Ponderings

Growing up in the shadow of the Vietnam War protests, I admit to a certain amount of idealism. From a child’s vantage, the passion of the protests appeared to quell our warring madness. My parent’s consternation was further evidence that such public involvement was influential.

Growing up in a world still reeling from the horrific example of the Holocaust, I believed that a critically aware public was essential. After all, I reasoned, the Holocaust happened not in a vacuum. Millions of ordinary people wore the Nazi uniforms and allowed the terror to unfold. Without the hands and feet of ordinary soldiers, the master minds of evil would have been only that. Millions of ordinary people who were not evil became obedient pawns in the killing fields, carrying out the evil that someone else devised for no reason higher reason than obedience. Millions of ordinary people who didn’t know how to say “no”. The apparent choice was to kill or be killed.

The Nuremburg Trials were heralded in my youth as ground breaking and life giving. The trials, and more importantly the mutually agreed upon Principles upon which the trials were based, were a timeless testament to the responsibility of the ordinary person to refuse to be a pawn.

The beauty of the Nuremburg Principles are their simplicity, they do not require advanced work in logic or ethics to read. This simplicity is not accidental, the intention was that these codes were simple enough that there would be no reasonable way of misunderstanding. The principles were for me not only a piece of history but a gift of hope. Honoring these simple principles we could prevent another Nazi domination, another Holocaust.

My idealism was believing that we would honor them.

1st Lt. Ehren Watada is the test case for my idealism and it doesn’t look good. Watada is facing a Court Martial for “missing movement”. Watada has stipulated that he refused to deploy to Iraq with his unit last June. He also acknowledges that he has made statements criticizing the war. Specifically he has invoked international law in concluding that this is an unlawful war. He points out that knowingly participating in an illegal act is itself unlawful.

Although compelled by his argument, I did refer to the Nuremburg Principles for guidance. The Nuremburg Principles specify just three crimes; crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Crimes against peace are:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
As always, the principles are pretty straightforward. Waging a war of aggression is wrong. Participation in a common plan for that war is wrong.

First, then, the question of whether this war is one of aggression. There is little doubt now that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were a knowing ruse. And though reasonable people disagree on how best to disentangle ourselves from this mess, there is little question that the aggression was ours. Concluding that this is war of aggression, participation in this war is a violation of the Nuremburg Principles. Unfortunately it’s pretty simple.

Refusing to be deployed, Watada is no doubt guilty of “missing movement”. Allowing himself to be deployed, however, Watada would be a willing participant in what he believes to be a war of aggression. Both are true. And therein lies the dilemma. The Nuremburg Principles asserts that human conscience trumps soldier obedience.

My vote is with Watada’s conscience, but I’m making a care package just in case.