Interesting article. But I don't think there is any firm conclusion in it. As I read it, it presents a varied group of 'answers'.Originally Posted by lizbud
You say you think you found the answer. What do you think the answer is? I am genuinely curious.
I'll offer my opinion, having served in combat. It's hard to describe the feelings, pressure and emotions you experience when in direct combat. In some situations, it might be "easy" to determine what is and what is not an unlawful order. In many others, it might not be. Also, from an lawyers point of view, it would be very easy in some instances to make a very viable "temporary insanity" defence. For instance, the day my very good friend was killed in action....by a kid....we were trying to help feed. Had I caved in to my most base of emotions that day, one might very well label me a criminal. Lets just say it is very easy to judge people who do certain things in such situations. So we need to be very careful to not make snap judgements whne it comes to accusations of such crimes. This is not to say that such crimes happen as I am sure they do.
Now, as for non combat issues... "Torture" Lets put this issue to bed. The US Attorney General, in conjunction with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the JAG departments of all 4 branches need to come up with a FIRM definition of what, to the United States, torture is. We own that, at the very least, to the fine men and women in the varied branches of our intelligence community.
Finally, what do you think about charging Bush Administration people with "war crimes" for torture? Do you really think setting a precedent like that is a good thing? By that I mean being able to make a crime out of policy issues?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks