If Bush is a War Criminal, Then What About the Troops

[no_to_war_economy]

Publicly available information about the Iraq invasion has become plentiful over the last several years. Reasonable people contemplating service in the U.S. military should know that people throughout the world regard participation in the occupation as tantamount to aiding and abetting in mass murder, fraud, human rights violations, and international war crimes. By now, all of the troops should recognize this, and ignorance is no excuse.

The frequency of U.S.-sponsored war crimes in Iraq is such that it has become the norm rather than the exception. U.S. troops have intentionally and recklessly caused the deaths of so many Iraqi civilians, and continue to do so, that we can now properly regard acts in furtherance of the occupation effort generally to be acts substantially likely to facilitate crimes such as those which have already occurred.

"Just Following Orders" is No Excuse

http://www.counterpunch.org/pearcy02232007.html

[atreides1]

1. Being a Veteran,I would say yes

Many people here only wish to hold the leadership responsible, and are willing to give the troops a free pass. I say we are all taught right from wrong, and going to basic training does not make a mindless robot out of anyone, unless it's what they want to become.

If you follow without question, if you cannot or just refuse to see the hypocrisy of the term "fighting for our freedom" when the Patriot Act, the NSA spying, and a president being able to name anyone an enemy combatant has destroyed those "freedoms", then maybe your not a war criminal, maybe your just stupid!!!!!

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who do nothing...." Albert Einstein

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligation of obedience...Thereforehave the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occuring.":The Nuremberg Tribunal 1945-1946

[hughee99]

2. This should be interesting...

:popcorn:

[Bucky]

11. Thank you for launching "Operation Yellow Popcorn"

This is a serious question, not some idiotic gripefest about circumcision or MIHOPery. If you have nothing to contribute to the debate, then don't contribute to the thread.

[hughee99]

19. Sorry I wasn't able to contribute sooner...

but I wasn't able to post my thoughts at the time I originally read this. I was interested to see if other people understood the article the same way that I did, and it looks like some have. "Operation Popcorn" also made it a lot easier to find this thread at a later time. Personally, I don't find idiotic gripefests and MIHOPery interesting at all.

The argument of the article, as I understood it, was that since the war is illegal AND since many war crimes have already occurred, that all soldiers involved in the war are war criminals subject to prosecution. IMHO, this argument doesn't really stand up. You've actually outlined some very good points with respect to the Geneva convention.

The example of Lt. Watada is not a very good one, IMHO, since the argument seems to be that because the war is illegal by UN standards, participation in that war will subject him to war crimes charges, not based on anything that he actually does, but merely his presence in Iraq as a US soldier. If I recall correctly, Kosovo was not approved by the UN, thus making it and illegal war, and yet I've never heard anyone demand war-crimes charges against the NATO troops in general for mere participation or support. The fact that "people throughout the world regard participation in the occupation as tantamount to aiding and abetting in mass murder, fraud, human rights violations, and international war crimes" also has no bearing on war crimes since it is a matter of law, not of popular opinion.

At the end of the article, Mr. Pearcy uses the Nuremberg trials to try to make his point as to why "only following orders" is not a valid excuse, but during the trials, only high ranking officials and those DIRECTLY involved in war crimes were on trial. For a large portion of the German military's rank and file, "only following orders" was a valid excuse, so long their actions did not directly involve war crimes.

[Bucky]

21. We seem to be in the same boat on this. And "Operation Yellow Popcorn" was....

frankly a cheapshot. Sorry. I have launched a one-man crusade against the popcorn smily, not unrelated to my (so far) ineffectual one-man crusade against the blood-dripping "Sarcasm" smily. You were just a collateral civilians in that crusade which, sadly, the heathen .gifs seem to be winning.

[hughee99]

27. No problem...

I wanted to post right off but I had to go to the meeting, and actually felt a little bad for just posting this and not any actual content. After reading the OP, I though it was at least possible that this thread would be pulled by the time I got back (I can see where this could potentially degrade quickly and get locked or pulled), and I wanted to be able to easily find it if it wasn't (through My DU). I've put a number of things in my bookmarks in the past, but I rarely remember to check them, so I was afraid by the time I got back to this it would be weeks old.

:toast:

[Big Pappa]

23. And

just what did you contribute? That is what alert buttons and moderators are for.

[madinmaryland]

3. The troops are legally required to follow the orders of their commanders,

and by definition, the Commander in Chief. They will be court martialed, if not.

[wuushew]

13. Why take an oath to the COTUS then?

If no individual solider is ever empowered to a be a interpreter of its lawfulness then why waste time declaring support for its principles?

Are all soldiers slaves to the President until such time that it is politically expedient to remove he or she from office?

Such a position NEVER allows crimes to be prevented before they are started.

[varkam]

4. Seems to me that troops are held up to two different standards

simultaneously. They are held up to the military standard of following orders without question as that is their job and primary responsibility. They are additionally held up to a civilian standard of morality in that they are judged on our terms. If they receive an order and conflicts with the civilian notion of morality, then they are placed in a precarious predicament indeed. That's why you'll often find peace activists among the veteran population, IMO, because they do follow the orders but find it a total departure from their own values and systems of moral thought.

[Hosnon]

5. I'm reluctant to extend blame too far down the chain of command.

After all, a large majority of this country supported the original invasion. Are all of them as accountable as President Bush?

I do not think so.

[OwnedByFerrets]

6. Accountable? NO......Complicit? Absolutely........

Complicit: Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity
I have always held the belief that this invasion was not only questionable, but an absolute crime and feel that anyone who was led by the nose by this administration is complicit in his crimes.

[jody]

7. Courts will not allow LT Watada to argue the war is illegal so troops must be innocent. n/t

[TahitiNut]

8. We The People are far more complicit than the troops.

It's abject cowardice on the part of 'We The People' who're less willing to surrender sitting on the couch and watching "American Idol" than do what's necessary to hold our employees, including Cheney and Bush, accountable. Shifting the blame to those already in harm's way, people losing life and limb, is worse than cowardice.

[Jacobin]

9. The Nuremburg trials would be what we could look to

The leaders who started, planned and executed the atrocities and the unprovoked attacks on other countries were held accountable, whereas the the soldiers were just looked at like: "How the fuck could you go along with these retards?" and sent on their way.

[Bucky]

10. The war may be illegal by UN standards, but soldiers are judged by Geneva accord, not the UN charter

Soldiers are obliged to disobey illegal orders, as determined by the different Geneva Convention Accords that have been signed over the years. When we call the war illegal, it's because the invasion of Iraq violated the UN charter and ignored UN resolutions and mandates. Every order issued down the command chain in the conduct of the war that follows the rule of law is then perfectly legal.

War atrocities aside, the conduct of the war has not been criminal and the orders issued and followed have been perfectly legal. Many troops who've crossed those lines have been charged and some of them have already been convicted. But most troops have served honorably. The criminal act is in the initiation of the war, which obviously foot soldiers and Marines are not in a position to resist as long as the orders don't violate the rules of war.

[TahitiNut]

24. Agreed. It IS possible to serve a dishonorable nation honorably.

I would love it if those who think serving in a war/invasion/occupation is "obeying an illegal order" found a court of legitimate jurisdiction that would find as such. Unless and until the war/invasion/occupation itself is found illegal, it cannot be illegal to serve in it as our current law requires.

[Mr. Ected]

12. The Troops Voted Overwhelmingly For Bush/Cheney in 2004

They jumped right back into bed with the perps.

May not make them criminals. May not make them accountable.

But it DOES make them complicit...along with the other 50-60 million idiots who supported the incumbent criminals.

Only difference is, they had first-hand knowledge of the distortions and the cover-ups.

[wuushew]

14. do you have polling data to back that up?

n/t

[stanwyck]

22. I've never seen the stats you're citing

please post the link.
In fact, I believe the reason the Bush regime has never boasted about the military vote is that it was not as supportive as the Bushies hoped. I know my son voted for Kerry. And he's a Marine on his third tour to Iraq.
I'm not sure you're correct here.

[cali]

15. God, I hate those Counterpunch fuckers

What a totally stupid premise. Troops serving in Iraq are neither heroes or criminals. By Counterpunch standards, every legislator who voted for the war is a criminal. I'm sure they'd argue that the governors are criminals for allowing National Guard troops to serve in Iraq.

[Swamp Rat]

16. Victims of Bushler?

Like the rest of us?

[malaise]

17. Both.

The reason I say this is that Bushco approached several sovereign states to get immunity (from war crimes) for US soldiers. Clearly Bushco knows that a soldier suspected of war crimes can be sent to the Hague by countries who refused to sign that madenss.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. "Ordinary Men" by Christopher R. Browning explains it.

When I was in the Marines, I was asked to extend my enlistment to go to Vietnam. I refused because, even then, (1965) I saw the war as immoral and was against it. But, if I had been ordered to go, I probably would have obeyed. I don't know if I would have had the moral courage to refuse orders to commit war crimes in the face of military "justice" and peer pressure. I like to think I would have. It takes a lot of guts to defy the military.

Further, if a soldier "obeys orders" and murders civilians at close range, what separates him from the pilot or artilleryman who does exactly the same from a distance and is hailed as a "hero"?

http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068

"Shocking as it is, this book--a crucial source of original research used for the bestseller Hitler's Willing Executioners--gives evidence to suggest the opposite conclusion: that the sad-sack German draftees who perpetrated much of the Holocaust were not expressing some uniquely Germanic evil, but that they were average men comparable to the run of humanity, twisted by historical forces into inhuman shapes. Browning, a thorough historian who lets no one off the moral hook nor fails to weigh any contributing factor--cowardice, ideological indoctrination, loyalty to the battalion, and reluctance to force the others to bear more than their share of what each viewed as an excruciating duty--interviewed hundreds of the killers, who simply could not explain how they had sunken into savagery under Hitler."

[OregonBi]

20. Research Nuremberg

During the Nuremberg trials at the end of WWII there were many Nazi soldiers and officers that claimed they were just "following orders". They hung from the neck until dead for "following orders".
Now not every soldier is guilty of war crimes but every soldier's actions during this illegal war in Iraq must be scrutinized and if they are found complacent, then trials must be held!
In addition, we cannot trust the U.S. military to hold these trials since they would bring considerable bias to the courtroom. Let us face it; the only body that could fairly hold these trials would be the U.N. with the main judges from France, the Netherlands, maybe Germany, Russia, and at least one Middle Eastern nation.
To make it fair anyway.
I do not know if we could count on Great Britain or Canada to offer un-biased help in these trials.
Hopefully honest people in Congress like Mr. Conyers and Ms. Jackson-Lee can have the influence over the new Democratic Congress to steer themselves towards carrying out true justice.
Just think of the repercussions around the world if this were to happen.
The entire world would re-gain respect for the United States by seeing we will NOT let our own criminals get away with inhumane crimes against other humans.

Something for all of us to think about.

As an aside, I owe my partner a BIG KISS anywhere he wants it for showing me this wonderful gathering of true Progressives. I spend most of my time here reading - usually about 6-8 hours a day! I can honestly tell you all I have NEVER been to any web site that has so much honest open TRUTH in one place!
The media in this nation are in a sad sorry state when they fail to cover and expose the truths contained within these web pages.

I know it is Friday and I an psyched about the GLBT gathering we are going to tonight but I just gotta say I love you all!!

[sanskritwarrior]

25. Just following orders

is not what we are doing. We are respecting 220+ years of good order and disicipline. Forgive me if I don't rush out with my m-4 in hand and start a coup against the govt.......It is not our duty to change the govt. or end the Iraq war. That is your job, the people and the congress.........

[Holly_Hobby]

26. I give the troops a pass in most circumstances

The military is a cult. They shave their head. Sleep deprivation. Keep them away from friends and family. Dress them alike. Humiliate them. Convince them to be a martyr. Entice them with carrots of education and experience for a good job.

Have you ever talked to someone fresh out of the service? They sound like a programmed robot. It's not their fault. The PTB have been perfecting their technique for a long time.

[Big Pappa]

Have you served?

No one is kept away from family and friends to brainwash them into some kind of mindless zombie. As a matter of fact stateside duty is much like a normal day to day job. These kids going in are on average much more intelligent and motivated than your average Joe.

[Big Pappa]

28. Have you served?

No one is kept away from family and friends to brainwash them into some kind of mindless zombie. As a matter of fact stateside duty is much like a normal day to day job. These kids going in are on average much more intelligent and motivated than your average Joe.

[B Calm]

29. There is no draft and we do have an all volunteer army now. I

still don't think we can call them war criminals for following orders. We didn't put every Nazi soldier on trial after WW2.

[Big Pappa]

30. Bingo.

[cgrindley]

31. Yes

No one should be serving in Iraq. It's an illegal war and if you're serving there, you are complicit in the crime.

[outofbounds]

32. When you enlist

in the military you sign documents that make you property of the US govt. If you get a sunburn that interferes with your ability to do your job you can be charged with destruction of govt. property and face and article 13 under the UCMJ. I know first hand. You don't have the right to vocally question orders. Nor do you have the right to disobey them. These men and women don't have a choice in the matter. If they disobey orders they go to courts martial and beyond. Dishonorable discharge follows them to the grave. Its been a long time since I was in the service and things may have changed, but I doubt it.
If troops don't follow orders they face jail time and dishonorable discharge, its unfair to them as people to hold them accountable for doing what they are told. Punish the people who made them do it.