[Grovenet] The law

[Walt Wentz]

>So, as I understand this conversation, Walt, we agree that torture is
>despicable, unethical, and illegal.   We agree on the importance of civil
>disobedience when called by conscience.   We agree that those in the 
>military who speak
>out against torture are heroes of conscience, and those who didn't speak out
>may have a hard time sleeping at night.

Yep to the 4th power so far...

>
>You say you were in the military.   And, how long did you spend overseas?

I was in for four years, but only about 18 months outside the 
country, actually.

>Military members in the US do not live in a vacuum, but overseas they do - a
>military vacuum.   In the States, they have options and support - their local
>minister, their local lawyer, even their local journalist. 
>Overseas they will
>get legal representation if they are accused of a crime.   They may not speak
>the local language.  They may not get mail on a regular basis (e.g., the
>newspaper from home).

In these days of the Internet, they are even more tightly connected 
to the civilian world than I was. Certainly, in a wartime situation, 
the old monkey instincts tend to take over, and 20-year-old troops 
will be easily encouraged to mistreat suspected insurgents, or to 
even to get the idea of mistreating them on their own.
What we are talking about here is not random, heat of the moment 
mistreatment, but institutionalized torture... torture mandated by 
civilian "chickenhawks" sitting safely Stateside, and passing on 
their illegal diktats by specious "legal opinions," by instructions 
delivered through CIA operatives such as those in Abu Grihab, by the 
good ol' boy's wink and nod.
Even in the "Good War," guerillas, who are today called "insurgents," 
were "mistreated" in combat zones... quite often, after a drumhead 
hearing by any available officer, they were shot as spies. But this 
is a war in which we are fighting nobody but insurgents, and anybody 
might be the enemy, or be perfectly innocent, but most of whom want 
us out of their country anyway. So, one can appreciate the paranoia 
and  stress under which our soldiers are operating.
But, getting back to the main argument: the panicky young soldier who 
kicks around or even shoots an unarmed farmer after a roadside bomb 
has killed his buddies cannot be judged in the same context as the 
administration spokesweasel who sits comfortable and safe in his 
Washington lair and dresses up the administration's illegal decisions 
on torture in pretty, legalistic, hair-splitting formulae, or the 
officers who pass along those decisions, or even the troops who, 
serving safe prison-garrison duty, go along with orders (or follow 
examples and suggestions of assigned CIA operatives) because their 
prisoners are "others," therefore not really human beings. If the 
offending troops are young and the portions of their minds concerned 
with analytical thinking and  common sense are not yet fully 
developed, yes, that can be taken into account. But their officers, 
and the civilians who direct their officers, have no such excuse. If 
the troops are to be punished, then the punishment should go all the 
way up the chain of command, even to the White House, whose denizens 
should have been impeached long ago.
No, I don't criticize our combat troops-- far from it. I believe 
they've been thrown into an untenable situation, and then cut adrift 
from any moral certainty for their cause by the ethical ambiguity of 
their superiors, and by the constantly-shifting rationales for the 
war itself.  Under such circumstances all you can do is keep your 
head down, try to protect your friends and hope to get out alive.

>
>They may not know anything about international law.   In fact, they may not
>know anything about law, period.   Remember these are mostly twenty-somethings
>doing the dirty work.   They don't have the knowledge of the world that you
>have accumulated.   (How much legal knowledge do you think the person on the
>street has?   If you and I went out on the street and started asking legal
>questions, how hard do you think it would be to stump people?) 
>And, they are in an
>environment where social cohesion is a life or death issue.   (And, no, it
>doesn't take long debate to change established law.   Ask Bob 
>Browning how many
>changes in the law happened in the past year alone.   Ask a tax accountant how
>difficult it is to keep up with tax law changes from year to year.)
>
>You're dreaming if you think the brass will not force the issue if a
>servicemember acts on conscience.   They were half a world away, in 
>a military vacuum,
>and obeying orders that they presumed to be lawfull ones.   Do you think the
>brass is afraid of an appeal by some subordinate who is refusing to obey
>orders?   Do you think that subordinate thinks they will be protected by some
>friendly journalist telling their story?   I think you've been 
>watching too many
>movies, Walt.  
>
>The only thing I see that we disagree on is that you feel free to criticize
>the behavior of people who are in an environment that you can barely imagine,
>and you think that every individual should behave heroically.  I think you've
>got a hell of a nerve to criticize those people, and while I would love to
>believe that every individual is a hero (and that I myself would 
>take the hero's
>role in such a situation) in fact, I don't believe that every individual is a
>hero.   That's why we get excited when we see people acting like heroes (and
>make movies about it).
>
>Jane B-P
>
>
>>  As a matter of fact, Jane, I WAS in the military.  And, despite the
>>  best efforts of the powers that be, military people do not live in a
>>  vacuum... they are generally well aware of the news and the law and
>>  ethical questions.
>>  Does a Justice Department "legal opinion" trump established law? Not
>>  by a jugful. Established law can only be overturned by long debate,
>>  ending with a decision by the Supreme Court. The transient
>>  appointeees in the Justice Department... and this gang can't be any
>>  too transient for my tastes... can only hold sway until their
>>  decisions are legally challenged and negated.
>>  Can an EM be "shafted for life" for his refusal to obey an unlawful
>>  order? Absolutely. But in a matter such as this, where serious
>>  ethical questions are involved, the brass is not likely to force the
>>  issue because any appeal, the higher up it goes, is likely to drag
>>  the entire question of torture into the limelight, along with the
>>  names of who gave what orders and when. A few lower-ranking officers
>>  are likely to be thrown to the wolves in consequence, but even that
>>  is bad for morale.
>>  It comes down to a matter of individual courage and integrity. Some
>>  enlisted people did blow the whistle on Abu Grahib and other
>>  violations. Were they royally shafted in consequence? Was their
>>  punishment, if any, equal to the punishment of those poor enlisted
>>  slobs who went along enthusiastically with illegal orders, and were
>>  then scapegoated by the military as soon as the feces hit the fan? It
>>  would be interesting to know.
>>  Walt
>>
>
>
>
>
>**************
>Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
>    
>   (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
>
>_______________________________________________
>GroveNet mailing list
>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet