Part I
1) Jackson's arguments in support of the Charter of London were based on giving Nazi defendants the fair trial and opportunity in court. Also, the Charter had three main charges to try the defendants with: crimes against peace (the conspiracy of waging war against peaceful states), war crimes (starvation of others in occupied states, stolen materials/property and torture of prisoners) and crimes against humanity (the mass murder and all other crimes against humanity that took place during the war). (London Charter, 1945, Art. 6a, 6b, 6c)
2) Wyzanki was against the legality of the Charter because he was against the use of the Ex post facto, which can criminalize actions that were legal during the time they were committed. Thus, he believed the soldiers had the right to follow their orders during wartime. Eventually, Wyzanki agreed that justice should be upheld and generally condemned acts should be discouraged and criminalized. He said. "...failure to criminalize...universally condemned conduct....would be more likely to promote arbitrary and discriminatory action..." ('Crimes against Peace and International Law, Stellers 136). This is an example of a higher purpose overriding a lower purpose (which in this case, is the challenging of Ex post facto). This served the higher purpose of the international law and community and its safety.
Part II
I think that a less harsh sentence should be made for Charles Graner. The problem here seems to lie in the larger punishment system of Abu Graib, including the intelligence agents. I believe that controversial cases like this can end in the blame being burdened on one person to keep the rest of system in tact, when that seems to be the wrong idea. However, what was done to the prisoners was morally unjust and there must be punishment given in order to seek retribution and deterrence.
To uphold the principles of higher justice, yes Graner should be punished (to a much lesser degree), but so should everyone else even remotely involved in the incident. When there seems to be a corrupt system at hand, we cannot isolated one part of the incident without thorough investigation, unless there is an unfair interest in maintaining a corrupt system. These type of situations can easily hint at a much larger scheme or many more similar corrupt situations underneath the surface.
I agree with the notion that punishment should be distributed to the people who issued the orders. How far up should any punishment go? It seems that the blame can rocket all the way to the top of military complex since the orders or neglect for the prisoners have stemmed from the top of the chain of command. This could be me on a slippery slope but if these events are occurring the command of a group of people, they should be punished as well for allowing the events under their command.
ReplyDeleteI agree,; this case is a prime example of a corrupt system creating a controversial case. If the exact culprit was able to be identified, there would probably be a lot less confusion. However, the blame is conveniently being placed on Graner. He should definitely be punished for purposes of both retribution and deterrence. However, high justice needs to be attained by delving further into this case. This similar problem is reflected in may other aspects of society, such as the FDA and the food industry.
DeleteI disagree that he deserve less harsh punishment. Graner should know if it is morally wrong. When Graner is committing a heinous act, he had no remorse but instead takes picture and smiles. That act of emotions shows he has no sympathy. Graner demoralize and neglected the prisoners. He definitely deserve this sentence.
ReplyDeleteI can agree that his punishment is justified if and only if further investigation is conducted in this case. If this is a case where all the blame is placed on him, resulting in an unusually harsh sentence, then I cannot support that. However, I follow your logic. Graner consciously committed this act, and he should be punished.
DeleteI have reason to agree and disagree with you. I disagree on the statement you made based on how Graner should have a lesser sentence. In my opinion he and anyone else who acted on those crimes should all be charged equally; nothing less. That is of course in the case where they are able to arrest others for the same reasons. I do agree that many cases with this type of issue do end in the blame being thrown on one person. That is not fair. I find that very little justice was done when only one man was punished for a crime that many committed and much damage was done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that punishment should be equal for all and that they might be some corruption but the system has a long way to go. Should the punishment have been less harsh...no!! What he did whether he was told to do it or not was too extreme. He also showed no remorse especially with his quote. Regardless of what he had a choice.
ReplyDeleteAd Part I:
ReplyDeleteVery nice, Austin!
Ad Part II: You make a valid point in your resonse, and you have a great discussion going on with your commentators.