Can we agree on a few basic things? Can we agree that unprovoked premeditated murder is a criminal act? Can we agree that there is no excuse for murdering toddlers in cold blood? Can we agree that we must punish capital crimes?
There is a dangerous argument that is emerging over the revelations of massacre at Haditha. Adding to the chorus coming from the right is an op-ed in today’s Washington Post by Frank Schaeffer. The op-ed is titled "What’s Lost in the Hue and Cry Over Haditha" and the "hue and cry" in the title should give you an indication of what the op-ed will argue.
Schaeffer trots out the "War is Hell" argument in excusing the Haditha massacre. He appeals to our respect for the veterans of World War II to argue that even in that war atrocities were committed. He cites a passage from Norman Lewis’ memoir "Naples ’44" to illustrate that atrocities were committed in World War II:
"I saw an ugly sight: a British officer interrogating a civilian, and repeatedly hitting him about the head with the chair; treatment which the [civilian], his face a mask of blood, suffered with stoicism. At the end of the interrogation, which had not been considered successful, the officer called on a private and asked him in a pleasant, conversational sort of manner, ‘Would you like to take this man away, and shoot him?’ The private’s reply was to spit on his hands, and say, ‘I don’t mind if I do, sir.’
"I received confirmation . . . that American combat units were ordered by their officers to beat to death [those] who attempted to surrender to them. These men seem very naive and childlike, but some of them are beginning to question the ethics of this order.
"We liberated them from the Fascist Monster. And what is the prize? The rebirth of democracy. The glorious prospect of being able one day to choose their rulers from a list of powerful men, most of whose corruptions are generally known and accepted with weary resignation. The days of Mussolini must seem like a lost paradise compared to us."
No doubt that Bill O’Reilly will pick up on this excuse next week on the heels of his false accusation that Americans, and not the Germans, committed murder at Malmedy.
Schaeffer follows his retelling of Lewis’s account with the meat of the matter:
If Lewis’s account were the only surviving document from World War II, we might assume that allied nation-building ended in catastrophe. We would wonder why a morally outraged peace movement didn’t stop our troops from carrying out their failed and brutal campaigns.
Sixty years later and caught up in another war, we are confronted by the massacre in Haditha. And we are also caught up in the anguish of another generation of young men and women asked to kill but to keep killing within "civilized" bounds, to take insults, be fired upon by men hiding behind women and children, yet not respond in kind. [Emphasis added by me.]
That is really the crux of his argument. How can our troops be expected to not "respond in kind" when the enemy behaves so badly? Ok, I’ll bite on the moral argument. Especially since Schaeffer tugs at our heartstrings by recounting his son’s distress at being deployed in Afghanistan and challenges our moral standing to dare criticize actions on the battlefield:
It’s time for the critics of our military to also earn a little moral authority by volunteering themselves or encouraging their children to do so. Anything less is nothing more than arm’s-length moralizing. [Emphasis added by me.]
Well, sir, let me do some "arm’s-length moralizing" before I get to the real meat of the matter. No American is criticizing the American Military for the Haditha massacre, but rather, we are defending the American Military when we demand that these acts are not tolerated. If you want to condone or advocate the killing of innocent toddlers because you can’t take the heat of battle there are countless terrorist organizations that I recommend that you join. They will be glad to accept your application and agree with your rationalization. The American military is not the place for your kind of rationalization. There is a difference between a civilized and disciplined military and a terrorist organization. The American military does not target nor does it condone the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. The way to maintain discipline in an organized military is to quickly isolate and punish acts of barbarism. For a final word on this, allow me to quote United States Army Major General William Caldwell from a recent press conference (as replayed on CNN’s Late Edition today):
The coalition does not and it will not tolerate any unethical or criminal behavior.
That is a rather clear and forceful statement from the United States Military. The American public should expect and demand no less from our military.
After the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the only person ever punished for murdering 504 innocent old men, women and children was Lt. William Calley. He received 3 and a half years of house arrest for his crimes. The American public was overwhelmingly sympathetic to Calley because after all it was "gooks" he had killed and anyone knows that the only good "gook" is a dead "gook". On the other hand, the hero of My Lai, Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thomson was vilified as a traitor because he dared save the lives of 10 women and babies from the murderous guns of Calley and his cohorts. In condoning the massacre at My Lai, the American public collectively bore the responsibility for those killings. It disgraced this nation and it disgraced the military.
The American people and the American Military have come a long way since My Lai. We have learned that premeditated murder cannot be excused. Excusing such crimes tarnished the entire military and the American people. Vigorously prosecuting these crimes does not tar the military, as Mr. Schaeffer suggests, but rather shows that the military will not tolerate these crimes. It protects the military from being overrun by this kind of barbarism. It sets a civilized and disciplined fighting force apart from terrorists and murderers. It honors our military to not tolerate criminal behavior. It recognizes that when bad things happen in war, civilized nations and militaries do not condone it but aggressively fight against it. After all, that is what the Geneva Conventions were adopted to recognize – that even in war, there is right and wrong, there is morality.
Haditha will not become My Lai as long as the American Military and the American people do not allow it to happen. These acts, whenever they occur, must be condemned. We need to appeal to the honor and discipline of our men and women in our military, not to baser instincts that Mr. Schaeffer appeals to when he condones "respond[ing] in kind". There is a reason why there is a "hue and a cry" over Haditha, Mr. Schaeffer. To remind you of the reasons, I recommend that you repeat after me: "There is no excuse for murdering babies." Here endeth the "arm’s length moralizing."
Torture needs a rationale to survive. Torture needs a justification. States that torture always find ways to justify torture as an act that is within the law. They use the law as the first weapon of torture. Before the drills are powered up, before the electricity is turned on, before the water is boiled, before the knives are sharpened, it is the lawyer who strikes the first and most lethal blow.
The United Nations did not count on an enterprising young lawyer named 
