The ridiculously light sentences received by the Haditha Marines, especially the three months of house arrest and the reduction in rank and pay received by the sergeant in charge, have outraged many in this country and in Iraq. One of the things I found peculiar was that, as far as I could determine, no one was prepared to call it murder. Most frequently it was called the killings, occasionally a massacre. For this type of event the word "killing" is almost a neutral term. We kill everything from insects to humans. We even kill time. The term "massacre" suggests killing indiscriminately. Some of these innocent people were killed at such close range they had powder burns from the gun that killed them. Some publications did say this represented "execution style" killing. Yet none were willing to call it murder. Why?
Aside from such legal niceties that "murder" might have a specific meaning, e.g. that murder consists of one person premeditatively killing another, I suggest that these light sentences are a consequence of the rampant militarism that has found a home in America. While the military has always been permitted to conduct its own trials of its members, the sentences of these soldiers have shown the ludicrousness of this exceptionalism. It may be said that military combat is so chaotic and the threat to life so high that civilians could not render an informed judgment. Hence these men would not face a jury of their peers. However, the same can be said of a police officer on a gang hit list or undercover DEA agents accused of wrongful killing, yet we try them in civilian courts. All of these light, to the point of absurdity, sentences reflect, in my view, the privileged position the military has come to occupy in current American culture.
To the above comparative observations there is the questionable process of sentencing. The military judge is an officer. Like other officers his situation and future are dependent upon the esteem he has in the eyes of his superiors. This fact puts significant pressure on the judge to conform to the wishes of these superiors. Can this explain the light sentences? It certainly would not hurt recruitment in a volunteer military. There is, in my judgment, a conflict of interest at work here. In other areas officers have been known to cover up, delay, or obfuscate crimes committed by others. Colin Powell and the My Lai massacre and the flat out lying in the Pat Tillman case come to mind. Should we expect less of these judge-officers?
Should the military be permitted to conduct its own trials? The practice appears to have arisen from the belief that military combat is so unique that only military personnel can be expected to render a fair verdict. Even more important, can a military judge, who is just another officer, be expected to impose a penalty that is not in concert with the views of superiors who have the power to influence his future? As I have indicated above, I think this is false. The fact that the military tends to deal lightly with the killing of innocent people so long as they are not American should give us great pause when we consider letting the military conduct its own trials. Further, we have used this separate legal system to try our enemies or presumed enemies, including, again, innocent people, e.g. Guantanamo and to permit torture.
That the military justice system has so obviously failed to serve the demands of justice and that it appears fraught with impediments to securing justice is bad enough. Given recent federal legislation, I suggest it now poses a direct threat to the American citizenry.
The 2012 Defense Authorization Act permits the military to indefinitely detain any U.S citizen at its own initiative. Presumably any further legal action would be conducted by a military tribunal as has been the case with Guantanamo detainees. In taking over a previously civil function the military continues to expand its role in the affairs of this country. There is a pathetic commentary to be found in the decline of American democracy when one notes that Egypt, new to democracy, has massive protests to get rid of military rule while the United States welcomes it. Fear, that highly emotional response to threat, real or fabricated, is the deadliest enemy of democracy. Democracy requires participative courage from its citizens or it perishes. In the end, a democracy must put its trust in the citizenry, not the military.
Bob Newhard
No comments:
Post a Comment