In this thread the WSJ article about Bushco’s lawyers trying to justify and excuse the treatment of our prisoners in Guantanimo and Abu Graihb is discussed. It makes me wonder how we can continue with the prosecution of the handful of soldiers who have been implicated in Iraq so far. It seems to me that they were indeed following orders, that it wasn’t just a few bad apples, but actual policy. How can the military prosecuters continue to cliam that this was an isolated incident and place the blame on this handful of junior NCO’s and privates? I’m in no way trying to defend their actions, or ignore what happened. I’m just trying to come to a conclusion about the actual courts marshall.
Make that “Soldiers”.
Crap.
This should probably be in Great Debates.
I’m certain a Mod would be willing to help move it there, if you asked.
I’ll give my opinion once it’s there.
I thought I was in GD.
Can a Mod please move this?
Thanks
The fact that the Bushies took the step of having somebody research how to get around the Geneva conventions and define how far torture can legally go is disturbing. It is unclear at this time whether this wiggle-room research was passed down to the prison guards and private-contract interrogators. Maybe some historian can tell us if there was ever another presidential administration that assigned a lawyer to find out how much we can torture people and still get away with it.
He’s a compassionate conservative. :rolleyes:
The answer is simple. “I was just following orders” is not a defense. If their superiors ordered them to commit torture, the correct response would be to refuse. If they obeyed orders and commited the crimes, then they and the people who gave the orders are both guilty. The soldiers can certainly be court martialed, even if the orders came directly from the president. The fact that their superiors told them that their actions were not criminal is also not a defense. Whether or not their superiors are also guilty is irrelevant to whether the people who actually committed the actions are guilty. Of course, it may be true that some of the alleged actions really were not crimes, and the accused soldiers are certainly free to argue that in court.
How can they do this? Several ways:
-
They can lie. Everybody knows how, and it would hardly be the first.
-
They can be lied to. Even of they "sense " the lies, they can acccept the words of some and not others, to make a favorable result. Prosectors have a great deal of discretion about what evidence is “credible” and what is not. Many civilian jurisdactions have rules governing the handing of evidence gathered by the state, requiring that all potentially exculpatory evidence be made available to the defense. I don;t know whather that is the case in military courts, and would be very interested to find out that answer myself.
-
The military has an unusual level of control over witnesses. For instance, the whistleblowing soldier who reported the incidents has “unavailable” to testify. It has been announced he is on “emergency leave” and out of the country (Iraq). The press has been unable to find him to verify this, and in any case all soldiers who are potential witnesses have been ordered not to talk to the press.
This is exactly why there is “Special Prpsecutor” legislation to investigate crimes by the executive branch of government in the civilian sphere. There is an inherent credibility issue when an agency investigates its own highest ranking members.
Moved to GD.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
was, not is.
alas, we miss an institution untimely throttled in its youth by a bad case of torquemada’s remorse.
where have you gone, kenneth starr, a nation turns it’s lonely eyes to you
coo coo choo.
The problem is that with the Dems in control of neither Congress nor the Presidency, there’s no way the investigation will go beyond the grunts. Maybe if Kerry gets elected …
I guess that’s my problem with this. As a former Airman and NCO, I hate to see these sodiers take the brunt of the responsibility for what was obviously operational procedure. These soldiers did not cook this up in the day room as a lark, they were instructed on how this was done. Prosecute them for violation of the Geneva Convention? Absolutley, but go after the brass that put this in place as well, or I predict a huge moral issue.
I see a bit of a problem with prosecuting the soldiers, even if “I was just obeying orders” isn’t an excuse.
Commanding Officer: Here’s where we torture Iraqi thieves, and I want you to join in on the next shift.
Soldier: I don’t think that’s legal, sir. Geneva Convention. They have the right to humane treatment while held prisoner, and torture is expressly forbidden.
Commanding Officer: But I’m giving you a direct order to do it anyway.
Soldier: But it’s my duty to disobey that order, sir.
Commanding Officer: Let’s start over. Here’s where we torture Iraqi thieves and traitors who disobey orders. Some people think we should not torture prisoners. Some people think we should not torture soldiers considered to be traitors, either. I disagree on both counts, solider, and I am ordering you to join in on the next shift, in whatever role you feel most comfortable.
But Ahunter3, get real.
It certainly probable that any soldier who expressed doubts about what was going on got a stern talking to about being a team player, and after all these are terrorists, you don’t wanna coddle terrorists do you soldier?
Why exactly would the commanding officer feel it neccesary to threaten to torture prison guards who refused to rough up and humiliate prisoners? The reality is that preventing prisoner abuse takes a certain amount of effort from the CO. If the CO doesn’t feel like expending any effort to prevent it, or directly or indirectly encourages it, then he’ll find plenty of volunteers to get revenge against the terrorists.
That (your first point) is really what I was hinting at — my imaginary conversation made it explicit but I think its content would be implicit whether such a conversation took place or not. Your CO is either ordering you to participate in torture or is assigning you tasks that, when performed by your colleagues and comrades, incorporates torture that is taking place in plain view of your CO. Unless you’re thinking they are too stupid to know this is against the rules, you’re thinking they are knowingly violating the rules, from which it’s a pretty short hop to thinking that they’d have few scruples against violating you just a bit if you made an issue of it. (I suppose you might get by with not being a torturer if you did nothing to intervene in the activities of those who did, although then again maybe you would not).
Yeah, in theory. But everyone knows that Job One in every branch of the armed forces is to discourage independent thinking. From your first day of boot camp, you are brainwashed (and really, I think that’s as good a word as any for it) to follow orders at all costs. And when you think about it, how else could it be done? It wouldn’t do to have soldiers question every order given to them - the chain of command would break down. Soldiers can be court-martialed, and serve serious hard time in military prison for following their conscience at the expense of following orders.
So I guess I’m torn on this issue. It seems that people should bear personal responsibility for their actions, and that there ought to be absolute standards of behavior that can’t be circumvented just because one was “following orders”. But on the other hand, I can see how, in actual practice, it could happen. One thing I’m sure of, though - to make these soldiers scapegoats, while the criminals at the top of the chain who gave the orders go scot-free, is wrong.