|
Glad to hear you retracting the "fun" part, Boondock, that really worried me in your original post.
Have to agree with the concensus so far, although I am inclined to think that (a) 8 years was probably too harsh a sentence and (b) one man alone should not have had to take the fall. The "following orders" argument didn't work at Nuremburg or My Lai, it should not apply here either. Every soldier involved in the abuse of prisoners had the choice to participate or not, and made that decision based on personal morality, not whether it would affect their employment. What's the news on any others facing the same charges? Apologies, I have not been following this as closely as I'd've liked...
As stated above, the reason we have the Geneva Convention (and doctrines like it) is to protect ALL parties. If it is applied inconsistently, it may just as well not exist, and applying it to only those parties who are "in the wrong" is so subjective as to also render it worthless.
|