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.
1 comment:
So if freedom of speech only means that you have the freedom to speak without restraint, it doesn't protect what you say afterwards? I mean, I know there are certain things you can't so because it might incite mayhem (for example, "Fire" in a crowded theater) and you can be prosecuted for that, but in general, if you are speaking out against something isn't that protected from prosecution (unless of course it is slander)? Or is this considered slander against the government? I understand that there are ramifications for your actions (you can get fired etc) but what are the legal ramifications for just speaking out? Basically, what if he had spoken out against the war but still deployed?
Post a Comment