The film relating what happed in Abu Ghraib is nothing short of disgusting. It was hard to watch the film and not have feelings of sympathy for the people who were subjected to the abuse with no legal precedent. I was a law enforcement officers for over thirty years and I was proud of the traditions that I followed and proud of the fact that I did not place anyone in a jail without probable cause to do so. I am shocked that the United States who I always thought was suppose to be the “good guy” would allow a situation like Abu Ghraib to happen, (not to mention Guantanemo). “The War on Terror” has become the catch all for the government and our political leaders to use when they want to start a program or initiative that walks all over our rights as citizens. It also has become the key that opens doors that our military use in the pursuit of “information” from people who are perceived as having information without any trace of evidence of that fact. Abu Ghraib provided the world with a look into what Americans can and will do when the leashes are unsnapped.
Abu Ghraib is an abomination of power and is a display of what people can do if left unchecked. It’s an example of the animals running the farm, or an example of good people placed into a bad situation adapting to the situation in order to survive. What we see happening in Abu Ghraib is an example of not only an abuse of power but also power that has literally gone to the heads of the people who are expected to have calm and clear thinking heads. These guards took their ability to control people further than they should have.
During the film that we watched in class, the guards tried to minimize their culpability and transfer the responsibility for their actions to the military intelligence officials and the directions they received from them. However, the “War on Terror” furor that exists in our country and the zeal at which officials want to get information has infiltrated good common sense. The overpowering desires to obtain information, from anyone, created confusion between perceived orders and actual personal debauchery. Individual have an individual responsibility to conduct themselves properly, within all laws and rules. Individuals can say no to unlawful orders, but they have to report the action to superior officers. Superior officers need to be cognizant to the actions of all the individuals in their commands, even on the midnight tour of duty. That is not to say that an overpowering group cannot direct or misdirect people for their own cause and direction.
I believe Abu Ghraib was a result of both theories. Commanders needed to ensure that personnel assigned to guarding a prison are doing just that, guarding the prison. They should not have been involved in any interrogation or softening process for the interrogators. The interrogations needed to be left to the professional interrogators and the prison guarding should have been left to professional person guards.
In comparison we see much of the same resulting behaviors from the people who took part in the Stanford Behavioral Experiment. They took their roles and participation to the extreme. The experiment however I believe is skewed and does not provide a true account of what and will occur in a similar situation. All participants knew they were in an experiment. They all know that the experiment would be ending in a short period of time. This skewed the results and brought out more of he actor in the participants. Unlike Abu Ghraib where prisoners had no idea why they were imprisoned and had no idea when they might be released.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Byers article about non-combatants
After reading the chapter in Byers I came to a realization that for the most part I must have had my head in the sand during the 2004 Fallujah attacks. I know I listened to or watch news broadcasts, which I am sure were sanitized for public consumption. The readings were interesting and eye opening. I am ashamed to believe that we, the United States, were capable of commiting the atrocoties that were described in the chapter. The description of the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld acting like a 10 year old when he didn't get his way makes one wonder what direction the administration was going in.
The reading was was eye opening as well as itersting. Much of what was discussed was pretty much common sense but it takes a person with common sense to act on it.
The reading was was eye opening as well as itersting. Much of what was discussed was pretty much common sense but it takes a person with common sense to act on it.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
spelling and this blog
I just bought a new computer and I am still trying to learn how to use it. I now there are spelling errors in my previous post, I just couldn't figure out how to correct them. I had to rewrite the entire blog because I lost everything trying to figure out how to use the blogs spell checker. So please excuse the spelling. Thaks
Norms and Interests when it hurts
It all started out as a mundane Sunday night. I was getting my work done, reading and getting everything prepared for Monday's long day at school. I was walking along the hallway when I felt something snap in my leg. Needless to say the I knew something was wrong and like a slow motion movie it took a second or two for the PAIN to register in my head. When it did I let out a yell that made my poor sick wife jump up from the couch and a deep sleep. After realizing that I didn't break anything and that I had no idea what happened, I decided to go to the closest hospital to find out what the heck happened. I was diagnose with a torn mussel after they checked my for blood clots and annurisms.
Here is where I look at the coorolation between the norms and interests involved. I decided to go to the closest hospital because it was to my advantage or interest. If I didn't go to the hospital in Cranberry Twp. I would have to travel to Butler or Pittsburgh instead. So it was in my best interest to go to my local hosptal insead. The insurance company would prefer that I went to the hospital within my plan because they have agreements to pay these facilities less that they will have to pay my local hospital. The insurance carrier established rules and regulatios that govern the behavior of their customers in order to "provide them with the best service". I think its because they just want to make more and more money, (but that is a personal opinion based on years of fighting with them). The carrier establised rules or norms to govern our behavior in an effort to streamline their service and thus provide a supposide cost effective service.
In this case the NORMS that were exibited in this case are th rules established by the carier to force customer behavior in line with their desires. The fact that I went to another facilty that they do not prefer shows taht I took my own INTEREST into consieration and did what was in my best advantage. Norms as codified rules govern our lives everyday. We follow the rules or laws wen we stop at a stop sign to prevent an accident from occurring. However, we know that it is in our best interest and advantage to obey the norm because of the consequence when we don't. So there are situations when our behaviors govern or acceptance and adherence to norms.
And oh by the way, my leg is getting better. Thanks for thinking about me.
JKL
Monday, January 21, 2008
Three Kings or Three Dogs
Three Kings or Three Dogs
This was definitely NOT an Oscar contender. The movie and the filming were to say the least, crummy. However, in all that I was able to find at least nine instances of war crimes violations, or what I perceive as being violations. Now the key is to take three and codify them into violations of an established law or treaty.
The first and most obvious violation occurred in the first five minutes of the film. This was the scene where Mark Walberg’s character says that he sees a man with a weapon on top of a structure and shots him dead. Walberg didn’t take notice to the white flag the man was beginning to waive. This is a violation of the essential rules that were drawn up by the ICRC to explain humanitarian laws, “It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in the fighting.” It may not have been very obvious but if the character had taken a moment to observe the totality of the entire scene he would have been able to come to the same conclusion. The Iraqi was in the process of surrendering.
The second violation that I observed was in the beginning of the movie when the three characters arrive at the hiding location of the gold. The one character, played by George Clooney, wonders why there are soldiers guarding a well. The movie shows the soldiers, dressed with civilian clothes over their military uniforms showing their camouflage pants and boots under the long black robes they were wearing. This is a violation of the essential rules that were drawn up by the ICRC to explain humanitarian laws, “The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian population as a whole nor individual civilians may be attacked.”
Another violation that I observed was at the end of the movie when the civilians were being taken to Iran. When they arrived at the border the Iraqi soldiers herded them into a fenced area. One Iraqi soldier was observed hitting one civilian in the face, through the fence. This is a violation of the essential rules that were drawn up by the ICRC to explain humanitarian laws says, “Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.”
There were more violations being portrayed in the movie. The torturing of prisoners, military and civilian, citizens being executed, preventing civilians from fleeing the combat zone and the oil fields that were set on fire in Kuwait by the Iraqi Army. The movie was one long violation of war crimes.
The question was also raised to try and find instances where rules were being followed that do not come from treaty laws. I would imagine that the underlying premise of the movie was the safe movement of the civilians from the war zone to Iran. This was an instance where the military personnel looked beyond their greed and did something that was right. Another instance of rules being followed was where the American soldiers were being told to not engage the Iraqis because there was a surrender and treaty in place. Until captured and when in the open the Iraqis appeared to be following the same treaty. The movie then portrayed them as violators when they invoked torturous acts against civilians and the American military.
I wonder if there are any movies that accurately portray the rules of war being followed?
This was definitely NOT an Oscar contender. The movie and the filming were to say the least, crummy. However, in all that I was able to find at least nine instances of war crimes violations, or what I perceive as being violations. Now the key is to take three and codify them into violations of an established law or treaty.
The first and most obvious violation occurred in the first five minutes of the film. This was the scene where Mark Walberg’s character says that he sees a man with a weapon on top of a structure and shots him dead. Walberg didn’t take notice to the white flag the man was beginning to waive. This is a violation of the essential rules that were drawn up by the ICRC to explain humanitarian laws, “It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in the fighting.” It may not have been very obvious but if the character had taken a moment to observe the totality of the entire scene he would have been able to come to the same conclusion. The Iraqi was in the process of surrendering.
The second violation that I observed was in the beginning of the movie when the three characters arrive at the hiding location of the gold. The one character, played by George Clooney, wonders why there are soldiers guarding a well. The movie shows the soldiers, dressed with civilian clothes over their military uniforms showing their camouflage pants and boots under the long black robes they were wearing. This is a violation of the essential rules that were drawn up by the ICRC to explain humanitarian laws, “The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian population as a whole nor individual civilians may be attacked.”
Another violation that I observed was at the end of the movie when the civilians were being taken to Iran. When they arrived at the border the Iraqi soldiers herded them into a fenced area. One Iraqi soldier was observed hitting one civilian in the face, through the fence. This is a violation of the essential rules that were drawn up by the ICRC to explain humanitarian laws says, “Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.”
There were more violations being portrayed in the movie. The torturing of prisoners, military and civilian, citizens being executed, preventing civilians from fleeing the combat zone and the oil fields that were set on fire in Kuwait by the Iraqi Army. The movie was one long violation of war crimes.
The question was also raised to try and find instances where rules were being followed that do not come from treaty laws. I would imagine that the underlying premise of the movie was the safe movement of the civilians from the war zone to Iran. This was an instance where the military personnel looked beyond their greed and did something that was right. Another instance of rules being followed was where the American soldiers were being told to not engage the Iraqis because there was a surrender and treaty in place. Until captured and when in the open the Iraqis appeared to be following the same treaty. The movie then portrayed them as violators when they invoked torturous acts against civilians and the American military.
I wonder if there are any movies that accurately portray the rules of war being followed?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Lt. Watada OpEd article
Lt. Watada said no to the United States military when it was time for him to deploy to Iraq. Watada acted on the belief that he had the right and the obligation to refuse an order to participate in a military action that was considered “illegal” and a violation of the United States Constitution. Watada claimed that military action against Iraq was unlawful because of the following reasons:
1. The United Nations Security Council did not authorize the military action under Article 42.
2. Attack by Iraq was not imminent
3. Weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons and chemical weapons were not found, after the invasion.
Watada acted under the premise that as a military officer he had a responsibility and a duty to refuse an order that in his mind was unlawful.
I think back to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s when many 18 year old males were claiming conscientious objector status and fleeing to Canada to avoid the Viet Nam draft. Many of the arguments used then are reflected in Watada’s defense of his decision to disobey the order to deploy to Iraq. Hundreds of American teenagers fled to Canada to avoid service during Viet Nam because they felt that that war was unlawful and a violation of International Law. Many protests were led by legal scholars who provided a great legal argument against the US action in Southeast Asia. I remember listening to William Kunstler, a liberal attorney famous for defending the Chicago Seven and anti-war protestors during the 60’s and 70’s, speak about the reasons the United States should be charged with war crimes for their actions in Viet Nam. And I now sit here thinking about the new found knowledge I have regarding just what are the rules and what makes a just war. There have been many comparisons between Viet Nam and Iraq and having lived thru the worst of Viet Nam, (almost becoming one of its statistics), I also look at the comparisons with a suspecting eye.
Watada makes the claim that the war was not a “just war” nor was it a war that was entered into with legal justification. As a matter of fact he claims that the reasons for beginning the conflict, (weapons of mass destruction), was made up by the Bush administration. This was proven after the invasion failed to locate any of the weapons that led us into harms way. Viet Nam was sustained by the premise that we were preventing the spread of communism in the world. 57,000 American lives were lost and communism ended a little over 20 years later.
Was Watada justified in disobeying an order because he believed the war to be unlawful and unjust? Was the Iraq invasion flawed and did the United States exhibit jus ad bellum to justify the military action that had led us down the path to a military occupation of a sovereign state. One that will most likely last for years and years. Is the United States justified for prosecuting Watada, because of his out spoken dissent of the Iraq war, when in fact it was not justified to invade and occupy Iraq? The United States pursued Security Council approval prior to the invasion. It was not granted. The United States provided evidence that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. If not found and subsequently destroyed they could be used against the US. The evidence was flawed and found to be inaccurate. The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive first strike by the United States to “prevent” Iraq from using their mass destruction weapons against the west. However, well intended the action was, the US had no legal justification to invade another sovereign state without UN approval.
1. The United Nations Security Council did not authorize the military action under Article 42.
2. Attack by Iraq was not imminent
3. Weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons and chemical weapons were not found, after the invasion.
Watada acted under the premise that as a military officer he had a responsibility and a duty to refuse an order that in his mind was unlawful.
I think back to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s when many 18 year old males were claiming conscientious objector status and fleeing to Canada to avoid the Viet Nam draft. Many of the arguments used then are reflected in Watada’s defense of his decision to disobey the order to deploy to Iraq. Hundreds of American teenagers fled to Canada to avoid service during Viet Nam because they felt that that war was unlawful and a violation of International Law. Many protests were led by legal scholars who provided a great legal argument against the US action in Southeast Asia. I remember listening to William Kunstler, a liberal attorney famous for defending the Chicago Seven and anti-war protestors during the 60’s and 70’s, speak about the reasons the United States should be charged with war crimes for their actions in Viet Nam. And I now sit here thinking about the new found knowledge I have regarding just what are the rules and what makes a just war. There have been many comparisons between Viet Nam and Iraq and having lived thru the worst of Viet Nam, (almost becoming one of its statistics), I also look at the comparisons with a suspecting eye.
Watada makes the claim that the war was not a “just war” nor was it a war that was entered into with legal justification. As a matter of fact he claims that the reasons for beginning the conflict, (weapons of mass destruction), was made up by the Bush administration. This was proven after the invasion failed to locate any of the weapons that led us into harms way. Viet Nam was sustained by the premise that we were preventing the spread of communism in the world. 57,000 American lives were lost and communism ended a little over 20 years later.
Was Watada justified in disobeying an order because he believed the war to be unlawful and unjust? Was the Iraq invasion flawed and did the United States exhibit jus ad bellum to justify the military action that had led us down the path to a military occupation of a sovereign state. One that will most likely last for years and years. Is the United States justified for prosecuting Watada, because of his out spoken dissent of the Iraq war, when in fact it was not justified to invade and occupy Iraq? The United States pursued Security Council approval prior to the invasion. It was not granted. The United States provided evidence that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. If not found and subsequently destroyed they could be used against the US. The evidence was flawed and found to be inaccurate. The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive first strike by the United States to “prevent” Iraq from using their mass destruction weapons against the west. However, well intended the action was, the US had no legal justification to invade another sovereign state without UN approval.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
week two
Week two is beginning tomorrow. All the reading has been read and I'm ready for the new week.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Policy question proposal
I met with Dr C today regarding my question for the policy paper. I'm working on a proposal that would address a question to an audience assumed to be The International Criminal Court. After completing a career of 30 years enforcing laws I found it intreging that there really is no enforcement body for the ICC. I heard a lot of reasons why and a lot of reasons why not, but bottom line is there is no enforcement body for the court. I know many say the court itself is the enforcement tool of International law, but I never saw a judge or magistrate leave their bench to go out and place hands on a criminal to bring them to judgement. I don't think we will ever see that.
What I am going to look at, as a policy recommendation, are the following basic questions:
Who enfocrces International Law for the ICC?
What is the enforcement power?
Where are they and where are they allowed to go?
When are they used?
Why are the enforcement powers so mysterious?
I am going to be putting together an executive summary and we will see how it flys.
JKL
What I am going to look at, as a policy recommendation, are the following basic questions:
Who enfocrces International Law for the ICC?
What is the enforcement power?
Where are they and where are they allowed to go?
When are they used?
Why are the enforcement powers so mysterious?
I am going to be putting together an executive summary and we will see how it flys.
JKL
Monday, January 7, 2008
Initial posting
This is new territory for me. This is my blog's initial posting. I have never created or even posted on a blog until now. Closest I came to a blog was mailing, (yes mailing not e-mail), mailing a report from office to office and having the report initialed and then forwarded on to the next office. This will be an interesting experience.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)