Most people so far have argued that while they are sympathetic to Lt. Watada's plight, they believe that he signed up for the military, so he is obliged to follow orders. They have also argued that the Nuremberg Principles are jus in bello rules that don't apply.
As a counterargument, Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles states that: 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. Also, Principle VI states: The crimes hereinafter 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. Furthermore, Crime Against the Peace are defined as "the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state." (Definitions from Wikipedia. Yes it can be flawed, but also oh-so-awesome). It follows then that if a soldier believes a war to be illegal, than he or she is protected under the Nuremberg Principles.
Following what this person argued, I also agree that the Iraq War is an illegal war. The Security Council did not authorize the use of force, therefore it is illegal. It could therefore be referred to as a crime against the peace, which Lt. Watada would have the right to refrain from taking part in.
While I don't know the laws one could use to defend this line of thought, I wonder if a soldier could argue against deploying to Iraq due to the horrendous conditions he or she might face if injured. I wonder if there is some legal obligations the military has to injured soldiers and what arguments one can make using this case. Clearly the many reports of awful conditions, backlogs, and cases of PTSD not being treated constitute some kind of breach of obligations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Completely off topic, but... how did you link everyone's blogs like that? It was pretty spiffy.
I STILL disagree about the Nuremberg Principles, but you make a good point about the military's duty to wounded soldiers. Clearly, the United States has failed to provide soldiers from either this war or previous wars with adequate psychological, physical, and employment aid. I wonder if there isn't a legal violation of the military's obligations to these soldiers, instead of just the moral one we hear in the news.
Your last paragraph is really interesting, Beck. My soft, touchy human side says that soldiers being deployed to Iraq now should be able to demand some sort of assurance from the military that once they come back from Iraq that they will get top-notch medical treatment if they've suffered terrible physical and mental injury. I'm sure there are rules somewhere that stipulate that the military must take care of its own. But does that happen? Anecdotal evidence would suggest the answer is no. And hearing stories about the VA Hospital System from doctors I worth with who work there... I know the VA is not a place where medical treatment is a guaranteed right for all veterans. Surely, that in and of itself is some sort of crime against humanity: a state government that is unwilling to take care of the sick and wounded men and women who wear the uniform.
I think Nuremberg Principles only make individuals responsible for their conduct and grant no rights for them to refuse to take part in warfare. As far as I understand, Principle IV means that obeying superior order cannot be an excuse when one is about to be punished for his/her conduct against IHL. Also, one could only commit crime against peace (Principle VI) when he/she plans, prepares, initiates or wages the Iraq War in this case.
Post a Comment