As to the rest of your post OliverH, I agree in part. Indescriminatly shoting is not the proper response to a percieved threat. It is, though VASTLY different from walking into a villiage and massacreing the population. I don’t see how an inteligent person can equate the two in good faith.
The problem is that your examples don’t quite hold up to supporting that point. Calley was convicted after an attempted cover-up failed, Most notably, no effort was made at actual fact-finding on location, nor by interviewing vietnamese who had been there. Rather, information provided by the accused themselves was treated as fact. If not for some relatively low-level GIs sending letters to non-Army recipients, even the written complaint by Thompson would have had negligible consequences. The official report that was finally written by the investigation Panel headed by Peers called for action against dozens of men, including for participation in the cover-up. Only a handful of those were actually tried, and only Calley was actually convicted from those who had committed the massacre. Of those involved in the cover-up, despite the Peers report calling for the indictment of 28 officers and 2 NCOs, only 14 officers were charged, only one went to court, and he was acquitted.
Sorry, but the conviction of one Lieutenant out of a unit that butchered civilians and superior officers who did their best to cover the tracks of both themselves and those who committed the slaughter is hardly evidence that such actions are persecuted as a rule. (And we don’t even want to start talking about Calley’s parole, or his even earlier release from prison. Being convicted is pretty meaningless if the consequences for you are zero)
Sorry, but to bring Calley as an example of the US armed forces persecuting war criminals is a hoax, and a disgrace to the victims of My Lai.
I only ask you one question: Why the the US Armed Forces in Iraq lie about investigating the marketplace explosions?
If they had every inclination to find out whether illegal orders were issues, or illegal actions committed, they would have nothing to fear from it. Instead, they claimed to investigate what happened when it happened, and eons later, mumly admitted there never had been an investigation.
The point is that reacting without thinking to a given stimulus, being an order or a perceived threat, is bound to create results that are deplorable and scoff at the Geneva Conventions. The point should be to be able to compute the data you are given quickly enough to react in a fashion that maximises both your safety and that of others, NOT not computing the data at all.
You said:
I gave you several examples where the cases WERE investigated and the soldiers WERE convicted, directly refuting your assertion.
So one of my examples (Calley) isn’t a the world’s best ? Fine. His actions and those around and above him are not “swept under the rug”, but taught to US soldiers still today as deplorable and illegal.
When you find me a military that can field 130,000 troops in occupation under daily attack and every last one of them can
you’ll be looking at the 1st division of the Zen Android Corps.
Oh, before I’m accused of ignoring your one question, investigating the marketplace explosions… I don’t know. Please provide a source for the mum admission, I missed that.
Oliverh:
FYI, Calley was not acquitted. He was convicted and served two years of his sentence before being pardoned by Nixon. Nevertheless, I agree that the whole My-Lai incident and the ensuing coverup reflected poorly on the U.S. military and the U.S’s involvement in Vietnam. I guess that’s why we lost. (Also, the UCMJ today has been revamped considerably since the Vietnam era, so I don’t think using examples from that era necessary apply to how things are being handled today.)
The German Army, or the Bundeswehr, ironically, is considered one of the leading experts on the legality of orders in the military, since their predecessors, The Wehrmacht, have left such a rich legacy of case studies for generations to pour over.
Currently, the Bundeswehr is an advocate of Iinnerefuehrung" or the concept of “internal leadership”, in helping rank-and-file enlisted and officers determine the legality and morality of orders put upon them.
From what I understand, every Bundeswehr member has the right and duty to invoke “Innerefuehrung” in refusing to carry out orders that they deem are illegal or immoral. Of course, you cannot invoke such a right to avoid duty that you simply don’t want to do. There has to be a moral premise behind it.
Um, no. That would have been the case if my assertion would have been that such cases were NEVER investigated. You did nothing to show that the military avoided investigations and convictions whenever possible, and if that was impossible, tried to keep things nice and easy for those convicted.
They are not swept under the rug because the entire planet knows about them, and trying to do so would be futile. Your own example rather proves my point that when given the opportunity, such cases are kept from the public’s attention as completely as possible, and are only thoroughly investigated under public and political pressure. As such, rather than providing an example supporting your point, you supported mine.
Funny. I hear the same lame excuse from the people marching against the exhibition on atrocities of the Wehrmacht. Charlie Company wasn’t an invidual, and the fact that only Calley was convicted doesn’t exonerate the rest of the bunch from moral culpability.
What you apparently fail to understand is that it is precisely such ‘shit’ that just ‘happens’, and the attitude that ‘shit happens’ that fuels the anger of many a local and increases the recruitment base for those daily attackers.
David Simmons, I’m 100% with you. The thing is that even kmg365 (to whom I give his props for having refocused and delved more deeply into actual performance issues) has posted what adds up to just as much: that inadequate and probably obsolete Army doctrine about the training of CSS soldiers, the equipping, use and deployment of their units, and the allocation of resources to back them up, contributed to that convoy being massacred. But that would have happened even had they ALL been male. A PFC Jeremy Lynch, with insufficient training, a jammed weapon and crippling injuries to both legs, would have been exactly as much of a dead weight in the firefight. The only difference is that there would have been slightly less of a media circus around him.
I never said Calley was acquitted. The one officer that was acquitted I referred to was one charged in relation to the coverup.
Which is continually being analyzed, and shown to the public in a traveling exhibition, opposed by those nice people who will never learn who march through the streets yelling “My grandfather was an honorable soldier” never once wondering what stories he didn’t tell them because they were the stuff of his nightmares. Though the Cold War also helped to fuel the idea of the Wehrmacht as an honorable army, due to the fact that most stories from ‘the other side’ were heard from the western front adversaries.
There are several noteworthy concepts. One is the parliamentary charge d’affaires for the troops, to which individual members of the armed forces can address any concerns. I.e. complaints don’t need to go up the normal chain of command, they can be relayed directly to someone immediately dependent on the federal parliament who can on his/her own initiative, or on parliamentary request, investigate potential problems and reports annually to parliament. The only thing that can prevent this office from investigating a matter if there is already an investigation by the defense committee ongoing. The minister of defense has no power whatsoever over this office. (quite the contrary, his office is under oversight by the charge) Parliament or the defense committee CAN have the charge investigate a certain issue (i,e, if parliament wants it to be investigated, it has to be investigated. This, however, has rarely happened so far, and the office mostly acts out of its own initiative, based on petitions by members of the armed forces). One of the duties is to verify and support the concept of “Innere Fuehrung” you mentioned, because one of its goals is to integrate the armed forces as a regular part of society. The other is to ensure that the basic rights of the soldier are met and complied with, i.e. especially the constitutional rights every soldier has just like every citizen.
Further, soldiers are tried in regular civilian courts, or disciplinary courts for, but not of the armed forces. This, too, is part of the concept of the soldier as a regular ‘citizen in uniform’. The armed forces by and large don’t have their own jurisdiction, as is the case in other countries. Which also means that whether a given order was disregarded justifiably will be decided on by civilians, and possibly lay judges from the ranks of the military, which can, however, include conscripts doing their military service.
Why do I have to show something I never asserted? I’m saying the US Military has laws against following unlawful orders. Far from asserting anything like what you said above I also said… “There are laws against murder all over the world. That they are broken every day by some does not negate them.” acknowledging that they are broken sometimes. I cited examples as proof we are taught that we will be punished for such actions.
I think humans are imperfect and make bad decisions on occasion in combat. That’s a far cry from excusing atrocities. Negligence that causes some ones death is far from an ideal to strive for, and it is not something that should be flippantly accepted as ‘shit happens’. It is however incredibly dissimilar to premeditated mass murder.
You have to show I am wrong if you claim I am. And I said the existence of laws is meaningless if they are not consistently used and enforced.
And that is precisely where I disagree to a noteworthy extent. They both stem from the thought that the life of a civilian is infinitely less valuable than those of the people wearing the same uniform. The sole difference is whether that opinion is expressed explicitly or implicitly, and the degree to which it is shared by the soldier on location. For the civilian who gets butchered, the difference is nonexistant.
JR Delicicious:
Yes I agree that gender was an irrelevant factor in the ambush of the 507th and final disposition of its soldiers. However, if Jessica Lynch had been a guy, he probably wouldn’t have had a million dollar book/miniseries deal, nor would a “Jeremy” have received half the star treatment that Jessica got.
Moreover, a “Jeremy Lynch” story of getting shot at and captured by the Iraqis, just doesn’t have that same patina of drama and victimhood that the story of Jessica does. Invariably, had Jessica been a guy with everything that happened to her happening to a him instead, it would’ve been just another story of a regular soldier doing his job under difficult circumstances.
This goes back to my point that regardless of what women’s libbers say, female soldiers wounded or captured in combat seem more likely to be depicted and/or thought of as victims than male solders. This appears to especially be the case if that soldier happens to be a cute blonde. What this means to me is that there still appears to be a double standard being applied to women in the military serving in combat by Joe E. Public and the media.
OliverH:
Thanks for the interesting information about the German military legal system. It seems to me to be an ideal system of military jurisprudence, as time and time again, the notion of a bureaucratic body or institution investigating or policing itself invariably continues to serve a creative social fiction, in my opinion.
Nevertheless, I see a couple of problems with the German system of military justice, which admittedly sounds more democratic than our own in the U.S. military First problem I see is that it seems awfully inefficient to lump civilian and military cases together under one legal system. I could only guess that this could bog down the courts if there happened to be an influx, thus creating inefficiencies for both the military and civilian side. How, if at all, does the German system prepare for this type of contingency? ARe there auxillary courts or surplus magistrates? And given current conditions, do you think this system could ever be or even should be adopted in the U.S.?
The second problem I see with the German model of a civilian-administered system of military jurisprudence, is that it would require a legal and administrative sector – as well as a general populace – that is well-versed or at least familiar in all things military, which perhaps is possilbe in a society where military service has been compulsory since time immemorial.
But lest we forget, in the U.S., we are now almost three generations removed from the days of the draft. What this means is that nowadays, it is extremely rare to have co-workers or friends of your own age group in the U.S. who have served in the U.S. military, let alone even meeting someone 10-, 20-, or even 30-years older than you who has.
The point is that the U.S. military as an institution with its own terminologies, customs, practices, structure, organization and traditions, continues to be an unknown quantity for most Americans 50 and younger.
Furthermore, the German system would be difficult to use in the U.S., as the state and federal courts could never efficiently process both civilian and military legal matters as efficiently as the U.S. military currently does for itself with its JAG Corp.
That being said, “military justice” continues to be one of those oxymoronic axioms – akin to terms like “military intelligence” – that no one who has worn the uniform has ever totally believed in or does not look scornfully upon.
Sgt J.
Thanks for sharing your notes from Marine Corps. boot camp about UCMJ. I went through Army basic training and infantry school at Ft. Benning in 1988 and still have all my notes too.
Unfortunately, as 11Bs, we never received any training regarding the legality and illegality of orders, nor were examples of legal precedents ever set forth. It wasn’t until I attended PLDC several years later as an E-5 when they made a quick and dirty reference to My-Lai with a cursory discussion of Calley’s actions and final disposition. I think this type of training is really valuable – not just for officers and NCO’s – but also for enlisted – and especially all grunts.
Then again, there were a lot of things I was disappointed with our basic training. I have often compared notes regarding boot camp experiences with my brother-in-law who was a marine – served in LAVs.
OUr discussions were like, “Oh, we did this. Did you dio that?” kind of stuff. As a result of years of that (mostly over the holidays), my conclusion was that the basic/AIT, or what is called OSUT (one station unit training) for 11Bs that I received was a dumbed-down version of Marine boot.
Example, I remember my brother-in-law telling me about doing Mt. Olympus at Pendleton. At Benning, on our last forced march which was about 24 miles, we did hump a couple of good hills along the way, and one in particular that waylaid quite a few by causing them to fall out of the march and do the “funky chicken” on the side of the road, but in all honesty, it was no “Mt. Mofo.”
I agree with what you said regarding humans being imperfect and making bad decisions in combat. I think there has always been, and always will be chickenshit commanders and leaders in combat, who commit offenses, especially against civilians or non-combatants, as has been documented throughout history.
And history has proven that once accused, such chickenshit individuals – like Calley --will invariably pass the buck or deny responsibility in order to save their own asses. But who wouldn’t?
However, I agree that simply denying something or even attempting to cover something up is still a far cry from excusing the atrocities themselves.
JR Delicicious:
Yes I agree that gender was an irrelevant factor in the ambush of the 507th and final disposition of its soldiers. However, if Jessica Lynch had been a guy, he probably wouldn’t have had a million dollar book/miniseries deal, nor would a “Jeremy” have received half the star treatment that Jessica got.
Moreover, a “Jeremy Lynch” story of getting shot at and captured by the Iraqis, just doesn’t have that same patina of drama and victimhood that the story of Jessica does. Invariably, had Jessica been a guy with everything that happened to her happening to a him instead, it would’ve been just another story of a regular soldier doing his job under difficult circumstances.
This goes back to my point that regardless of what women’s libbers say, female soldiers wounded or captured in combat seem more likely to be depicted and/or thought of as victims than male solders. This appears to especially be the case if that soldier happens to be a cute blonde. What this means to me is that there still appears to be a double standard being applied to women in the military serving in combat by Joe E. Public and the media.
OliverH:
Thanks for the interesting information about the German military legal system. It seems to me to be an ideal system of military jurisprudence, as time and time again, the notion of a bureaucratic body or institution investigating or policing itself invariably continues to serve a creative social fiction, in my opinion.
Nevertheless, I see a couple of problems with the German system of military justice, which admittedly sounds more democratic than our own in the U.S. military First problem I see is that it seems awfully inefficient to lump civilian and military cases together under one legal system. I could only guess that this could bog down the courts if there happened to be an influx, thus creating inefficiencies for both the military and civilian side. How, if at all, does the German system prepare for this type of contingency? ARe there auxillary courts or surplus magistrates? And given current conditions, do you think this system could ever be or even should be adopted in the U.S.?
The second problem I see with the German model of a civilian-administered system of military jurisprudence, is that it would require a legal and administrative sector – as well as a general populace – that is well-versed or at least familiar in all things military, which perhaps is possilbe in a society where military service has been compulsory since time immemorial.
But lest we forget, in the U.S., we are now almost three generations removed from the days of the draft. What this means is that nowadays, it is extremely rare to have co-workers or friends of your own age group in the U.S. who have served in the U.S. military, let alone even meeting someone 10-, 20-, or even 30-years older than you who has.
The point is that the U.S. military as an institution with its own terminologies, customs, practices, structure, organization and traditions, continues to be an unknown quantity for most Americans 50 and younger.
Furthermore, the German system would be difficult to use in the U.S., as the state and federal courts could never efficiently process both civilian and military legal matters as efficiently as the U.S. military currently does for itself with its JAG Corp.
That being said, “military justice” continues to be one of those oxymoronic axioms – akin to terms like “military intelligence” – that no one who has worn the uniform has ever totally believed in or does not look scornfully upon.
Sgt J.
Thanks for sharing your notes from Marine Corps. boot camp about UCMJ. I went through Army basic training and infantry school at Ft. Benning in 1988 and still have all my notes too.
Unfortunately, as 11Bs, we never received any training regarding the legality and illegality of orders, nor were examples of legal precedents ever set forth. It wasn’t until I attended PLDC several years later as an E-5 when they made a quick and dirty reference to My-Lai with a cursory discussion of Calley’s actions and final disposition. I think this type of training is really valuable – not just for officers and NCO’s – but also for enlisted – and especially all grunts.
Then again, there were a lot of things I was disappointed with our basic training. I have often compared notes regarding boot camp experiences with my brother-in-law who was a marine – served in LAVs.
OUr discussions were like, “Oh, we did this. Did you dio that?” kind of stuff. As a result of years of that (mostly over the holidays), my conclusion was that the basic/AIT, or what is called OSUT (one station unit training) for 11Bs that I received was a dumbed-down version of Marine boot.
Example, I remember my brother-in-law telling me about doing Mt. Olympus at Pendleton. At Benning, on our last forced march which was about 24 miles, we did hump a couple of good hills along the way, and one in particular that waylaid quite a few by causing them to fall out of the march and do the “funky chicken” on the side of the road, but in all honesty, it was no “Mt. Mofo.”
I agree with what you said regarding humans being imperfect and making bad decisions in combat. I think there has always been, and always will be chickenshit commanders and leaders in combat, who commit offenses, especially against civilians or non-combatants, as has been documented throughout history.
And history has proven that once accused, such chickenshit individuals – like Calley --will invariably pass the buck or deny responsibility in order to save their own asses. But who wouldn’t?
However, I agree that simply denying something or even attempting to cover something up is still a far cry from excusing the atrocities themselves.
If there’s no difference why are there different charges and punishments for negligent homicide and 1st degree murder? Both victims are equally dead. Is this solely an American distinction? I thought malice; intent and premeditation were common factors in most western judiciaries.
So, as far as you’re concerned French peacekeepers in Ivory Coast who accidentally kill civilians might as well be Pol Pot? After all, for the civilian who gets butchered, the difference is nonexistent.
Um, no. I would suggest you base your comments on other people’s opinion on what they actually said, not on what you would have liked them to say just for you to be able to counter something.
If you had actually bothered to read what I wrote, you might have read something about the attitude being similar with the people who send untrained troops where they are bound to kill civilians due to their lack of training. If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have read that I specifically stated there’s a difference in the attitude of the soldiers on locations. That doesn’t change the fact that for the upper ranks, the lives of a local civilian is worth jack sh*t.
And sorry to say, it speaks volumes that you bring troops INVITED by BOTH SIDES of a conflict into a discussion dealing with acts of agression, whether they are whitewashed with alleged claims of only having the best interest of the locals in mind or not. Both the government and the rebels in Ivory coast agreed the have french troops there, knowing fully well that meant that some of their people could be shot if things got out of hand. That is a LONG way from gunning down demonstrators who tell you you have NOT been invited.
I think your argument might be based in part on not being aware of more differences in the German judicial system. There are several distinct branches of jurisdiction, each with its own field: I already mentioned the administrative courts. In these courts, conflicts between the individual (or a corporation) and the state are decided, safe for several sub-issues that tend to generate a high volume of cases and are therefore treated by their own specialized courts: Social courts deal with issues related to social security, and financial courts deal with taxes, fees, and other financial issues. Then, there are labor courts which deal with the relationship between employee and employer (you’d fight being fired in such a court, for example). Lastly, there is the branch of courts which deal with general civil and criminal proceedings.
Ideally, this also means that the judges at such courts have special expertise in their specialty, and thus can go through cases a bit quicker. Of course, we still have clogged courts especially in the social field, since people denied benefits will go any length to get them.
But I think you’ll have to explain your scenario a bit more as to what kind of influx you have in mind.
I don’t think it is possible to make a one on one transfer for simple constitutional reasons: While in many cases, the german courts have lay judges which have a full vote on the verdict, there is no real jury, and the judge(s) is/are involved both in fact- and sentence-finding.
Frankly, I don’t see this as a problem at all. Courts are constantly relying on outside expertise when needed. There is no way for the court to have an idea on its own as to what it means to have a 48h hospital shift with the responsibility for countless human lives, some of which you might see slip through your fingers, wondering whether you might have saved them. There is no way for a court to know on its own what it means to hold in your hand a vial of Ebola while working in a suit insulated from your environment. Yes, there are special things only a soldier can know. Nothing prevents the court from asking one.
The problem with this state of affairs in my opinion is that it really separates the armed forces from the rest of society, it breeds an attitude of exceptionality, and detaches the armed forces from their actual duties, serving and defending the nation, in favor of defining their own goals. Short, it breeds people like the fictional character of Col. Nathan R. Jessup from ‘A few good men’. I’ve seen people who honestly said that “'Yeah, Jessup was a bad guy because of the death that happened, but his “standing on the wall” quote was darn right.” not realizing that it is an attitude that is devoid of any and all democratic spirits and denounces the sovereignty of the people, and not the least, that it was that attitude which caused the death to begin with. It is the same attitude that, in less stable nations, spawns coups d’etat as the military decides that the civilian society doesn’t have the guts nor the knowledge to lead the nation. An army that constitutes a state within a state is always a risk of deciding that their way of running things is better than that of those outside. Now, that is not to say that such is likely to happen in the US, far from it. But it breeds attitudes that are profoundly antidemocratic.
Now, there’s plenty that can be said about the German armed forces. A lot of things going on there are quite ridiculous and reduce its effectivity. But not the less, that is precisely because they do NOT get a special treatment, but are an organ of the civilian state just as many other organs.
Oh, I get it. For the civilian who gets butchered, the difference is nonexistant*
*Except if the soldier who shot you was invited by both warring parties.
How silly of me.
So what you say is that what the people decide is completely irrelevant. Whether they decide they are willing to take risks is nothing that figures into your worldview. Thanks for demonstrating so thoroughly the point I just made to kmg. Maybe once you understood the basic principles of ‘government by the people’ you even stop using whitewashing war crimes as examples of their persecution. Quite obviously, you are more interested in propaganda for the US armed forces than a sensible discussion.
Who do you think is over in Iraq in the US armed forces? People just like me. I could be over there after the 1st of the year, just like almost any other US Service member. Most of us are good people who would like to help, and not interested in killing civilians. Just like the Brits, Italians, or any other soldiers sent by their governments. Despite your best efforts, I know it’s my duty to refuse unlawful orders and believe I would (and should) be punished if I do not.
Kmg, I went to basic in 1988 also, but I was training to become a 12B, Combat Engineer. While in basic we learned the difference between lawful and unlawful order(being ordered to kill a prisoner or civilian). Ypu should have been taught this at basic also, it was a serious mistake if you weren’t.
As far as Ms. Lynch goes, while I have some sympathy for her injuries, I will not be impressed until she returns the medal she didn’t earn. That whole convoy was a comedy of errors.
- No officer in charge. Every convoy has an nco and officer in charge of it.
- The nco leading the convoy couldn’t follow a map with a blue line drawn on it plotting the course.
- When they came under fire they ran instead of fighting. You learn in combat arms tha when ambushed you must fight your way out or you will be slaughtered.
- All of their heavy weapons(i.e. M2 machine guns, or .50 caliber to civilians)malfunctioned due to a lack of maintenance.
- Your in a warzone, how they hell do you not make sure your weapon is working before you get into a vehicle?
- Three nco’s were also awarded medals, 2 bronze, and I think the last was a silver but it could have been a bronze too. Why havent their heroism been brought up? They actually gathered members of the convoy up, set up a defensive perimeter, and called in support.
- Why has Lynch been pumped up while the black female who was a P.O.W , and a single mother has been forgotten?
I don’t know how this got derailed into a discussion over lawful orders and the UCMJ, but lets at least talk about the facts on that day.