"We were only following orders..."

[kentuck]

Once again, the shocking excuse of those that commit atrocities or acts of humiliation or other as yet undefined acts. One cannot help but recall those same excuses from the latter days of the Nazi regime. And now we here the same excuse from American GIs.

Is there really a legitimate reason to say "I was only following orders"? Is there a time when each individual, as a human being, must take accountability for their actions, in war or peace? Can we excuse some behaviors as part of war and therefore not subject to human rationale?

[radwriter0555]

1. Like the nazi brownshirts....

just following orders.

[SEpatriot]

2. Tell it to Goering...

however, the telltale defense in this case may point some interesting fingers as to who was actually in charge in the prisons.

"But these soldiers aren’t simply mavericks. Some accused claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the control of mercenaries hired by the US to conduct interrogations. Two “civilian contract” organisations taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the Bush administration."

see: http://www.sundayherald.com/41693

[seabeyond]

3. get chills everytime i shift against public opinion

granted people in those pictures were getting a joy from the cruelty, and yes they need to be punished. but i think we cant dismiss what they are saying, and we arent. there has been a shift because theses lower people are exclusively the ones to blame and that isnt the reality. thye are doing a service in shifting the blame, they are saying their upper commanders knew, and they were being told what was happening adn these higher ups were ignoring them and sending them back down to do the dirty work, ignoring the complaints.

now, you have soldiers saying this is happening. we need rules on what we are allowed to do. we need to read geneva papers and rules. and commander says you are doing a good job go down and do just what contractors say.

i suggest the military allowed contractors so their hands werent dirty and this abuse could go on. and they are very much a responsible party and i would want to get them as much, more than these lower dudes, firstly

also, what does a soldier do. say you know, i told them it was happening. i told them i dont like it. and they told me to continue on. what were the soldiers that were bothered suppose to do. most just hung back and allowed but didnt participate, yet other than that what, walk.

them saying out loud, we were following orders, we were asking higher ups is a good thing

[bryant69]

4. It's trickier than it looks

The simplistic answer is that of course they should not have followed those orders. But reality is a little bit more complicated than that. For one thing they are military, and there fore often subject to orders they don't necessarily agree with.

For another we don't know what they thought they were doing. They might have believed that those they were torturing had information that could protect themselves or other soldiers from attacks. In that sense it's the classic torture question. If you captured someone who knew where a bomb was that would kill or injure thousands, would you consider torturing him to extract that information?

The person I want to see pay for these crimes is not necessarily the soldiers (although they clearly will pay), but those who gave the orders that such torture should take place. To me it's the difference between putting on bandaids (removing the grunts who carried out the orders) or doing the appropriate surgery (removing whoever approved these actions).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LeahMira]

5. Very Rarely.

Is there really a legitimate reason to say "I was only following orders"? Is there a time when each individual, as a human being, must take accountability for their actions, in war or peace? Can we excuse some behaviors as part of war and therefore not subject to human rationale?

I would say that the "following orders" defense would only apply in situations where the norms of appropriate behavior were unclear. Certainly, none of the soldiers involved in this event would have wanted someone else to do those things to them.

The individuals involved are apparently trying to place the blame on those who gave the orders. The Nuremberg Trials made it quite clear that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions. In fact, individuals are responsible for obeying standards that are part of the social code, even though the code may not have been formally written into laws.

It does seem strange in a way to insist that even war has "rules." It does, though. If following the "rules" puts the US at a disadvantage, that does not in any way excuse our military from the responsibility to follow them.

JMO, but a case might be made for the fact that in the environment of the present administration, when it seems that black is white and war is peace, social norms have dissolved. Are we collectively insane? Has the administration driven us all nuts? Could be.

[ejcastellanos]

6. UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice

I seem to remember that it was only LAWFUL orders that the uniformed member is required to be followed. The abuse of prisoners is a violation of LOAC, Law Of Armed Conflict, as far as I know. It is at least morally reprehensible.
I remember being briefed on LOAC from time to time while I was in the military and I wasn't in a position where I had much chance of engagine any enemy.