Richard Cohen has a piece in the Washington Post today that just bears reading. My mere words can not convey my disgust with this sort of rationalization. The passing of one's own beliefs off as "America writ large", is one of the most disingenuous logical fallacies out there (suggestively points to the links section of the blog!).
But as always Glenn Greenwald serves as the earthly avatar of my seething rage!
I can not help coming back to the issue of the rule of law. Are we a country of laws or of men?
In a conversation I was having today (on whether to prosecute or not), it was posited that those in charge bear a greater responsibility for those infractions of the law. With the added authority they have been entrusted with they also should face stiffer penalties for those infractions.
As it stands now, that is not the case, and you have members of the media cheering that on.
That is disturbing and it is cowardly. If you believe in what you have done, then defend it in court.
-cheers
4 comments:
I'm a firm believer in standing by your decisions, wherever they may lead you (even to court).
I don't think that there should be a 'sliding scale' as regards to the punishments levied against those with more or less power. The law should apply equally to all. A county sheriff who falsifies evidence should be in the same legal situation as an FBI agent who does the same. The problem lies in drawing disctinctions... Who has "enough" power to be considered worthy of higher penalties?
I do believe, however, that those "in power", be it government, business, religion or social, *should* face closer scrutiny. They should be more likely to be caught (and hence face sanction) if they transgress, because the potential impact of that transgression may well be more far-reaching.
In a military setting that could get messy. Soldiers have a very different relationship with superiors, and those differences are beaten, cajoled and firmly placed in them.
A grunt is conditioned not to question orders. It is part of the training. So I would say in that instance commanders "should" face stiffer penalties for the abuse of that authority.
The miliary... what a can of worms.
There seems to be some dissention right now as to whether or not "I was under orders" is an excuse for criminal behavior. By the letter of military law, it is. You follow your orders, no questions asked. Failure do do so can, at the commanding officer's discretion involve a summary execution. If there is a problem of legality, all culpability devolves on the commanding officer. He (or she) is the one who has to answer for the actions of their troops.
The interesting thing for me is that nowadays (OK, probably since Tubal Cain whipped out the first sword), many soldiers seem to be faced with a choice: Be a good human or be a good soldier. I am curious to see how (under the spotlight and in light of the "New Personal Responsibility") this ambivalence resolves itself. One one hand, effective military action requires a minimum of independent thinking on the individual's part, and they *did* swear an oath to follow orders. On the other, you can only whittle away so much humanity before all you are left with is a person who is all used up and lives on the redline, possibly even more disruptive to military objectives.
It could be that both soldiering and war are inhumane...
It would seem that is the line that is being pushed nowadays. Nuremberg and the treaties surrounding it would say differently.
But that is the dichotomy. I do feel those individuals who commit those acts are culpable. It is messy, I don't deny that. I personally feel that those giving the orders do need to face some "enhanced" punishment though.
We differentiate on murder, I do not see why this would be any different.
Post a Comment