I'm no lawyer
posted by The Vidiot @ 7:30 PM Permalink Bumped and updated by The SailorOriginal Post by The Vidiot: I've never deleted a post before, but I've deleted this one. The more I thought about it, the more it pissed me off and it sounded wrong and silly.
It was based on the following.
Holder has said they won't prosecute the torturers because they were only doing what they were told.
"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."This got me on so many levels. How can a person do what they did? Aren't they human? Couldn't they have said "Hell no?" And since they didn't, they should defend their lack of humanity.
However, I was missing the point. The point is not that the torturers tortured, but rather, the system that they work within condoned torture and made it possible to torture. Anyone stuck in that system would have to do whatever the system compelled them to do. Once you embed yourself in a system, you really have little choice but to obey the logic of that system.
Look at the corporations that pollute our waterways. Individuals not in the system are appalled. But people within the corporation have all sorts of rationalizations that allow them to perform their jobs within that company. What's really sick is not the people who push the button that flushes the chemicals into our water system, but rather, it's the corporation itself that has an end goal that runs counter to the best interests of the environment and the people who live within it.
I hereby promise to not hit "publish" on an emotional post until it's fermented for a few hours first.
UPDATE by The Sailor: Vid, I think your original take was correct "How can a person do what they did? Aren't they human? Couldn't they have said "Hell no?" And since they didn't, they should defend their lack of humanity."
They should have said 'No!'
Some did. Some shrugged and turned their heads. Some went along, got promoted, got Medals of Freedom and cushy jobs. Some were prosecuted, a few went to jail.
They all, from the highest (Bush, Cheney, Rice) to the lowest should be tried for war crimes. And that should also apply to the
An actual trial, in an impartial court, where evidence and testimony are not coerced or obtained thru torture.
One of the courses I had in the Navy (late 70's) was on refusing illegal orders. The lessons of the Nuremberg trials were still very much a part of the training.
"I was only following orders" is not an excuse for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or torture.
I know the recruitment standards have changed, but I don't know if the syllabus has changed. But just because a culture or system has changed doesn't mean that torture isn't still wrong.
Labels: holder, Torture, war crimes
8 Comments:
That's why they put so many 'contractor' not subject to the being prosecuted by the military. You can bet hard money that the private contractors have shredded every piece of paper making even the vaguest reference to their torture crews.
A military troop, in a decent military, can refuse to follow illegal commands of the OIC, and during the Nuremberg Trials the court held that, "But I was just following orders!' is not an excuse for the war crimes they had committed.
So, I'm assuming you know some people who did bad things "under order." So tell me, what are they like? I mean, I can't envision EVER even allowing myself to be put into a position like that.
I have never engaged in nor observed anyone being tortured in my life. Had I, I know I would have made every effort possible to stop the torture. Your assumption is ill placed upon me for neither I nor any of the fine men and women with whom I served were ever issued illegal orders. If one of my people violated the rules of conduct as laid out in the UCMJ they were immediately reported and usually confined to the base 'till discharge, or courts martial, administrative punishment under Article 15, discharged under less than Honorable conditions, and/or a ticket home depending on the severity of the violation.
I do hope you feel better soon.
No no no! Oh my gawd no!
Ugh. Nothing is coming out right today.
I just meant that since you were in the service you might've heard stories of or met guys who did something they were ordered to do and weren't comfortable with. I was just wondering if they were "Oh, i followed orders" or, whatever. I imagine they were conflicted, but I don't know. I'm always surprised at some people's ability to compartmentalize.
Just naive curiosity on my part.
I don't know anybody who's seen combat who's even willing to talk about it. The most I've ever heard from the one guy I do know was that he was scared pissless all the time and that's all he can say about it.
I have a few uncles who fought, but I never asked them and they may not have wanted to talk to me about it.
Sorry, don't mean to be a naive idiot.
Seems to be my frame of mind today.
Vid, I agree with your original point. They should have said 'No!'
Some did. Some shrugged and turned their heads. Some went along, got promoted, got Medals of Freedom and cushy jobs. Some were prosecuted, some went to jail.
The masterminds of it should still go to jail.
*********************
One of the courses I had in the Navy (late 70's) was on refusing illegal orders. The lessons of the Nuremberg trials were still very much a part of the training.
I don't know if that is still true.
The UCMJ was supposedly paramount, but paraphrasing Pirates of the Caribbean, some did see it as more of a suggestion than a code.
Given that, I was amazed at how stupid many of the sailors I worked with and non-coms I worked for were. 'Stupid' not as an perjorative, but as a description, IOW 'riding the short bus to school.'
Army folks were even dumber, literally. If you couldn't pass the entrance exams for the Navy they sent your scores to the Army.
Since the war(s) they've lowered the bar much more.
That said; it's obvious that IQ has nothing to do with morality or even good decision making. So far that seems unquantifiable until the nitrogenous wastes impact the rotating airfoil.
p.s. None of the above was meant to denigrate our military forces, it was just the facts as I saw them.
p.p.s. I'm sure Bill had a few knuckleheads that served under, with and above him.;-)
Oh, Yeah, I served with plenty of knuckleheads but was fortunate I was never given an illegal order for I would not have obeyed it. And that, of course, would have led to the brig and a variety of various punishments.
And Vidiot, the reason combat vets rarely discuss their actions in a war zone it is that things like death and killing or seeing someone killed is very sobering and not something easy to talk about.
Most vets, like me, will piss, bitch and moan or happily remember and discuss the good times and old comrades, but talk of killing or seeing real people killed are experiences better left behind.
It just isn't something you forget, but most combat vets spend a lifetime trying to.
The Sailor said...
That said; it's obvious that IQ has nothing to do with morality or even good decision making.
Exactly.
Unfortunately sometimes it looks like the Bush administration went through high ranking officers until they found a "go-along-to-get-along" type and then promoted them. Not that there aren't shitloads of them anyway, to facilitate buddy buddy relationships with politicians, local, state and federal.
Watch this
“Why we fight?”
Post a Comment
<< Home