Responsibility

Your humble Smallholder has had just about enough of the apologists for the American torturers.

Family and friends are coming forward to defend these war criminals with the collective cry of: "They were only low-level enlisted soldiers who followed orders."

I believe we have already established the legality of the "I was following orders" defense.

It was established at Nuremburg.

As a soldier, it is your duty to refuse an illegal order.

I'll grant you, this can be hard. I remember being given an illegal order while in the reserves. A Major ordered me to falsify arms-room records. Though I was thoroughly browbeaten ("Lieutenant, you have to think about your career!"), I refused.

The orders (if they existed) to humiliate Iraqi prisoners of war SHOULD have been easier to refuse – after all, humiliating and degrading another human being should trigger a greater revulsion than signing your name in a fraudulent logbook.

I am very angry that it appears that the greatest punishment that these goons are likely to receive is dismissal from the army. They need to do real time at Leavenworth as prisoners themselves.

Today's Washington Post also has an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13114-2004May9.html)about Brigadier General Janis Karpinski. She claims that she didn't know what was going on in the prisons under her command. She objects to a letter of "admonishment" she received before being rotated back to the states.

I believe General Karpinski's claim that she is not legally responsible for her subordinates' actions was also addressed in the World War Two trials.

From the Tokyo Indictments:

Count 54: "ordered, authorized, and permitted" inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and others.
Count 55: "deliberately and recklessly disregarded their duty" to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities.

Five Japanese officers (military and civilian) were convicted of count 54. Seven were convicted of count 55. All of those convicted of count 54 were sentenced to death, but to be fair, were also convicted of numerous other crimes against humanity. Of the seven convicted of 55, sentences ranged from seven years to death. Interestingly, one of the convicts served his time, earned parole, and was promptly appointed foreign minister.

I don't remember exact specifics; I had to look up a war crimes summary here (http://cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/NMTT.html). However, if memory serves, the wording of 54 was interpreted as "and/or;" (perhaps the Maximum Leader or the Propaganda Minister can remember more details from their college history classes). I'm pretty sure that a couple of the generals were convicted on the principal that even if they didn't know of maltreatment of prisoners, they SHOULD have. Does this principal not apply to Karpinski?

Note: Sorry for the awkward links; Blogger's paperclip icon now wants to "upload files" rather than create links. They ought to fix this. Or perhaps one of my Nakedvillainy colleagues could shoot me a quick tutorial on how to use the new Blogger interface.