Summary
The article explores the tension between obedience to authority and individual morality. It examines how unquestioningly following orders can lead to negative outcomes and how taking personal responsibility for one's actions is crucial in shaping a moral compass.
Picture a March morning in Vietnam. Temperatures range from 75°F to 93°F (24°C to 34°C) and this time of the year is mostly dry. It’s the 16th of March, 1968, to be precise, and 24-year-old Second Lieutenant William L. Calley Jr. has only been in Vietnam for three months. Hailing from Miami, Florida, United States, the short, stocky college drop-out is preparing to lead about a hundred men from Charlie Company on a mission to find and kill Vietcong enemies.
Their destination was My Lai (pronounced mee LYE), an inland hamlet on the east coast of South Vietnam. They wouldn’t encounter any Vietcong en route, but when they arrived at their destination they carried out atrocities that are reminiscent of reports of Nazi actions in World War II. By the time the day had ended, the soldiers had killed 504 people — all civilians. This included women, children, and elderly men.
The events in My Lai on that terrible day were subsequently covered up in military reports. Calley was promoted to First Lieutenant, awarded a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart.
It took around a year and a half for the buried truth of 16 March 1968 to surface. Several soldiers and one reporter – Seymour M. Hersh, who would go on to win a Pulitzer Prize for his efforts – wouldn’t let the My Lai atrocities remain hidden from the world.
On 6 September 1969, William Calley Jr. became one of 25 people facing charges for the My Lai massacre. In March of 1971, Calley was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Due to appeals and parole qualifications, he would end up spending only three years incarcerated.
During his trial, Calley would claim that he was “just following orders.”
The modern idea that wars should have rules goes back to the 1864 Geneva Convention and the concepts therein have subsequently been expanded upon many times. Following the end of World War II, the Nuremberg principles were created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations for use in the trials of former Nazis.
Established as guidelines for use in determining what constitutes a war crime. Principle IV of the Nuremberg principles states:
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
In other words, “I was just following orders” was no longer a viable excuse, which was a break from earlier military jurisprudence. It stood on the shoulders of the Geneva Conventions which defines actions that are considered war crimes, and it was subsequently further supported by U.S. Military Law & the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which was enacted in 1951. Among the things the latter covers is mandating adherence to the law and emphasizing individual responsibility.
Right now, in the United States, masked agents from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are engaged in illegal actions under the orders of the sitting president. They arrest people without cause and deny the victims their constitutional rights. In some cases, the detainees fail to get needed medical treatments or prescribed medications. They are housed in inhumane conditions and in some cases transported abroad.
At some point, this will end; the United States will survive and be better for having gone through such challenging times. The nation will begin rebuilding and, hopefully, making some changes that will prevent such future derailments of democracy.
Part of the rebuilding process will be endeavoring to restore relations internationally. While this is something that will likely take decades, it would go a long way with foreign nations if we take punitive actions against those who aided and abetted the current administration. That would of course include the current members of the political majority who have sat idly by while this played out, but many elected officials are wealthy people with wealthy friends. If penance is to be paid, as it so often happens, it may be the boots-on-the-ground agents who take the bulk of the heat.
In fairness, these agents – be they ICE, DEA, FBI or with any other federal law enforcement agency – are in a difficult situation. Most of us need our jobs and quitting on principle – no matter how strongly we might feel – might mean losing our homes and being unable to feed and care for our families. Furthermore they are trained to follow orders, a behavior that is critical in life-and-death encounters. Anyone who thinks bucking the system would be a no-brainer probably either hasn’t given it a lot of thought or has never been in similar shoes.
However, when it’s all over there must be accountability. As we have seen here, “I was just following orders” hasn’t been a plausible defense in 50 years. If I were in such an unenviable position, I believe I’d find a lawyer and discuss my options.
You know, before I needed said lawyer to be a criminal defense attorney.
