What to Do About the Abuses at Abu Ghraib?

In the Army, Ignorance Is No Excuse

Saturday, May 15, 2004

By John Armor

John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He has an exploratory committee to run for Congress in North Carolina.

Superior officers are responsible under either of two circumstances. If they knew -- or had reason to know -- that General Karpinski was not fit for her command but gave it to her anyway, they are responsible. If they found out after she was given her command that she had failed in that assignment, and did not promptly relieve her of command and install other leadership, they are responsible. From the information that has come out to date, it doesn’t look like Gen. Karpinski was incompetent when given her command. And it also looks like the military removed Gen. Karpinski from command as soon as the abuses were made known to the chain of command and immediately investigated.

CW
First, we put the abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in proper context. One meaning of this story is to demonstrate that we are in a battle between two civilizations. Ours is a modern one, in which people who violate civilized standards on treatment of prisoners will be prosecuted and punished. On the other side is a barbaric civilization, in which graft, torture, and mass murder are not only not punished, the perpetrators are praised and supported.

No one should doubt at this point that we face a conflict as clear as that between the Romans and the Goths. Either they will destroy our civilization, or we will destroy theirs, such as it is. Anyone who doubts this need only reflect on the most recent beheading of an American, this week in Baghdad.

This isn’t an argument to justify the actions of certain soldiers and their commanders at Abu Ghraib Prison. We should not degrade our level of civilization in order to fight the barbarians, in Iraq or anywhere else. But it does mean that we should reject the criticism of our actions from those who at the same time fail to object to mass murderers and mass torturers.

Those who bother to read the Geneva Conventions will quickly discover that guerillas who hide among civilians, wear no uniforms, and are not part of military units are NOT entitled to the protections of those Conventions when captured. Under the law of war, which is older than the United States and has been recognized by a unanimous Supreme Court decision, such ''fighters'' are ''illegal combatants.'' They are entitled only to military trials or, in some circumstances, merely to be shot on sight.

It is by choice, not the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, that the American military has decided to allow these prisoners the benefits of the Conventions. Per the Senate hearings on Thursday, not only were all guards and interrogators trained in the application of the Geneva Conventions, there was a standing order that all were to be reminded of the Conventions ''at every shift change.'' This daily reminder may not have been carried out. Clearly it was not followed in some instances. However, it was an established policy of the American military.

Now, what should be the punishments for the American military personnel who have violated the standards, and subjected Iraqi prisoners to humiliating (but not usually physically harmful or deadly) treatment? Those who have actually committed these acts, once proven in a military court, should be stripped of rank, dishonorably discharged, and sentenced to appropriate incarceration.

The contention of the soldiers that they received an order to ''soften the prisoners up for interrogation'' is no defense. The soldiers here were part of a Battalion of Military Police. They wouldn’t have been assigned to their positions until they had taken, and passed, courses in the appropriate treatment of prisoners under their control. And even if -- and there’s zero suggestion of this possibility -- they were directly ordered to commit acts of abuse, that is no defense.

It’s part of the Military Code of the United States that no soldier is expected to obey an illegal order. Instead, in that situation, the soldier is expected to refuse the order and report it up through the chain of command at a level higher than where the order came from. For the members of the press who haven’t done their homework (sadly, a vast majority), I remind them of the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. ''I was just following orders'' was no defense then. It is no defense now.

(More: ChronWatch.com)

2004 © Congressman Billybob & John Armor.

Dan