[I noticed that this was not posted last week. Fortunately, I had it saved]
(I always assumed being at Stanford resembled something like this.)
Stanford is not a war in Iraq. The differences are easily identified. However, generalizing a bit helps. The lesson appears to be akin to "character roles are good for establishing the ground rules, but roles are easily co-opted unless a director molds and shapes the performance." However, at Stanford, the researches could have easily stepped in at any time and simply said, "these are peers and this is an experiment." Little shots of reality often have great impact as anyone who has bickered with a class project group member could attest.
Abu Ghraib appears to have been a headless chicken. When soldiers are expected to only follow orders, with minimal reflection, what do they do when leadership fails to give orders or reign in unwanted behavior? Graner was given commendation of sorts on the "intelligence" he produced from interrogations, much as the Stanford guards were encouraged to enforce humility in the prisoners.
What really strikes me though, is the thought that any Colonel could have changed the priorities from information to humanity. When information is obtained at the expense of the humanity of all individuals involved, perhaps the info isn't worth the effort. When the inhumanity became int'l news, the priorities changed rapidly (maybe?). As my mother has told me, "don't do anything you wouldn't want your wife to know about."
The situation in Abu Ghraib (AG) was perhaps more psychologically intense than a sterile lab in California, but soldiers are trained to act as professionals. Part of that means following orders, ensuring the safety of your peers, and upholding the ideals of one's homeland. Unfortunately, popular sentiment may actually have been on Graner's side, until the public had a chance to reflect and reconsider.
Policy choices for avoiding AG-like events in the future? 1) explicitly make the chain of command responsible for failures to maintain discipline and obedience, especially when a war crime has occurred where the superior should have known of the actions. 2) Ensure that soldiers are protected by whistleblowing acts for grave crimes. Give an incentive of money or promotion or a medal for those who inform superiors, whether or not superiors act on the info.
That's all for now.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Not okay.
Torture is. I can accept it, without agreeing with the act. But, what I can't accept is the thought that this only confirms what we expected all along. That is, we all knew they were torturing prisoners in Gitmo and probably at prison facilities in Iraq. BUT, it needn't have been this way. We should not accept torture. And we should not give our military or OUR administration the ability to get away with it. "We are protecting you, " goes the line. At what point do we protect ourselves? That's why they support the NRA, right?
No, my real argument is this: people who do wrong are guilty of the crime. People who know about the crime and impede the discovery of it are guilty of obstruction of justice. People who agree to commit a crime are guilty of conspiracy. People who deny the crime after it occurs simply rob us of a learning experience and the ability to effectively change behavior. Thus, this last set are more directly responsible for the continuation or repetition of the crime, long after the original behavior has ceased. What is not okay, is that torture has not been made "not okay."
No, my real argument is this: people who do wrong are guilty of the crime. People who know about the crime and impede the discovery of it are guilty of obstruction of justice. People who agree to commit a crime are guilty of conspiracy. People who deny the crime after it occurs simply rob us of a learning experience and the ability to effectively change behavior. Thus, this last set are more directly responsible for the continuation or repetition of the crime, long after the original behavior has ceased. What is not okay, is that torture has not been made "not okay."
Im(m|p)ugnity
A new "documentary is due late in April, "Standard Operating Procedure". It is another look, perhaps dramatized, of Abu Grhaib. It looks as if it rehashes some of the interviews with the PFCs who were there.
Nevermind the new, however, let's talk about Ghosts. Spc. Sabrina Harman, although convicted for her role, was obtained the photographic evidence that culminated in trials and "justice." The question remains, however, is where are all the other photos? As disturbing as the entire matter may be, the really horrible aspect is that most of the military members present might actually have had or seen photos/videos of torture. And then... poof, the pictures get deleted and lost.
Recent evidence of the CIA destruction of torture videos in Gitmo, with evidence that the military willfully destroyed evidence that would incriminate soldiers, suggests that the name of the new movie, "Standard Operating Procedure" may not be too far off the mark. When can we nail people for this aspect alone? 'Sure, the evidence is gone, but we know there was evidence, so we've got you on destruction of evidence.' This is the grave crime, is it not? That someone did wrong, we can accept and get over with some simple punishments, but that they did wrong, knew they did wrong, and then refused to accept the wrong, and tried to avoid punishment - it seems more damning , especially when the image of the U.S. is so marred in the process. If we are so lawful a country, and yet we accept that some people can escape punitive justice by simply denying the crime, doesn't that impugn all of us?
Nevermind the new, however, let's talk about Ghosts. Spc. Sabrina Harman, although convicted for her role, was obtained the photographic evidence that culminated in trials and "justice." The question remains, however, is where are all the other photos? As disturbing as the entire matter may be, the really horrible aspect is that most of the military members present might actually have had or seen photos/videos of torture. And then... poof, the pictures get deleted and lost.
Recent evidence of the CIA destruction of torture videos in Gitmo, with evidence that the military willfully destroyed evidence that would incriminate soldiers, suggests that the name of the new movie, "Standard Operating Procedure" may not be too far off the mark. When can we nail people for this aspect alone? 'Sure, the evidence is gone, but we know there was evidence, so we've got you on destruction of evidence.' This is the grave crime, is it not? That someone did wrong, we can accept and get over with some simple punishments, but that they did wrong, knew they did wrong, and then refused to accept the wrong, and tried to avoid punishment - it seems more damning , especially when the image of the U.S. is so marred in the process. If we are so lawful a country, and yet we accept that some people can escape punitive justice by simply denying the crime, doesn't that impugn all of us?
Sunday, March 30, 2008
ICC + US = ?
How many of y'all knew that the US was granted a blanket immunity from ICC prosecution? Exempt
How many of you knew that the US forced this solution after threatening a veto of all peacekeeping missions?
This just seems contrary to the idea of democratic determination of the merits of an idea. I do think the US has an obligation to its citizens to protect them from the world - so to speak. That is, when politics can potentially subject US peeps to backlash then, perhaps we should think twice about joining an international gang.
Moreover, the ICC is not officially under the UN umbrella and therefore not subject to added safeguards such as popular support or veto power. Is there a compelling reason for us to join in?
How many of you knew that the US forced this solution after threatening a veto of all peacekeeping missions?
This just seems contrary to the idea of democratic determination of the merits of an idea. I do think the US has an obligation to its citizens to protect them from the world - so to speak. That is, when politics can potentially subject US peeps to backlash then, perhaps we should think twice about joining an international gang.
Moreover, the ICC is not officially under the UN umbrella and therefore not subject to added safeguards such as popular support or veto power. Is there a compelling reason for us to join in?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Mothers make international law.
I've been thinking about Lt.Col. Martala's visit last week and how reasonable it was. That makes it sound like I'm surprised, but really, I'm not. What I find surprising is that officers are expected to break down the rules of war into a small set of rules of engagement for the little guys. Instead of teaching them the nuances, they go for the black and white. I see two major purposes in this: (1) soldiers can sleep at night knowing that they followed those rules and (2) court martials are made a little bit easier because it is known precisely what the rules were for that soldier. Of course, the facts will change and the soldiers mens rea will be up for disagreement, but having a strictly applied set of rules helps.
BUT! We expect 18 year olds to understand AND abide by these rules. I'm quite a bit older than that and I still can't follow rules unless I'm convinced as to their purpose and logic. No, I'm not projecting (well maybe a little), but I find it really difficult to swallow that the international norms as applied to states could be processed rationally in a the short period between "shoot" or "don't shoot." Here's where the individual lessons of our mothers enter in. We wouldn't throw snowballs at a person without two arms and hands, because he cannot fight back. That's not an int'l norm, that's schoolyard fair play and something our mothers are responsible for teaching.
So, does our military have testing procedures to determine social fitness of a soldier? a manner of testing his innate or practiced response to stimuli? I don't think we do. But, if we rely on the child to fight wars, then maybe we should.
BUT! We expect 18 year olds to understand AND abide by these rules. I'm quite a bit older than that and I still can't follow rules unless I'm convinced as to their purpose and logic. No, I'm not projecting (well maybe a little), but I find it really difficult to swallow that the international norms as applied to states could be processed rationally in a the short period between "shoot" or "don't shoot." Here's where the individual lessons of our mothers enter in. We wouldn't throw snowballs at a person without two arms and hands, because he cannot fight back. That's not an int'l norm, that's schoolyard fair play and something our mothers are responsible for teaching.
So, does our military have testing procedures to determine social fitness of a soldier? a manner of testing his innate or practiced response to stimuli? I don't think we do. But, if we rely on the child to fight wars, then maybe we should.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Byers Reading
(Rant warning) Rules and laws notwithstanding, I haven't been convinced of why we must eliminate "terror" through armed conflict, or, for that matter, that armed conflict could eliminate "terror". Isn't terrorism the byproduct of disproportionate capacity to wage battles of ideas? Accepting that as at least partially true, isn't our beef with the GWOT not so much that the players (say U.S., UK) are wrong to violate norms, but that the means used to fight are ill-suited to the purpose of stamping out terrorist cells? Thus, we can argue that the GCs are good, and violating them is bad - but that in the long run, if our ideals should win, then we must find the best means possible to further those ideals. I don't take issue with states going their sovereign way, as all must, but only with the states that fail to live up to the ideals they purport to be spreading. (Rant over)
1. Arguing the law rather than the facts is always a great way to draw attention away from the facts. When the Bush Administration argues whether the GCs apply, they aren't suggesting that the GCs are useless, but may simply be attempting to focus attention on theory rather than actions. Of course, this is problematic, because people get caught up in the argument rather than focusing on improper actions, inappropriate decisions, and may never make it to the logical conclusions that when the GCs don't apply, U.S. civilians are at risk
2."The reason to abide by the Geneva Conventions with respect to al Qaeda captives is not because we believe that al Qaeda will therefore reciprocate by treating our personnel well. The reason is that people who are not now our active enemies will be more likely to take up the jihadi cause against us if we confirm their view that the United States aims to persecute Muslims. Even where there is no hope for reciprocal treatment of Americans, disregard of international standards for treatment of detainees undermines our security by losing hearts and minds throughout the world." - Dorf, Michael;
We tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees. This is why the laws in bellum require certain "legal" behavior regardless of the enemy's actions. The importance of treating your prisoners with respect is to ensure respect for your own soldiers. This is playground law. Compliance IS self-interest.
3. Here's the difficulty I see. By the time a horrendous violation of GCs occurs against an American, the public will have completely lost track of the events leading up to the event. That is, say Antarcticans rise up and take some scientists hostage and torture a few. They claim, "the US doesn't abide by the GCs, neither do we. That makes us the same." People are loathe to see themselves as resembling that which they condemn. We won't be able to reflect and say, "oh yeah, they did that because we did that." In other words, reciprocity flows in two directions: if we abide, others will; if we flout, others will. -JQ
1. Arguing the law rather than the facts is always a great way to draw attention away from the facts. When the Bush Administration argues whether the GCs apply, they aren't suggesting that the GCs are useless, but may simply be attempting to focus attention on theory rather than actions. Of course, this is problematic, because people get caught up in the argument rather than focusing on improper actions, inappropriate decisions, and may never make it to the logical conclusions that when the GCs don't apply, U.S. civilians are at risk
2."The reason to abide by the Geneva Conventions with respect to al Qaeda captives is not because we believe that al Qaeda will therefore reciprocate by treating our personnel well. The reason is that people who are not now our active enemies will be more likely to take up the jihadi cause against us if we confirm their view that the United States aims to persecute Muslims. Even where there is no hope for reciprocal treatment of Americans, disregard of international standards for treatment of detainees undermines our security by losing hearts and minds throughout the world." - Dorf, Michael;
"Why The Military Commissions Act is No Moderate Compromise"
We tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees. This is why the laws in bellum require certain "legal" behavior regardless of the enemy's actions. The importance of treating your prisoners with respect is to ensure respect for your own soldiers. This is playground law. Compliance IS self-interest.
3. Here's the difficulty I see. By the time a horrendous violation of GCs occurs against an American, the public will have completely lost track of the events leading up to the event. That is, say Antarcticans rise up and take some scientists hostage and torture a few. They claim, "the US doesn't abide by the GCs, neither do we. That makes us the same." People are loathe to see themselves as resembling that which they condemn. We won't be able to reflect and say, "oh yeah, they did that because we did that." In other words, reciprocity flows in two directions: if we abide, others will; if we flout, others will. -JQ
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Ab-NORM-al Behavior
Norms are so subjective at times. If I had been in Central Asia I would have stood and given up the seat. If I were a bit older, or my beard perhaps a bit longer or greyER they would have risen for me. Age and location are often so intrinsic to the applied norm, that it seems rather difficult to impute or expect those actions/reactions to someone else in another place and to someone of a different age or circumstance. That times change means that norms change and therefore respect among generations evolves inevitably to charges of "insolent" or "thoughtless" for the young and "quaint" and "outdated" for the elderly, and these even amongst people of the same place and general history.
It is difficult to respect other norms. We have our own beauty, our own preferred flavors, our sensibilities in social interactions. How then do we go from isolationism in one century to exporting and enforcing our norms in the next? Moreover, how are our norms perceived or developed and adopted? How do we adopt others? Which norms are sui generis, generated from some mutual experience or grand suffering and perceived as obvious?
I don't think norms are universal. The reasons for norms to be different across borders, physical and political, are self-evident at times and understandable by reference to the social and economic pressures at others.
So, a few questions:
1. Why do we abhor child soldiers? We wish to fight for something when we're young. We feel strongly and resolutely in our vision of right and wrong. Of course youth clouds our judgment from inexperience, but this does not lesson the desire to make "things right." If my family had been tortured or my sister raped or my father de-handed or my brother forcibly conscripted, I would want to fight back. Why should I be barred from the opportunity to redeem myself and family?
2. Why not create a missile shield that will shoot missiles down regardless of target and without respect to origin? We claim a need for safety, but withhold that safety net to others. Self-preservation it is termed, where "preservation" is understood and "self" becomes the allies du jour.
Of course there are other such questions. What we expect of others, we fail to live up to. What we expect of ourselves, we desire of others first. So are norms what we do or what we expect? Are they what we want or what we hope for? IN every circumstance, the norm is different somewhere else. And yet, we hold the world to a single standard in love and war.
It is difficult to respect other norms. We have our own beauty, our own preferred flavors, our sensibilities in social interactions. How then do we go from isolationism in one century to exporting and enforcing our norms in the next? Moreover, how are our norms perceived or developed and adopted? How do we adopt others? Which norms are sui generis, generated from some mutual experience or grand suffering and perceived as obvious?
I don't think norms are universal. The reasons for norms to be different across borders, physical and political, are self-evident at times and understandable by reference to the social and economic pressures at others.
So, a few questions:
1. Why do we abhor child soldiers? We wish to fight for something when we're young. We feel strongly and resolutely in our vision of right and wrong. Of course youth clouds our judgment from inexperience, but this does not lesson the desire to make "things right." If my family had been tortured or my sister raped or my father de-handed or my brother forcibly conscripted, I would want to fight back. Why should I be barred from the opportunity to redeem myself and family?
2. Why not create a missile shield that will shoot missiles down regardless of target and without respect to origin? We claim a need for safety, but withhold that safety net to others. Self-preservation it is termed, where "preservation" is understood and "self" becomes the allies du jour.
Of course there are other such questions. What we expect of others, we fail to live up to. What we expect of ourselves, we desire of others first. So are norms what we do or what we expect? Are they what we want or what we hope for? IN every circumstance, the norm is different somewhere else. And yet, we hold the world to a single standard in love and war.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Perhaps a silly question, but maybe worth asking some peeps:
1. You are engaged by enemy soldiers.
2. You are alone.
3. You wish to surrender, but are confident that the enemy will not abide your surrender.
Should you lay down your arms completely? I think for self-preservation, one would want one last chance of protecting oneself, keeping your weapon off-safety and within reach. Would it then be a crime for the enemy to shoot you because you have not surrendered fully? Because soldiers are individual actors, there is always a doubt that (s)he will follow the rules, regardless of your own actions. Is there a balance or is complete and utter surrender always required? -JQ
1. You are engaged by enemy soldiers.
2. You are alone.
3. You wish to surrender, but are confident that the enemy will not abide your surrender.
Should you lay down your arms completely? I think for self-preservation, one would want one last chance of protecting oneself, keeping your weapon off-safety and within reach. Would it then be a crime for the enemy to shoot you because you have not surrendered fully? Because soldiers are individual actors, there is always a doubt that (s)he will follow the rules, regardless of your own actions. Is there a balance or is complete and utter surrender always required? -JQ
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Three Kings
00:01:30 False Surrender by guy on hill, but, maybe he was hot and fanning his thigh.
00:07:00 Threat of violence to unarmed Iraqi by idiot U.S. soldier
00:08:00 Forcible undressing: but, if in the context of a search, prolly not so illegal
00:14:30 Does Conspiracy theory work for war crimes? That is, does conspiring or planning to commit pillage count as one of those chargeable offenses?
00:20:30 Cluster bomb: arguable as indirect targeting of civilians, but we should probably test under the Proportionality Requirement of usefulness of civilian areas as a strategic target. Hard to analyze without more data. However, each use was probably under different conditions and directed at different targets. Is it even possible to document where all the cluster munitions were used, and if a risk assessment was done for each? It seems a tall task ex post facto.
00:24:00 Denial of Humanitarian aid by Iraqi soldiers: milk truck
00:28:25 Oil Fires: perhaps a military target, but Kuwait had such a small force that destruction of them was hardly military necessity. However, Iraqis setting fire to their own oil rigs may not be a cognizable crime. For the pollution, could we claim it as perhaps a type of chemical weapon?
00:32:20 Electrical Torture, battery to bed
00:34:00 Pillage: pocketing jewelry
00:38:30 Shooting of non-combatant woman
00:45:30 use of chemical agents (mustard gas), but we use tear gas even on our own citizens for small scale riots.
00:46:20 anti-personnel land mines – not a war crime, per se, but perhaps a violation of the ’97 Landmine Treaty. Unfortunately, this was a later development and Iraq didn’t even sign until last year, I think.
01:06:30 Electrical Torture of American Soldier
01:18:00 Oil based chocolate mudslide. Forced drinking of unappealing beverage.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A metaphor for Watada, perhaps?
Lt. Watada had a contractual duty to accompany his men to war. Watada may also have had a morale duty to speak out against a war he believes is unjust. But, when do we allow officers, indeed, freshly minted officers, w/o the reflection and context that years of service in any capacity may provide, to decide what orders are acceptible, appropriate, and ultimately legal. I am a law student, but no one would really take me seriously if I suggested that some Pennsylvania law were unconsitutional. Being a soldier and an avid reader doesn't make one an expert on international law. That said, he may not be wrong on this count, but should we really overlook his transgressions because he is sincere in his beliefs? Even if he is right and the war ain't right in the world, I would argue that Watada's voice on its own in a military of very professional, upright and law abiding men, just maybe doesn't add up. I hate to use this as a metaphor, but it may provoke someone: I shall not pay taxes, because federal income taxes are illegal. I'm a student lawyer, and an avid reader of IRSToday!, so take my word for it and allow me to prove that taxes are illegal before you toss me in Levenworth.
Lt. Watada
We ask our soldiers to be responsible. We tell them, don't do anything that would bring you, your comrades or your country shame. In sum, don't steal, maim or kill. We ask that they bring their mamas and their good upbringing with them to the battle. And before we're done, we demand that they abide by their superiors without question of motive.
Soldiers are uniquely responsible for their individual actions under the Nuremberg document: "[that (s)he follows orders] does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
So, we should ask, assuming that this is an illegal war and that Watada would have been breaking some law had he deployed as ordered, did Watada have a moral choice? To most, the deal, speak out and go to jail, or break the law, would not be a real choice.
But, we assume in asking that question that participating in an illegal war is itself illegal. In other words, would Watada be committing an act that is provided for in our war rules? I don't think so. Jus in bello, that is, law in war, provides that certain heinous acts would be illegal if committed by individuals in the course of fighting. Jus ad bello, illegal or unjustified wars, may be illegal on their own right for a government to participate in, but I don't think anyone would seriously consider trying any individual for a war crime for this. International sanctions economic and political could be considered as punishment for the country, but no one who committed no humanitarian violation would be crucified in this manner.
Thus, we wouldn't hold Watada personally responsible legally, nor in the court of public opinion. It seems, then that although we do need voices to speak their mind openly and freely, the cost to certain employees may be their employment; to certain politicians, their seat; to officers, their commissions, and to the public, their social standing. But free speech does not mean freedom from liability, it means "without prior restraint." Watada has his voice. He has spoken. Unfortunately, he knew the potential cost and he may have to suffer that cost.
Soldiers are uniquely responsible for their individual actions under the Nuremberg document: "[that (s)he follows orders] does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
So, we should ask, assuming that this is an illegal war and that Watada would have been breaking some law had he deployed as ordered, did Watada have a moral choice? To most, the deal, speak out and go to jail, or break the law, would not be a real choice.
But, we assume in asking that question that participating in an illegal war is itself illegal. In other words, would Watada be committing an act that is provided for in our war rules? I don't think so. Jus in bello, that is, law in war, provides that certain heinous acts would be illegal if committed by individuals in the course of fighting. Jus ad bello, illegal or unjustified wars, may be illegal on their own right for a government to participate in, but I don't think anyone would seriously consider trying any individual for a war crime for this. International sanctions economic and political could be considered as punishment for the country, but no one who committed no humanitarian violation would be crucified in this manner.
Thus, we wouldn't hold Watada personally responsible legally, nor in the court of public opinion. It seems, then that although we do need voices to speak their mind openly and freely, the cost to certain employees may be their employment; to certain politicians, their seat; to officers, their commissions, and to the public, their social standing. But free speech does not mean freedom from liability, it means "without prior restraint." Watada has his voice. He has spoken. Unfortunately, he knew the potential cost and he may have to suffer that cost.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
