Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
In 1977 I went through basic training for the army. One day we had a half-day class on our personal responsibilities as a soldier under the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention, as related to wartime deployment. The instructor told us that the course was a direct result of Lt. Calley’s actions at My Lai, which was still relatively fresh in the nation’s memory.
After detailing the prohibitions and thou-musts of armed conflict, he said to us: “If you are given an order that is obviously illegal, you have two choices before you. First choice, you refuse to follow the order. You will then be subject to court martial and imprisoned and – if you are convicted of treason – you will possibly spend the rest of your life in prison. If you instead obey what is clearly an illegal order, you and you alone will be held accountable should it ever come to light. And your signature on the form you sign at the end of this class is the army’s proof that you understand the consequences of obeying an illegal order. I hope to god you poor bastards are never placed in this position. But if you are ever sent to war, you will be.”
I imagine that this was merely a formal acknowledgement of the way things had been all along, same as it ever was.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
