Does your superior officer make a direct order to do it? That's no excuse whatsoever, you're still guilty.
Is it required for national security? Still no excuse, the ends don't justify the means. If 'terrorists would win' otherwise, well, then they'd 'win' but not indemnify you.
Has your nation passed laws making it explicitly legal? Still no excuse, it's still illegal and you can and should be prosecuted for that.
If the current world order is unwilling to pursue it in practice, then our children and grandchildren will do it - there's no statute of limitations, and people involved in these USA actions can expect the same "retirement" as the elderly Nazis who were prosecuted in recent years.
> War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished.
That's not true; for instance, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Fomer Yugoslavia (ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side of the various wars in the breakup of Yugoslavia.
That's actually rather the point of international war crimes tribunals not exclusively associated with the victors of a particular conflict or their allies, both conflict-specific ones like ICTY and standing ones like the International Criminal Court.
Its true that the development of institutions which allow war crimes to be prosecuted, in at least some cases, as something other than victor's justice is a development of the last couple of decades.
Croatia had military support from US: "In March 1994, the Washington Agreement was signed,[39] ending the Croat–Bosniak War, and providing Croatia with US military advisors from Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI).[40]"
and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012."
Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks, for which Al Quaeda warriors fought in Bosnia:
"There were over 1,000 people in the country who belonged to what we then called Mujahideen freedom fighters. We now know that that was al-Qaida."
Knowing how such links started in Afghanistan before, it's actually not so surprising: US support whoever they like, if that's in accord with US goals. If they support somebody, then they are called "freedom fighters." They are "terrorists" when they fight directly against US. Are you surprised that almost 20 years ago media were biased just like they are now, and if you weren't an expert you probably got very distorted picture, including the picture of ICTY work?
> You're wrong re: "(ICTY) has indicted members of pretty much every side"
No, I'm not.
> Croatia had military support from US:
And several Croats (29, including Bosnian Croats) were indicted by ICTY.
> and "Gotovina and Markač were acquitted on appeal in November 2012."
Yes, and so? They had charges against them. That they were acquitted on appeal is not evidence that the ICTY did not indict them (they also weren't the only Croats indicted by the ICTY.)
> Moreover, US at that time also effectively supported Bosniaks
And the ICTY indicted and convicted several Bosniaks.
You'd probably also point out that the US and NATO intervened on behalf of the Kosovo Albanians, but the ICTY also prosecuted, and in some cases convicted, Kosovo Albanians.
And ICTY wasn't set up or consituted solely by the US and US allies.
If you believe such courts aren't biased, do tell me if anybody from the US chain of command was ever prosecuted in any international court for anything? It will never happen as long as the US remain what it is.
"The list contains 161 names. 94 of them are Serbs, 29 are Croats, 9 are Albanians, 9 are Bosniaks, 2 are Macedonians and 2 are Montenegrins."
I can count only one Albanian sentenced of mentioned 9, others are acquitted or withdrawn. You should also check the list for other acquitted (e.g. of the Croats you mention), it was easiest for me to check Albanians as there are only 9 of them.
> If you believe such courts aren't biased, do tell me if anybody from the US chain of command was ever prosecuted in any international court for anything? It will never happen as long as the US remain what it is.
I was under the impression that because the US has not ratified the statute of the court, their citizens cannot be tried in the court. It might be more subtle than that - perhaps someone with more knowledge can expand.
My opinion is that a body like the International Criminal Court is valuable to world stability, and I hope that accusations of partiality will, over time, be shown to be incorrect.
I don't recall arguing that such courts aren't biased. All courts are biased, because all courts are made up of people, and all people are biased.
That being said, more Serbs being indicted and convicted by the ICTY doesn't mean the court is biased. It could be a result of more Serbian war crimes.
We started from "War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished." Your counterargument was ICTY. I claim that it's a disputable argument.
And that moreover, it's U.S. that's effectively victorious and untouchable since very long ago.
At most you can claim that the US was one of the of several participants on the winning side of several of those conflicts (and, in each conflict, a fairly late joiner.)
And in each of the consituent conflicts, members of the same side the US was one were prosecuted by the court, and several of those were convicted.
The "way for the victors to humiliate the vanquished" argument really doesn't hold up in the case of the ICTY.
It was established at the Nürnberg trials that "just following orders" is not an excuse.
In the German army, you are not punished for disobeying orders that violate human dignity and you have the legal _obligation_ to disobey any order that runs against international human rights law[1].
It is if you're American. Atrocities were committed virtually every day in Vietnam, the scant few they were forced to charge got little more than slaps on the wrist, if they got convicted at all. One jury had convicted a service-member of premeditated murder but they withdrew the verdict after finding out there was a mandatory life sentence.
Sure, but then you become an outcast within your community - it's hard to keep your high morals when you're treated like shit and have nowhere to go. Much easier to just go with the flow and let the future generations judge you after you're dead.
These really qualify as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions, and the United States is obligated under the treaty to pursue charges against the torturers, along with everyone up the chain of command. Other countries are also obligated to pursue these torturers. It will be interesting to see if any of them are ever brought to justice.
This is truly outrageous, in at least 2 ways: (1) that a modern government would ask its citizens to do this and (2) that the citizens who are doctors would go along.
Name names: get the state boards to pull their licenses, because that's what these torturers deserve.
This is also a punishment worse than the crime, by the way.
> that a modern government would ask its citizens to do this
Why do you think that a "modern" government would be any better in this department than "old" governments? Is there any evidence to support this, or do people just like to think that these days things are better?
I read 'old' as 'middle ages old'. There was a time when torture was openly acknowledged as acceptable practice. At least nowadays it's widely recognized as a Bad Thing, even if governments are willing to engage in it under the radar.
I question whether torture is widely recognized as a bad thing. I'm pretty sure I have seen US politicians openly acknowledge that we should torture for national security matters. But even if we assume that, the question remains: why should people believe that torture is less widespread than it was in the Middle Ages?
The Convention Against Torture exists, and most extent countries (including the US) have ratified it, which seems to represent a fairly wide recognition that torture is a bad thing, even if politicians often will assert exceptions of convenience as to why the general rule should not apply to specific situations.
I am pretty sure that torturing someone is worse than someone suspected of being part of a terrorist organization. Suspected is the key word, as is "part of".
We don't deliberately torture convicted murderers: we kill them in a way which we (correctly or not) believe to be humane. We shouldn't be torturing suspected (or convicted!) terrorists either.
These kind of news are so embarrassing for anyone living in the United States. It's a tragedy that there's not a bigger outrage about torturing people.
I'm getting closer and closer to expatriating because of the policies of the US government. And please don't tell me that all developed countries are participating in torture as this is just not true.
"Medical professionals were in effect told that their ethical mantra "first do no harm" did not apply, because they were not treating people who were ill."
Who among adult reasoning men or women would believe this premise? Are we all turned to geese?
I don't buy that the Milgram experiment can be used to explain everything. A better explanation is probably that there is a lot of implied "or else..." when you're being asked to follow orders in a national security context.
Milgram experiment clearly shows relative weights with which we perceive two alternatives : 1. a negative effect on ourselves vs. 2. a negative effect on somebody else.
In the experiment the 1. was practically non-existent, zero - some researcher telling you what to do, no real authority, no any chance of bad consequences, while 2. - electric shock, heart attack - hard to beat, yet people still chosen 2.
Now, in the torture situation we have the alternative 1. with reasonable perception of potential bad consequnces much higher than in the experiment, ie. pretty seriously sounding very plausible "or else..." from real authority while 2. is significantly lower because it is just terrorist, bad guy, and who will be tortured anyway. People making choice 2. when difference was higher (in the experiment) necessarily and obviously means that they would make such choice when difference is less, like in this case of torture.
I don't know the full details, but what if these doctors were presented with the following:
> We're going to torture these suspects with or without you. However, with your assistance, we can 'maximize' the effectiveness of the interrogation while 'minimizing' actual physical damage.
The purpose of involving doctors would be to ease the consciences of the other torturers, and to extend the amount that anyone could be tortured to the medical limit. Those doctors should have refused, and run straight to the media.
Yes, running to the media would have no doubt been in violation of their orders, but following those orders is a far greater offense. They get absolutely no sympathy from me, they should be tried for their crimes.
Oh baddox, you are right, (I forgot) and alas, it is young idealists whom we so often need to lead us into the future. Those Revolutionary lads founding our country were below presidential age bar and that is why they were so mighty--they were still idealists full of passion.
Excuse me, dear Locke1689, but the lads were. Young. My gx5 grandfather was 16 or 17 and fought and Alexander Hamilton and a bunch of college boys left Columbia (then King's College) to fight under Washington. And some chap who signed the Constitution named Dayton was age 26. A whole bunch of them were young.
> Excuse me, dear Locke1689, but the lads were. Young.
If you're setting the benchmark as the signers of the US Constitution, I disagree with this assertion. For the sake of argument, let's also include the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which is IMO a much more idealistic--and traitorous thing from the perspective of the crown.
Of the 40 signers of the constitution about 8 were below the minimum age requirements of US President (35) [1] with an average age of about 44. Of the 66 signers of the Declaration of Independence, about 7 were below the minimum age requirements [2]. The rest were at or above 35, and there were many men in their 60s and 70s. These numbers are not exact as I'm going off quick calculations and a spreadsheet drafted in a couple minutes.
The story doesn't actually deliver what the headline promises; I saw "present when waterboarding was taking place" and "force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike" but neither is a case of a doctor actually torturing someone.
I'm sure someone will jump down my throat for playing semantics, but most of the comments to date are reacting to the headline claiming torture-by-doctor rather than the actual findings.
No. You are wrong. The doctors are present to oversee the torturing. They aren't there to take care of the tortured ones. They are there to tell how much someone can be tortured and not die. They are there to allow the maximum physical pain in the tortured ones. They are torturers too.
Force-feeding can be fairly painful. The International Red Cross also considers participating in force feeding to be a gross violation of medical ethics.
If an administration can get away with launching illegal wars that are also based on plain lies, then this is will most probably be treated as a non-event.
"As of the publication of this report, state licensing and disciplinary boards in Alabama, California, Georgia, Louisiana, new York, Ohio, and Texas have received—and dismissed—complaints against health professionals for alleged mistreatment of detainees at Guantánamo and secret CIA detention centers. To the knowledge of the Task Force, none of these complaints has led to a formal hearing that then led to a decision holding the individual to account. Many of the complaints were dismissed on procedural grounds. The boards rarely explained the bases for these decisions, but together they suggest an unwillingness of state licensing bodies to address complaints of misconduct within national security agencies or a belief by the boards that they are unable to pursue them. They also reveal procedural and substantive deficiencies in the way state boards approach discipline of health professionals alleged to have been complicit in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These practices and procedures contribute to a lack of disciplinary accountability for unethical acts of severe harm on detainees."
Your comment may be intended ironically, but it's more or less true.
Some lower-level staff may get hung out to dry (e.g. Abu Ghraib) but if you were a senior-level commander or official, why would you finger one of your peers, when he probably has similar dirt on you? Better that everyone keeps his mouth shut.
As another example: Henry Wirz was tried, convicted, and executed for running Camp Sumter (the POW camp near Andersonville, Georgia). As far as I know, nobody was ever tried for what happened at Elmira Prison. Elmira Prison had a 25% mortality rate, Camp Sumter had a mortality rate of 29%. Guess which one was run by the victors.
However merely being on the losing side isn't sufficient; you have to be on the conquered side. The US was by reasonable accounts on the losing side of the Vietnam War, but war crime trials were never held for the people that really deserved it because although the US lost, they were no conquered. Saddam was on the losing side of the Gulf War, but he did not see trial for his crimes until he was well and truly conquered many years later.
The Vietnam war was not a war of survival for the US, nor did it take place in US territory. Psychologically, it was certainly a blow, but in the chess game of geopolitical strategy, it was more on the level of losing a knight or bishop, certainly not losing a queen or the entire game.
It always happens. For torture to be effective, doctors must be present. Brazil had a lot of doctors participating of the torture during its militar dictadorship. The most famous was Almicar Lobo: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Lobo
Does your superior officer make a direct order to do it? That's no excuse whatsoever, you're still guilty.
Is it required for national security? Still no excuse, the ends don't justify the means. If 'terrorists would win' otherwise, well, then they'd 'win' but not indemnify you.
Has your nation passed laws making it explicitly legal? Still no excuse, it's still illegal and you can and should be prosecuted for that.
If the current world order is unwilling to pursue it in practice, then our children and grandchildren will do it - there's no statute of limitations, and people involved in these USA actions can expect the same "retirement" as the elderly Nazis who were prosecuted in recent years.