You might like to think so. I’m affraid to think the contrary. There has been reports and rumors about tortures and even deaths in american jails in Irak for a long time. We’ve been widely informed about this particular event only because pictures had been taken, and even then only when these pictures were disclosed by the press, long after the military authorities knew about it. That’s called covering up. I always considered the reports of human rights organizations as more reliable than the US government’s declarations. Now, I can assume that rumors in Irak also are more reliable. Or at least testimonies from former detainees. It’s not rethoric. I’ve more confidence in the statements of a prisonners than in the statements of the US army spokeperson.
I also do no doubt that even in this particular event, these guys weren’t acting on their own, unbestknown to the people who were in charge. I’m convinced that the saying “If you see one cockroach, there are actually one hudred you don’t see” apply in this case.
If we had heard about this story in another way, for instance if a US army official (instead of the medias) had stated that some soldiers had been denounced or caught (instead of taking pictures of themselves) while torturing prisonners immediatly after the facts (instead of months after, when it wasn’t anymore possible to hide the facts) and would be prosecuted, I could have thought otherwise.
But the current situation, I can only reason in the following way “the US army covers everything up, including torture, except if and when it’s not materially possible anymore to do otherwise. Ergo, first hand testimonies and accusations of prisonners (and there has been a lot of them during the last months) are a better source of information than the US governement, and are more credible”.
The experimenters pointed out that many people involved showed various signs of distress, tried to “cheat” by helping the “victim” finding the answers, etc…Which shows that they indeed felt they were doing something wrong, despite still following the orders.
Afuckingmen right back atcha! J The VA Medical Centers depicted in that report were disgusting. I hope that the workers at those centers are punished to the fullest extend allowed. However, you cannot judge the entire VA system by those very few (although one is too many) appalling hospitals just as you cannot judge the entire U.S. military by those assholes in the Iraqi prison.
I totally agree with you. Those two incidents are not even comparable to each other.
Absolutely not. Only people who give their life at home and their security for a good cause deserves respect. “serving one’s country” has zero moral value.
Why so? Are you exonerated of any personnal responsability just because someone gave you an order? If you pull the trigger, you’re personnally responsible for the result. Your responsability is only diminished to same extent as your ability not to obey the order is diminished. You can’t just wash away your responsability by stating : “oh! there was this other guy who told me to do so”.
That’s exactly my point. I was correcting an inferrence that the experiment concluded anything about the pleasure (or lack therof) taken in the infliction of cruelty under orders or that they necessarily were doing something that they knew was wrong. The experiment only shows that people will obey orders even if they are ordered to do something which is morally repugnant to them. Whether the subjects took pleasure in the infliction of pain (and I’m sure one or two sadistic bastards probably enjoyed it) and their subjective moral perception of the actions were incidental to the experiment. The experiment was not designed to conclude anything about sadism or moral relativity, only about the willingness to obey orders.
So, in the case of the Nurember trial, you think that everybody should have been set free because they only obeyed Hitler’s orders?
There’s currently a thread about a former concentration camp guard in GQ. Do you think he should never has been prosecuted since he was following orders?
Fine. You don’t believe it. That’s an opinion. But personnally, I see no reason not to believe it. If a guy was able to do such things why wouldn’t another guy be able to order him to do so? He can perfectly say the truth.
I too seriously doubt that the photos were included in the orders. For the rest, it’s only your opinion or belief.
In my opinion, either the order wasn’t acceptable, then it’s OK to follow it. Either it was “vile”, then obeying it was vile too to an extent. Stating otherwise isn’t consistent. Or else, it would be true also if the officer ordered “shoot the men and rape the women”. People are ultimately responsible for their actions. Orders don’t cancel this personnal responsability.
I can accept the point of view of people who argue that the order and the action were appropriate given the circumstances, but not yours which makes the order vile but carrying it on perfectly OK.
Then, I’m sorry, but your friend is a torturer, and the abject orders he received don’t make him any less so and don’t remorve his responsability. He should have been tried for war crimes, and would have deserved it.
Besides, since you know that he was given orders in this circumstance, I don’t get why you can’t envision that the people we saw the pictures of weren’t also told to collect intelligence by any mean necessary, as they state.
clair, you’re muddling the issue, and this whole thread has become muddled.
Do you really not see the difference between cruel acts of war that are unfortunately typical acts of war and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY which are expressly forbidden?
As much as I hate it, people do get killed in war, and soldiers join armies knowing that they may be one of them…but they, I like to think, love their country enough to sacrifice their lives for their country’s cause. They also know they may be called upon to take another person’s life. This was the case with the Helicopter incident.
That was not the case with the rape and abuse of prisoners OR in fact the atrocities that took place in the concentration camps of Europe…that’s why those people were PUT ON TRIAL, and that’s why their “ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS” excuse is INVALID. This is why we have the Rules of the Geneva Convention.
A soldier joins an army not knowing when or why he will be called upon. He does not have a vote in whether he goes or stays. He does have a vote in whether he takes part in WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
That is why I WOULD protest the soldiers who willfully abused and raped prisoners but would NOT protest the soldiers who were called upon to fire at the Iraqi citizens, as terrible as that act looks in hindsight.
No shit, but the video clearly shows groomed farm land and a large bale of hay. Is there alot (any) of that in Iraq smart ass?
I asked the question because I really don’t know about farmland there, but I do know that it doesn’t look like any part of the middle-east I have ever been too.
I don’t muddle the issue. You are. I see a difference between crimes against humanity and unfortunately typical act of war. Nazism involved crimes against humanity. You stated that in the case of Nurember trials :
Hence that you don’t have an issue with carrying on the orders issued by the nazis. That’s the logical consequence of what you said. SS camp guards and even commanding officers aren’t responsible. They were issued orders.
What you told about your friend clearly belong to the “war crime” category. Torturing prisonners is a war crime. It’s not an unfortunate typical act of war. It’s “expressely forbidden” as you stated. I’m not muddling anything here. You might be sorry for your friend, but most probably his victims are screaming too in their sleep (assuming they survived).
Concerning the three Irakis, the action doesn’t ( a priori) belongs to the war crime category. What I had an issue with in your posts is your statement that the order was vile but carrying it on wasn’t. If it was vile, all the people involved share the responsability. If it wasn’t , there’s no reproach to adress to anybody.
Please explain me where I muddled the issue and how I didn’t make a difference between unfortunate consequences of war, war crimes and crimes against humanity?
And in what way “loving your country” is an excuse for whatever you do? It’s totally irrelevant. Is it right to murder, plunder or rape if “your country” tells you do so? Sacrifying your life for your country’s cause doesn’t mean anything. If your country’s cause is unjust, it’s at best a waste, and more likely an immoral action which fortunately resulted in your death rather than in the death of your ennemy who was fighting for a good cause.
The only think you should like to think is that they’re willing to sacrifice their live for a good cause, not because they “love their country”. “Loving your country” is more of a flaw than a quality, in this case, since it can prevent you from noticing precisely that you’re amongst the “bad guys”.
Sure, they know. Or at least I hope so. It still doesn’t make them any less responsible for their actions and the consequences of their actions.
Once again, it’s you who is muddling the issue. You’re mixing several different statemnts I made on several different issues. I discussed the helicopter attack in some, the torture in Irak in others, the concentration camps in others.
Remember : you stated that in the case of Nuremberg trials you had only an issue with the orders, not with their implementation. Not me.
Next : folowing orders might be a valid defence from a legal point of view. I was speaking from a moral point of view. And my position on this point is very clear. If you pull the trigger, you share the responsability. I was told to do so is, once again, an excuse only to the extend that your ability to refuse to obey was limited. And except in some extreme cases, it never totally absolves you of your responsability. “I was told so by the mafia’s boss” isn’t a morally valid excuse. “I was told so by the major” isn’t, either. You’d better be sure you’re doing the right thing and acting to further a good cause when your job is to kill people.
[/quote]
A soldier joins an army not knowing when or why he will be called upon. He does not have a vote in whether he goes or stays.
[/quote]
But he knows that he don’t know when or why he will be called upon.
Then he should either :
-Renounce to join the army
-Refuse to obey the “viles” orders
-Accept responsability for his actions.
So, he shouldn’t be condamned when he commits war crimes or crimes against humanity? That’s what you already told. Why are we prosecuting former SS who commited various crimes, then? Why are people, including non-officers being sentenced by the court in The Hague for the crimes commited in the former Yugoslavia? Do you think they should be freed?
What makes them irresponsible? The fact that they killed Bosnians because they loved their country, Serbia? The fact that they were obeying orders? The fact that they didn’t know when they enlisted that they would be told to kill civilians?
If I understand correctly, it’s because the former did so by themselves while the latter were ordered to do so (since you said before “he doesn’t have a vote in whether he takes part in war crimes”, so apparently, it isn’t the importance of the crime which makes the difference according to you).
It’s true to a limited extent : if these people in the Iraki jail did so spontaneously (what are the chance that it would go unoticed in a jail controled by the militaries, seriously?), it means that they acted totally freely, hence are fully, 100% responsible. But where I disagree is that I think that even if they were issued orders, they still share the responsability of these actions, their share being dependant on how much wiggle room they had. And in the case of the US army where they aren’t going to be shot for refusing to obey orders and in a non-combat situation like this, there’s no way their responsability could be unexistant.
And in the helicopter case, the situation is the same : either the action was acceptable given the circumstances, either it was “vile”. If it was vile, the soldier who obeyed the order has is share of responsability in the irakis’ death. He was the immediate cause of this death, he had free will hence you can’t wash him of all moral responsability. He could have not pulled the trigger. He could have say “no way, sir”. He could have refused to serve in Irak, like the israelis “refuzniks” who refused to serve in the occupied territories. He could not have enlisted in the army at the first place. He has his share of responsability like every other person who was involved in this action.
Sorry, I misread this part of your post. I read “he doesn’t have a say” instead of “he does have a say”
Then, my response is :
First, you’re contradicting your former statement about the Nurember trials.
Second, no. He has a say in both cases, as I already pointed out. If he’s ordered to do something, he is in the same situation regardless the seriousness of what he’s ordered to do. The only difference is legal. In one case, he can be sentenced because the order was illegal hence he was obligated not to obey while in the second case he can’t (that would be for the current american army…not necessarily true for a german soldier 60 years ago).
But his moral responsability is only diminished (because he has more to lose by refusing to obey. The pressure is stronger), not cancelled. And the importance of responsability is dependant of the imortance of the crime. If the action was vile, he did commit a vile act.
I believe the person accused of rape was a civilian contractor. Out of reach by the military.
What the problem is IMHO…I think MI told them to do whatever was necessary to soften up those prisoners. Without giving specific instructions. So they could cover their ass if it came out.
Watching the clip, Mr.TuffPaws linked to, I have one question to ask: Two minutes and thirty seconds into the clip, you can see the individual in front of the tractor struggling to pick something up, what the fuck could be so goddamn important to grab at such a moment? He/she obviously knows that the other individual has been “vaporized” a few seconds ago, because his/her movements have suddenly become more animated following the death of that individual.
I am not a member of the military, nor have I ever been one. My first instinct would be to get the flying fuck out of there as fast as I could. I wouldn’t grab anything, I’d just run. Yet this individual didn’t. He or she struggled to pick up whatever the object was before getting killed. Why?
Are you attributing that quote to me? You’d better settle down and reread some shit before you start accusing contradiction. You barely know who the fuck you’re talking to anymore.
Something can be vile and sad and horrific and still and unfortunate, but not criminal act. That is the sad fact of war my friend.
But just to be clear for the fortieth time, no I do not excuse the war crimes of WWII, I, Vietnam, IraQ, the spanish american war, the war of the worlds, or anywhere else.
The civilian contractor aspect of it has some interesting, albeit perverse, ramifications. Now, IANAL:G,DILLAL!! (I Am Not a Lawyer: GOD! Do I Look Like a Lawyer?!) but being an American, he is not subject to the laws of Iraq, and even if he were, there is no chance, none whatsoever, that an American citizen of whatever level of rottenness is going to be handed over to Iraqi courts.
Laws in America don’t apply in Iraq, of course. And as far as the International Court in the Hague, the one recognized by everybody else to investigate war crimes and related horrors, that has even less chance than an Iraqi court. And, of course, being a civilian he isn’t subject to courts martial. So he skates.
I suppose there’s always the chance he be labeled an enemy combatant, wherein such nicities as law and procedure are no longer relevent. See! The system works, especially when its broken!