the army major.
• Engage with human rights organizations: Collaborate with human rights organizations to ensure an unbiased evaluation of the incident and incorporate their perspectives in the decision-making process. This will demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability.
• Review and strengthen training: Conduct a review of existing training protocols and guidelines to emphasize the importance of upholding human rights and ethical conduct during counter-terrorism operations. Enhance training modules to provide soldiers with alternative strategies to mitigate risks while ensuring civilian safety.
• Communication and community engagement: Develop a comprehensive communication strategy to address the concerns raised by the incident. Engage with the local population, community leaders, and media to explain the army’s commitment to respecting human rights, its challenges in the current security environment, and the measures being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

By following these recommendations, the report aims to strike a balance between addressing the ethical concerns raised by the major’s actions and ensuring the effectiveness of counter-terrorism operations while upholding human rights and maintaining public trust.