Common Dreams NewsCenter

Net Roots Nation

 
     
Home | Newswire | Contacting Us | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives
   
 
     
 

Discuss this story Discuss this story Print This Post Print This Post E-Mail This Article
 
 

Never Give A Life, or Take A Life, For A Lie

by Michael T. McPhearson & Ying Lee

There are many kinds of betrayal in human affairs. But in the affairs of state, there is no greater act of disloyalty than to send young men and women to their deaths on the basis of fraud. No soldier should ever give a life, or take a life, for a lie.

All American ranking officers and commanders take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Their oath is a solemn obligation to the American people, especially to their own troops, to abide by the law. Our men and women in uniform place great trust in their superiors. They risk their lives in the belief that they will not be used falsely, illegally, or for ill-gain.

There is no group of Americans with greater interest in the enforcement of international law than American troops themselves. Our youth pay a heavy price when their own rulers plunge them into operations beyond international law. Immediately after the Abu Ghraib scandal, the infamous, retaliatory beheadings began.

The legal status of the occupation of Iraq is not a mystery. Generals know very well that the occupation is based on lies, carried out in defiance of U.S. treaties. The Nuremberg Conventions explicitly repudiate the doctrine of pre-emptive war. The U.N. Charter, for which many of our parents and grandparents gave their lives on the battlefields of Europe, outlaws war as “an instrument of policy.” Every general knows that the occupation is a “war of choice.” They also know that, except for special U.N.-sanctioned interventions, defensive necessity is the sole legal basis for war. The U.S. Army Field Manual states without equivocation: “Treaties relating to the law of war have a force equal to that of laws enacted by Congress.”

There is another kind of protection that is rarely acknowledged. International and humantarian laws protect us from ourselves, from what we can become when war powers are unrestrained. Laws protect combatants from being forced to commit morally repugnant acts, the kind of deeds that burden the souls of soldiers for a lifetime. “War forms its own culture,” writes war-correspondent Chris Hedges. “War exposes the capacity for evil that lurks not far below the surface in all of us.”

Supreme court Justice Robert Jackson, in his historic address at Nuremberg in 1945 wrote: “Any resort to war is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty, and destruction of property. An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when the war itself is illegal.”

Many soldiers of conscience, who dared to speak openly about the immorality and illegality of the war, have been court-martialed and imprisoned. Their cases, dating back to 2004, raise serious doubts about the capacity of our soldiers to receive justice in our military courts. Five months prior to the Abu Ghraib scandal, a soft-spoken Army soldier named Camilo Mejia was visibly upset by the atrocities he observed during his tour of duty in Iraq. Repelled by the slaughter of civilians and the needless deaths of American GIs (all reported in Mejia’s riveting combat memoir, The Road to Ar Ramadi, 2007), Camilo gathered up his courage and made formal complaints to his superiors. Commanders refused to listen and questioned his patriotism. Eventually Mejia was sentenced to a year in prison for speaking out, for telling the truth. His trial, like subsequent trials of war resisters, was a travesty of justice. Judge Col. Gary Smith ruled that evidence of the illegality of the war was inadmissible in court, that international law is irrelevant, that a soldier’s only duty is to follow orders, regardless of their legality. It is a sad day in military jurisprudence when a soldier of conscience is court-martialed, not for lying, but for telling the truth; not for breaking a covenant with the military, but for upholding the rule of law in wartime. Had commanders listened to Mejia, had judges respected due process and the rule of law, the Abu Ghraib scandal that humiliated our troops might never have occurred.

Our military system is passing through a profound moral and legal crisis. A commander who knowingly orders his troops to participate in crimes against peace betrays himself and those who serve under him or her.

The time has come, it is long overdue, for American generals of conscience to break their silence.
Michael T. McPhearson is Executive Director of Veterans For Peace and Ying Lee is a member of Asian Pacific Islanders Resist.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Technorati
 

3 Comments so far

  1. HDune July 25th, 2007 1:49 pm

    …And the Democrats still won’t impeach.

  2. dahni July 26th, 2007 3:28 am

    Killing has rules? American Generals are career officers who do what they think is necessary in order to advance their military careers. The grunts are the nails and they are the hammer.
    What honor or glory is there in taking another human beings’ life? When you kill someone you take away from them everything they ever had and all that they will ever be. And every time you kill someone you lose a part of yourself. The so-called rules of war are just there to make it easier for the soldier to kill, because that’s what soldiers do - they kill.

  3. richard young July 27th, 2007 4:53 pm

    As a Korean War veteran old enough to remember the Nuremburg trials — and the formation of the United Nations, immediately after some 55 million human beings lost their lives because of “preventive” wars of choice launched by Germany and Japan — thank you for this concise and eloquent statement. I only wish that your article were required reading for all of our “public servants,” especially the current crop of Presidential candidates (of both parties) for whom aggressive war is merely one more political “option” that they refuse to “take off the table.”

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)

 
   FAIR USE NOTICE  
  This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
 
 
Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.
Home | Newswire | Contacting Us | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives

© Copyrighted 1997-2008
www.commondreams.org