U.S. soldier to plead case as objector

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

He was told to break the law. Someone's going to have to make this case. Unfortunately, it's going to have to be him.
I don't know what he saw or did at Abu Gharib but I think his case has to be made. The Geneva Convention was ignored. I don't blame the guy for being a conscientious objector to that. He served for a long time so the deserter charge is rather ridiculous to me. I'm sure at no point he ever agreed to commit war crimes.
God help him.

Now, let's be fair, saying he was exposed to this is not and should not be enough. He has to prove he was told to break the law - and regardless of how long he served, if his contract was not up, the law compelled him to stay to its fruition. I mean I am sure all CO's say things to get them out of their duty. He has to prove it. AND - even then, he should have followed the military's procedure for reporting such events. I am unsure, but I do not think military law allows a prisoner to refuse to return to duty way after the fact. In fact, his not reporting it when he saw it is probably another violation. So, although his heart may be in the right place now, he went about it in an illegal method and most likely will go to prison for it. If he had followed the rules, this could have been avoided and, depending on the situation and assuming he is telling the truth, less people could have been tortured. Instead, he appears to have taken the law into his own hands, which is hardly ever going to win in a criminal court - nor would society want it to - anarchy is the alternative So, while I feel for this guy, I think he has made his situation worse.

As for the Geneva Convention, my understanding is the U.S. is adhering to it in Iraq. but not in Afganistan as far as Al-Q is concerned. They are correct regarding Al-Q because Al-Q does not fall within the GC's narrow combat rules nor are they civilians as the GC defines that. This is a good thing because if Al-Q did, all we could do with the captured people pretty much is ask them is their name, rank, and other such trivial info. I think we need more info. from these people than that (of course without torture). Interestingly, the combat provisions of the GC would apply to the military prisoners in Iraq, but not to the garden variety criminals who were not incarcerated in any type of battle. Any treaties we are in with Iraq (there are a few both countries (along with others) have singed) would also control and perhaps be more inclusive than the more limited GC. In the end, it has not been established the torturous actions of the soldiers (which were horrible and I am not defending them) rose to the level of official U.S. policy. If they cannot prove that (and I hope we cannot no matter how much I hate W) - then the U.S. is not in violation of the stadards set forth in the GC and any applicable treaties, the soldiers are and they will be prosecuted accordingly. It is unfair to hold the entire US accountable for them, unless it can be proven the U.S. officially sanctioned it and the people tortured fell within the def.'s of these laws. So, far, that has not been proven and the doc.'s the WH released last week negate it further.

I know this sounds like a techinicality, but I think it is unfair to place the U.S. in such a bad light because IMO doing so places all soldiers in this horrendus and quasi-felonious mind set. I think the vast majority of the soldiers there are the good guys and do not deserve such treatment by association

Tone: This was said in a friendly not finger snapping manner