Iraq trials expect 'following orders' defense

Washington Times ^ | 6/23/04 | Rowan Scarborough

[kattracks]

Soldiers photographed apparently abusing Iraqi prisoners will invoke the "just following orders" defense when courts-martial convene this summer and fall.

Military prosecutors already got a glimpse of that strategy this week at a pre-trial hearing in Baghdad. Defense attorneys for two accused military policemen said they were ordered to abuse Iraqi detainees by military intelligence officers who conducted interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison.

[jaykay]

"We can't have American soldiers in a war zone questioning the legality of orders"

If they were ordered to treat those prisoners that way, what would have happened to them if they had refused to obey the orders? Would they be facing court-martial anyway?

I keep hearing about how it was their responsibility to refuse to obey illegal orders, but I can't see "no sir, I will not obey your order because I think it is illegal" going over very well.

Would they not have been charged for refusing to obey the orders? Would they not have to prove that the orders they refused to obey were illegal? What is to stop the officers they accused from saying that their orders were other than what they actually were? Do they have the right to request the orders in writing? If they were to do so, what could a soldier expect who made such a request?

[Valin]

Mr. Puckett is representing Army Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who commanded the MP brigade that guarded Abu Ghraib. The Army has admonished Gen. Karpinski and suspended her command for a lack of discipline among her soldiers.

Dereliction of duty!

[Valin]

Do they have the right to request the orders in writing?

That's what I would do.