Comments
Makes sense.
I’m glad soldiers won’t be prosecuted just for following orders. Crappy orders, but the military isn’t really set up as “follow all of the orders you agree with and disregard the rest.” As for it extending to other officials… I’m not sure who all is included in that. I think the top boys that actually made the policy should be able to be held responsible, but anyone beneath that would just seem like a witch hunt to me.
- Soldiers should be brought to trial because “following orders” is just as shitty a defense now as it was in 1946. How many were court martialed for refusing to take part? What about them?
- Rumsfeld should be brought to trial. It sounds like this prevents that. I am unhappy.
Do you think all of the Nazis were horrible people? I don’t. I think they were probably dim witted people who were duped by propaganda, which is a far cry from being inherently evil. At the same time, you won’t hear me defending the soldiers at Abu Graib, who, from my understanding, took it upon themselves to debase the prisoners. To me there is a difference between following orders in a “follow the orders or get court marshalled” institution, and making independent decisions to do horrible things. Soldiers in Vietnam killed women and children. Are you suggesting they all be prosecuted as well??
Edit: Hutch, what happened to your Nazi reference? Matt says I should have used the quote feature before you edited..
Read it. Turns out we would all do the same, unless trained otherwise, and soldiers are definitely not taught to be prison guards.
I’m kinda for it for going after the decision makers, but now is not the time for the enormous ordeal it would be. And legally wouldn’t there have to be some sort of intentional malice, as opposed to overzealousness, at least in US law? I’m not a lawyer.
I’m also pretty sure I predicted this.
While less credible, Wikipedia has a less irritating site layout
IMMEDIATELY GODWINNED
I don’t agree with it, for the same reason John doesn’t (following orders isn’t an excuse). But I think this is probably a good compromise that leaves the door open to prosecuting some higher ups.
Philip Zimbardo was the leader of the notorious 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment — and an expert witness at Abu Ghraib. Here’s an interesting video of him speaking about how easy it is for nice people to turn bad. In this talk, he shares insights and graphic unseen photos from the Abu Ghraib trials. Then he talks about the flip side: how easy it is to be a hero, and how we can rise to the challenge.
Kevin said:that leaves the door open to prosecuting some higher ups.
I didn’t read that into it at all. I thought it was pretty much cutting off the ability to prosecute higher ups and that, mostly, is what’s bothering me about it.
Totally going to watch that TED talk, though, Pat.
I haven’t read the full thing but the analysis I’ve seen from people who seem to know more than I do indicate that it does. Of course even if it does provide that opportunity doesn’t mean that they will.
That video made me feel nauseous. Not because of the pictures or anything, but because of my situation at work. Some of the officers are really abusive towards the inmates… giving them terrible nicknames, playing power games with them, setting them up and then making sure they take the fall. The rest of us pretty much just stand by and watch.. doing nothing. We have heard stories of staff who have actually made complaints or advocated for the inmates, who suddenly get threatened, have their tires slashed, etc. So I think to myself that there’s nothing I can really do. The best I can do is to treat the inmates with kindness and respect and hope that my music therapy groups can do a little good. But after watching that lecture, I feel like that’s not good enough, and I just wish I knew a way to stand up against the abuse without risking alienating myself or getting fired. Any suggestions?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogation_memos_2
OH OBAMA, BABY, YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU!