A Hard Place gets Harder

Recall my post "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" on the refusal of Lt. Ehren Watada to deploy to Iraq on the basis that the war is illegal. There are several new developments regarding his Article 23 hearing and impending Court Martial. Some of these developments can be seen here. In his Article 23 hearing (similar to a Grand Jury in civilian trials), Watada leaned heavily on the Nuremburg Principles. These, he says, require him to resist the orders to deploy to Iraq. For additional emphasis, the Form of Adoption of the Nuremburg Principles was as follows: Under General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of the consideration of this subject the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nüremberg principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374-378). Principle I Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Principle II The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. Principle III The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. (Bush, are you listening?) Principle IV The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Principle V Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law. Principle VI The crimes herein after set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). (b) War Crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. (c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. Principle VII Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law. These principles hold the individual accountable for his actions, and are unsympathetic to the defense of "following orders" and herd mentality. The United States was a major player, along with the UK and USSR, in creating these principles. Given this defense, what is the Military to do? They currently allow for Conscientious Objectors. To become a conscientious objector the applicant must, first, object to "war in any form", which is to say, to all wars, and second, do so on the basis of "religious training and belief." This is simply not the case for most people (as the Military knows). Watada is instead supporting the idea that the combatant has the right (and responsibility) to review EACH ORDER against the above Principles and determine for himself if the order is acceptable. This would drastically change the way our military operates, and not necessarily for the better. As an aside, Watada will be court martialed beginning in February 2007. The charges from his Article 23 hearing are: 1. conduct unbecoming an officer 2. missing movement (for refusing to deploy to Iraq on June 22) 3. contempt toward officials (in this case, President Bush. This charge was dropped in the Article 23 hearing under complaint that a person could not be court martialed for disagreeing with the government, only for his actions) He faces up to 6 years in prison if convicted on items 1 and 2. So, do we support our Standard Operating Procedure, or the Nuremburg Principles? Historically, we support both of these diametrically opposed ideals. Too bad for the men caught in the middle.