An Officer's Obligation

[lizbud]

Is this true only for Officers?



Matthew AlexanderLeader of the interrogations team that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi
Posted April 28, 2009 | 05:46 PM (EST)

An Officer's Obligation -- Say No to Torture

"Once an Army is involved in war, there is a beast in every fighting man which begins tugging at its chains... A good officer must learn early on how to keep the beast under control both in his men and in himself."

-- General George C. Marshall



As a former active duty military officer, it is troubling to me that other military officers followed unlawful orders to torture or abuse prisoners. Military officers have a sacred responsibility that is embedded in their oath of office: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

The Constitution specifically prohibits cruelty to any person in the Eighth Amendment ("Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"). Those officers who ordered, authorized, or were complicit in the torture and abuse of prisoners violated their oath of office. The United States has a rich history of military ethics dating back to General George Washington during the Revolutionary War. According to General Washington, "Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any prisoner...by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country." He said this in 1775, during a time when the birth of our nation hung in the balance.

It is the role of military officers, as first line supervisors, to ensure that we live up to our American principles in the conduct of every tactic we use in war. If an infantry platoon is ordered to take a hill and fails to do so because of enemy resistance, an order is not given to break out flame throwers and mustard gas in violation of the Law of Armed Conflict. Instead, we leverage our American ingenuity within the rules, we use our intellect, and we preserve through our courage to fight in accordance with our principles.

As I led an interrogations team in Iraq chasing the notorious former leader of Al Qaida, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, we encountered detainees who did not provide us valuable intelligence information. We used those men as opportunities to refine our approaches and to improve our interrogation skills within the rules. It was those improved skills that we later used to break the terrorists within Zarqawi's network who, ultimately, sold him out.

We are Americans and we are smart enough to win the battle of wits in the interrogation room. We cannot afford to doubt our abilities. We should focus on improving our methods within the legal framework of Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution. And military officers have a heightened responsibility to effect change and to lead our interrogator corps to its full potential. We are smart enough.

[Puckstop31]

No, every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine is obligated to abide by the UCMJ and the Laws of Land Warfare.

Now if only all our elected officials would do the same thing.... UPHOLD and defend the Constitution.

[lizbud]

I wanted to find out if all military (Officers & enlisted) folks had a duty
to disobey a unlawful order. I think I found an answer....

http://www.historians.org/projects/g...Criminals7.htm

[Puckstop31]

I wanted to find out if all military (Officers & enlisted) folks had a duty
to disobey a unlawful order. I think I found an answer....

http://www.historians.org/projects/g...Criminals7.htm

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'.


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?

[lizbud]

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.

Violating the Constitution is just a policy issue??? It is more than that.
Waterboarding is torture. We actually conducted trials (war crimes) and
punished Japanese, some with death, after WW II. We can not change
our stance on definition of torture, when it suits us.

[Puckstop31]

Violating the Constitution is just a policy issue??? It is more than that.

Interesting... I'd love to take this down the road of current economic policies... Ya can't have it both ways Liz. Either you support a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, or you don't. That includes the 2nd Amendment and more importantly, the 10th. There has not been a Federal Government since William McKinley, that really respected the Constitution. Their actions or their tolerance of actions say it all.

Remember, a opinion poll.... An election victory... Does not grant carte blanche for a elected offical or group of elected officials to ignore the Constitution. So in a way, I agree with you. But you have to be consistent.

Waterboarding is torture. We actually conducted trials (war crimes) and
punished Japanese, some with death, after WW II. We can not change
our stance on definition of torture, when it suits us.

If the United States has formally defined what is and what is not torture, I have not seen it. If it has been formally and legally defined, could you refer me to it?

I agree with you that the United States should not torture. So, to help our intelligence community do their job it should be formally and legally defined.

Also, do you have a comment about President Obama's administration possibly setting the precedent that it is OK to prosecute policy actions of previous administrations?