By S. Rowan Wolf, PhD
This work is licensed under a Fair Share Creative Commons License
The Army has decided to not prosecute seventeen soldiers implicated in the deaths of three prisoners despite recommendations of its own Investigators.
Investigators had recommended that all 17 soldiers be charged in the cases, according to the accounting by the Army Criminal Investigation Command. The charges included murder, conspiracy and negligent homicide. While none of the 17 will face any prosecution, one received a letter of reprimand and another was discharged after the investigations
I am firmly convinced that the Bush Administration does encourage and condone the abuse and torture of prisoners. I am also convinced that the troops involved in these activities were acting under orders, or the tacit approval of the entire chain of command. Thus far, what responsibility that is to be found is pushed far down that chain of command. Therefore, there is no accountability and there are continued lies. However, that does not make troops unaccountable for their actions.
The decision by the Army to not act in the case of these murders sends a clear message to troops in the field - abuse is all right, torture is all right, even if you kill a few prisoners. Perhaps, troops were becoming resistant to carrying out this particular policy of the United States. Perhaps they feared that they would be held ultimately accountable for their actions. The release of these soldiers with only one getting a "reprimand" says "We will protect you." It is certain to me that this will be the message received whether it is the one intended or not.
The war in Iraq presents a tremendous challenge for those against the war in the U.S. Everyone has taken up the mantra of "Support the Troops." On the anti-war side this translates into "Bring them Home." On the pro-war side it translates into "Support the Mission." On both sides there is a reluctance to paint the troops in a bad light. No one wants a repeat of the reception of the Vietnam Veterans. This leads to a highly complex approach on the part of the anti-war movement. It is an approach that I feel is as morally ambiguous, as it is complex.
Can people fight honorably in a dishonorable war? Can we say that the troops are "protecting our freedom" at the same time that we argue that Iraq is an illegal war and has nothing to do with political liberties in the United States - or even with "protecting" the United States? Can we support those troops (and recruits) who are refusing to serve at the same time we support those who are continuing to serve?
These are questions that I struggle with, but I largely feel alone in that struggle. There is a tacit agreement to not talk about these thorny issues. Therefore, we talk around them as if they did not exists - as if there were no conflicting thoughts. Personally, I am tired of this avoidance.
Support the Troops - Bring Them Home - This argument essentially says that the best way to resolve the moral dilemma is to remove the source - the war in Iraq. If we get out of Iraq, then the troops will not be in the position to follow orders that are illegal, and participate in acts that are in violation of both US and international law. Unfortunately, even leaving Iraq will not end the dilemma of US troops being involved in broad scale abuse and torture of "detainees," "prisoners," "enemy combatants," and random people on the streets.
It is clear at this point that these things are happening wherever US forces are and not just Abu Ghraib. In Iraq, torture is everywhere. Most recently, in Mosul. It is now demonstrated that torture occurred (and is likely still occurring) in Guantanamo. It is happening in Afghanistan, and probably much more widespread than reported. Why? Because "democracy" in Afghanistan looks like a prison - Afghanistan: 'One Huge US Jail'. When the US doesn't want to do the torture itself, it sends (and supports the policy of sending) suspects to nations where they know those people will be tortured - CIA, White House Defend Transfers of Terror Suspects (Wa. Post, 3/18/05).
"It is illegal under U.S. and international law to send someone to a country where torture is likely. To abide by the law, the CIA obtains a verbal assurance of humane treatment from the intelligence service of another country before it transfers suspected terrorists, a practice called rendition. Many intelligence and counterterrorism experts, however, say such assurances are ineffective and virtually impossible to monitor." (Wa. Post, 3/18/05)
The British Foreign Affairs Select Committee has issued its report on Human Rights in 2004 (Fourth Report). That report is damning of US activities (see extracts at end of this article).
So here we stand. Support the Troops - Hate the War. It sounds highly reminiscent, and equally deceitful, to the mantra "love the sinner - hate the sin." I fully understand the economic and opportunity reasons that have caused many of those serving in the United States' "volunteer military." I fully realize just how "stuck" those troops feel. I fully realize the consequences of their not obeying orders. I agree that the best way to resolve the ambiguity is to remove them from the situation. However, abuse, torture, and war crimes are not simply the actions of a "few bad apples," and they are not justified by "war is a dirty business."
The message being sent by the Bush administration, and by the Pentagon, is that "anything goes." The lack of consequences for troops (and CIA and "civilian contractors") for their personal involvement in atrocity reinforces the overall policy. The use of information gained under torture by courts both inside and outside the United States sends the same message. You cannot argue that torture is illegal and immoral and then utilize (and allow into testimony) "evidence" gained under torture. Nor can atrocity be written off as "unfortunate" and hold those engaging in it "blameless."
The Bush administration has created and promoted a policy that fosters and encourages atrocity. On the ground in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in "secret" detention facilities around the globe, these policies are being carried out. There is an environment that "anything goes;" that any atrocity is justified for the overall good of the "cause." This in turn places U.S. forces "in harms way" in a manner that is not simple warfare. It makes them invaders and occupiers with no moral standing. It makes them "targets" wherever they stand. In response to that, and in the absence of hard rules, discipline, and oversight by commanders, U.S. troops find themselves in an environment where atrocity is seen as basic survival. So they engage in that atrocity every day.
One of the problems here is how people deal with the atrocity. How do U.S. forces deal with what they are doing? For many, I believe that they will legitimate what they are doing and support the bogus "cause." For families of those serving, many (if not most) will support the bogus cause. For those who are seriously injured and killed, the response is likely to be "support the cause." Who wants to face that their loved one died for "nothing?" Who wants to face that their loved one is torturing and killing people in an illegal war?
I cannot silently stand by and act as if U.S. forces are serving "honorably." I do not believe they are. I believe that those involved in abuse, torture, and atrocity need to face the consequences of their actions. However, those involved are not simply the troops on the ground - but the entire chain of command and those who promote the illegal policy. To not hold troops accountable sends a message to U.S. forces, but also exacerbates that explosive situation those troops serve in. To not aggressively pursue this all the way to the White House signals complicity and approval of the policy.
So here I sit, struggling with the dilemma, and I can come to no clear place regarding "the troops." I do believe that this is not a struggle simply for me. I have known hundreds who served in Vietnam, in Gulf War I, in the Falkan's, and now in the "war on terrorism." I know that facing what each person has done in the "service of their country" is not an issue that gets resolved for many. It becomes a lifelong struggle both intensely personal and painful. I am saddened that we have allowed a whole new generation of people to be placed in such a compromised position, and that as they return "home" that they too will struggle and suffer.
My reason for writing this article was not to damn the troops, but to voice the dilemma. I read - a lot. I talk to many people. I go to the demonstrations against the war. I have found that very few are raising this largely taboo subject. I don't know what the resolution is, or even if there is one, but I do know that it must be at least mentioned. It is an "elephant" in the middle of every discussion and protest. None of us wants another period of U.S. service personnel received as "baby killers" and "murderers." However, we can't just ignore that people are engaging in atrocity. We must acknowledge the moral dilemma we are in, otherwise there will be no healing for those who have served - or for the nation.
******
Extracts from report on Human Rights in 2004 (Fourth Report):
13. We conclude that, now that the British nationals have been released from detention at Guantánamo Bay, the Government need no longer keep its diplomacy quiet in the interests of increasing leverage over individual cases. We recommend that the Government make strong public representations to the US administration about the lack of due process and oppressive conditions in Guantánamo Bay and other detention facilities controlled by the US in foreign countries. We further recommend that, during the UK Presidency of the European Union, the Government raise the situation at these facilities at the UN Commission for Human Rights. (Paragraph 79)14. We conclude that United States personnel appear to have committed grave violations of human rights of persons held in detention in various facilities in Iraq, Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan. We recommend that the Government make it clear to the United States administration, both in public and in private, that such treatment of detainees is unacceptable. (Paragraph 87)
71. We have commented on the camps at Guantánamo Bay in our Report on the Annual Human Rights Report 2003 and in our series of Reports on Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism. The United States continues to hold over 500 people in the camp of 42 different nationalities, although the last British detainees were returned to this country in January, to be released without charge by police.[88] Administration officials told the Washington Post at the beginning of January that plans were being developed to hold detainees without trial over the long-term and possibly for life.[89]
72. Over recent months further concerns have emerged regarding the treatment of detainees. In December, a leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross was reported to have described US interrogation methods at the camp as "tantamount to torture" and in January, under the American Freedom of Information Act, hundreds of internal documents and memos were released, which indicate systematic abuse of detainees.[90] ...
84. Human Rights Watch told us that a "permissive culture of torture…has been allowed to take root amongst policy-makers in Washington".[111] At the beginning of January, it was reported that the US administration had revised its guidance to troops to prohibit the infliction of "severe pain" on suspects under interrogation, overriding previous guidance which stated that mistreatment amounted to torture only "if it produced severe pain equivalent to that associated with organ failure or death".[112] Other documents released by the Justice Department under the Freedom of Information Act show that the administration received and for a time accepted advice that there existed legal authority for extremely harsh interrogation methods and even torture.[113]
Rowan Wolf is the founder and editor of Uncommon Thought Journal