dagblog - Comments for "Milgram, "just following orders", and compassion"

The commanders and enablers

acanuck — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:11:24 +0000

The commanders and enablers do indeed bear the bulk of the guilt. That's what the Nuremberg trials established, over and above rejecting the "only following orders" defense. Lawyers who conjured up justifications for war crimes were prosecuted, as were admirals and generals who carried them out. Torture and murder of prisoners figured among the charges, but also "waging a war of aggression." We hanged at least one guy for that.

People should come to grips with the fact that the only reason U.S. military leaders aren't on trial for war crimes is that there's no one in a position to take them into custody. Even the Yoo-Bybee memos, disgusting as they were, conceded that a procedure became torture (banned by both international and U.S. law) when the pain it caused equaled that of "organ failure or death." A standard they pulled out of their own asses, but nevermind.

Credible estimates are that at least 100 people died under U.S. "enhanced interrogation" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Let me go out on a limb and suggest that, at the moment of their deaths, these individuals experienced pain commensurate with "organ failure or death."

So even by the laughable standards of Yoo-Bybee, a war crime had unarguably been committed. If I'm commanding officer at that location, I have only one choice: order such techniques stopped, and lay charges. Or if I don't have the balls to do my duty, resign. Did those torture deaths stop? No, they continued -- one after the other, at least 99 of them. I have yet to hear of an officer resigning in protest. The commanding officers at each base where such deaths occurred are, quite simply, war criminals. As are their immediate superiors and the civilian leaders who ordered the tortures to continue after the very first death occurred.

I sympathize with the political dilemma President Obama faces. He simply can't put half his top commanders on trial, much less the previous president, vice-president and several cabinet members. But "looking forward" and "turning the page" don't quite cut it. Neither does a Truth Commission, frankly, but at least it's a baby step toward acknowledging the enormity of the moral hole the U.S. government has dug for itself.

Good arguments all, and I

Nebton — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:23:50 +0000

In reply to While the Milgram experiment

Good arguments all, and I definitely believe the commanders have more culpability than the enlisted men and women. As for the CIA and special forces operatives being highly trained, neither Lynndie England nor Charles Graner fall into that set, yet these seem to be the people trotted out as the culprits (a few "bad apples" and all that). I imagine we're of the same mind there, of course.

While the Milgram experiment

DF — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:46:14 +0000

In reply to Milgram, "just following orders", and compassion

While the Milgram experiment is interesting and bears some relation to the subject at hand, I don't find it particularly useful in judging the actions in question. The reason for this is two-fold, but let me indulge in a brief anecdote before I make these reasons explicit.

Several years ago, around the time that U.S. forces were preparing to invade Iraq, I got into an argument with a close friend. Not a heated argument mind you, but a sharp disagreement on one particular point. We were discussing the matter of whether or not soldiers should be expected to disobey the orders that they would be given to invade. My friend argued that they all have a conscious choice, regardless of the terms of their enlistment, and should be expected to exercise this choice in a manner conmensurate with their morals. I argued that, while I agreed with him that they have choice, a functional military relies on chain of command, which cannot be preserved in an environment where soldiers are expected to dissent on the basis of individual judgment. Indeed, soldiers can dissent, but they may end up suffering the consequences of violating their terms of enlistment. Some do choose to do this. I believe that one could argue that, like other acts of civil disobedience, this demonstrates their commitment to the grounds of dissent.

Where we didn't disagree is that the commanders are always fully responsible for their orders. The Milgram experiment does nothing to exonerate the commander. That's my first point.

The second point that I would make is that CIA and special forces operatives are highly trained in the techniques they employ and the ramifications of said techniques. In the Milgram experiment, no one was ever actually shocked. The subject is essentially being presented with a choice: Do I trust the authority figure who assures, at first very gently that I "Please continue", or do I trust the sense input I'm getting that tells me I'm inflicting pain on someone? However, the subjects have to make this choice in absence of having experienced the stimulus they are delivering.

This differs strongly from the situation we're talking about. These operatives know quite well, often from the firsthand experience of being on the receiving end of these tactics via training programs like SERE, what the effect of their actions will be. As I've pointed out elsewhere, some who have been asked to do these things have indeed found the request to be more than they could bear. Now, I suppose that you could argue that these operatives are perhaps desensitized to the effects of their actions through the course of their training, but I think that this is a different phenomenon than the one demonstrated by Milgram.

You want to "go Canadian" on

DF — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:50:24 +0000

In reply to Better yet, we can rendition

You want to "go Canadian" on them? That's harsh, bro. Way harsh.

Better yet, we can rendition

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:40:41 +0000

In reply to Oh look, why can't a bunch of

Better yet, we can rendition them to Canada, and then you and Quinn can have your way with them.

Oh look, why can't a bunch of

acanuck — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:22:40 +0000

In reply to Milgram, "just following orders", and compassion

Oh look, why can't a bunch of concerned citizens -- I nominate the dagblog editorial board -- simply snatch Yoo, Bybee and Cheney (though I assume he's still got Secret Service protection) off the street? Take them to some secret location in Philadelphia, then "not torture" them.

After a month or so of waterboarding, wall-slamming, sleep deprivation and stress positions, let them go. Justice will have been served. And if the "non-torturers" are ever caught (like if the FBI googles this blog post), they can claim they relied on the Yoo-Bybee memos for justification. It would be worth the risk of long prison terms just to see how Yoo and Bybee aquirm under cross-examination. I'd happily join in this little escapade, but I appear to be on some no-fly list.

Writing very clear laws seems

Nebton — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:19:49 +0000

In reply to Well that's yet another

Writing very clear laws seems like a good idea, but I remember reading a well-written piece in an IEEE magazine/journal about how laws that are too clear can actually be easier to circumvent, and so we need judges to enforce the intent of the law. (I wish I could find the piece I'm talking about, but alas, my Google skills have let me down. I can expound on this some, however, if you like.)

That said, the laws should probably be clearer than they currently are.

My stand on this is somewhat ambivalent, hence why I'm playing the shrinking violet. I think some prosecution is necessary, with the harshest sentences being meted out to those higher up the food chain who really ought to know better, as well. Currently, it seems we have that backwards.

Well that's yet another

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:12:58 +0000

In reply to I think whether we should

Well that's yet another question entirely. No fair changing. You posed this as an ethics/legal question. Now you're asking about sociology.

To that point, I entirely agree. I don't "get" vengeance. Whenever people scream for someone's head, I feel like Spock puzzling over the illogical peculiarities of the human race.

IMO, the best thing that we can do to stop this from happening is to write very clear laws that even John Yoo types can't fudge. That way, the Milgram context should be prevented. But I'm also not opposed to punishing interrogators if they're proved guilty under existing law.

But how about you? You're playing the shrinking violet and asking all the questions, but what's your stand?

I think whether we should

Nebton — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:01:49 +0000

In reply to Yeah, I recall that. It's not

I think whether we should "lighten up" or not is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is what are the most effective techniques to:

Change the perpetrator's behavior such that s/he won't do it again
Discourage other potential perpetrators from doing this in the future

Given that we all might possibly by potential perpetrators, I think that we should strive for minimizing vengenance while also minimizing recidivism and future violations by others. Too much of our legal system seems geared towards vengenance regardless of effectiveness.

Yeah, I recall that. It's not

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:52:19 +0000

In reply to It may be that many of us

Yeah, I recall that. It's not as shocking to me as to others, maybe because I grew up with so much Holocaust awareness. But it's also logical. If context can encourage criminal behavior, then you have to assume that there are a lot more potential criminals than there actual criminials. It's not just sadistic torture. From petty theft to genocide, people are capable of many things that they never actually do. But the fact that there are so many potential criminals in the world does not mean that we should lighten up on the actual criminals.