In reading the coverage of the prison abuse scandal, it seems to me that the accused soldiers lawyers, and those with a liberal bent are trying to get the soldiers completely off the hook by arguing that the real responsibility lies higher up the chain of command.
Now, I firmly believe that, ultimately, the responsibility for an atmosphere that condoned and promoted torture definitely goes all the way up the chain of command to Donald Rumsfeld at least. And I have always said that I don't believe those individual soldiers that are being prosecuted came up with those "stress positions" all by themselves. I think the memos released lately by the administration bears that out.
But, and here is where my views diverge from the rest of my 'lefty' friends, I don't think those accused soldiers should get off 'scott-free.'
See, I was a soldier. From '83 to '86 I was a soldier in the U.S. Army, serving as a Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Specialist, attatched to an Infantry Battalion; the 6th Light Infantry Battalion of the 327th Light Infantry Brigade. I was stationed in Fairbanks Alaska. I received training on the the Geneva Conventions while I was in basic training. I received more training on the subject in my advanced training, and when at my permanent duty station, received more training on the rules of engagement and the Conventions in the form of continued training workshops. Through all of this, we were taught the differences between a legal order and an illegal order. Skipping the boring details, I can tell you what the result of being given an illegal order is: One carries out the order, but when relieved of duty, one goes straight up the chain of command and reports in detail as to what happened. In other words, the seven accused soldiers on trial now should have been knocking down the doors of the Judge Advocate General's Office, every day if necessary. Why? Because, absent a formal order from the Commander in Chief, the Geneva Convention's do apply, and those soldiers should have known that. Its a matter of personal responsibility.
I don't believe those soldiers should be given the hard time that's being bandied about: 25 years and what-not... That's too much, but I don't think 1 to 3 years is unreasonable. It would serve as a needed reminder to the other soldiers that reporting abuses is not a right, its a duty.
I do believe there needs to be serious discussion as to how applicable the Geneva Convention's Rules of Engagement really are in our current situation. These rules are based on the ideas of European Chivalry that said the knights could not just run around the countryside, whacking innocent peasants. There are combatants and non-combatants. Armies in those days really would stand across from each other on great open fields and charge each other. Everybody knew who everybody was and what they were there for. These ideas have found expression today in the Rules of Engagement. Signatory nation's armies must wear identifiable uniforms, and only attack other military targets. Again, no running around whacking the peasants, err, civilians. What I find interesting is that the Rules have remained applicable this long, that people actually abided by the rules.
At any rate, its true that modern day terrorists do not hold to the Conventions. They prefer attacking civilians to military targets. So I think that the Commander in Chief, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs, and with the State and Justice Departments, should be able to decide if the current enemy warrants the application of the Rules.
The question ultimately becomes, how sovereign is a 'sovereign nation' that can't defend itself as it sees fit? Interestingly enough, we're about to find out the answer to that question in about three weeks.
Now, I firmly believe that, ultimately, the responsibility for an atmosphere that condoned and promoted torture definitely goes all the way up the chain of command to Donald Rumsfeld at least. And I have always said that I don't believe those individual soldiers that are being prosecuted came up with those "stress positions" all by themselves. I think the memos released lately by the administration bears that out.
But, and here is where my views diverge from the rest of my 'lefty' friends, I don't think those accused soldiers should get off 'scott-free.'
See, I was a soldier. From '83 to '86 I was a soldier in the U.S. Army, serving as a Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Specialist, attatched to an Infantry Battalion; the 6th Light Infantry Battalion of the 327th Light Infantry Brigade. I was stationed in Fairbanks Alaska. I received training on the the Geneva Conventions while I was in basic training. I received more training on the subject in my advanced training, and when at my permanent duty station, received more training on the rules of engagement and the Conventions in the form of continued training workshops. Through all of this, we were taught the differences between a legal order and an illegal order. Skipping the boring details, I can tell you what the result of being given an illegal order is: One carries out the order, but when relieved of duty, one goes straight up the chain of command and reports in detail as to what happened. In other words, the seven accused soldiers on trial now should have been knocking down the doors of the Judge Advocate General's Office, every day if necessary. Why? Because, absent a formal order from the Commander in Chief, the Geneva Convention's do apply, and those soldiers should have known that. Its a matter of personal responsibility.
I don't believe those soldiers should be given the hard time that's being bandied about: 25 years and what-not... That's too much, but I don't think 1 to 3 years is unreasonable. It would serve as a needed reminder to the other soldiers that reporting abuses is not a right, its a duty.
I do believe there needs to be serious discussion as to how applicable the Geneva Convention's Rules of Engagement really are in our current situation. These rules are based on the ideas of European Chivalry that said the knights could not just run around the countryside, whacking innocent peasants. There are combatants and non-combatants. Armies in those days really would stand across from each other on great open fields and charge each other. Everybody knew who everybody was and what they were there for. These ideas have found expression today in the Rules of Engagement. Signatory nation's armies must wear identifiable uniforms, and only attack other military targets. Again, no running around whacking the peasants, err, civilians. What I find interesting is that the Rules have remained applicable this long, that people actually abided by the rules.
At any rate, its true that modern day terrorists do not hold to the Conventions. They prefer attacking civilians to military targets. So I think that the Commander in Chief, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs, and with the State and Justice Departments, should be able to decide if the current enemy warrants the application of the Rules.
The question ultimately becomes, how sovereign is a 'sovereign nation' that can't defend itself as it sees fit? Interestingly enough, we're about to find out the answer to that question in about three weeks.
Comments