The Role of Superior Orders in War Crimes: A Discussion of Legality and Justice

When a soldier commits a war crime while following direct orders from a superior officer, the question arises: should the soldier, the superior officer, or both be held accountable? This debate spans back to the Nuremberg Trials and continues to be relevant in discussions about military ethics, justice, and the conduct of warfare.

Military Perspective and Accountability

In the context of the U.S. Army, any soldier who follows unlawful orders is subject to war crime charges. This policy reinforces the idea that individual accountability is paramount, even in the face of direct orders. The U.S. legal system, particularly in the wake of the My Lai massacre, has emphasized that soldiers cannot use their superior’s orders as a blanket excuse for illegal actions. Instead, they must still adhere to the laws of war.

Contemporary Instances and Pardons

However, there are instances where the legal framework falls short. For example, consider the case of Clint Lorance, a soldier who killed unarmed civilians under orders, leading to the deaths of his platoon members. Despite the gravity of these acts, Lorance received a presidential pardon. This decision highlights a broader issue within the legal and political system, where high-ranking officials can exert significant influence over justice.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

While generals may not provide direct orders to every soldier, the question of accountability still stands. The complexity of this issue lies in the fact that military operations often involve multiple hierarchical levels, making it challenging to determine individual culpability.

Furthermore, soldiers may find themselves in life-and-death situations where the distinction between lawful and unlawful acts becomes blurred. These extreme circumstances raise ethical questions about the responsibility of those in higher command. The famous line from Apocalypse Now, spoken by Captain Willard, captures this sentiment:

"Charging people with murder in Vietnam is like giving out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500!"

_War, by definition, includes the utmost violence. How can one expect young people, with limited training and steeped in fear and danger, to regulate such violence when they are in the 'heat of battle'?_ This question challenges the notion that those who make decisions from behind a desk, detached from the battlefield, are in a position to fairly judge the actions of those in harm's way.

The My Lai Massacre Revisited

The My Lai massacre serves as a prime example of the complex questions that arise in military justice. In this incident, Lieutenant William Calley Jr. was the only one convicted, despite subsequent investigations revealing that higher-ranking officers also gave orders that led to the killing of unarmed civilians. The debate over who was truly responsible, and whose actions should be punished, reflects the broader issue of accountability in war.

During the events leading up to the My Lai massacre:

Colonel Oran K. Henderson, the 11th Brigade commander, urged his officers to engage in activities that included burning houses, killing livestock, and destroying food supplies and wells. LTC Barker reportedly ordered the 1st Battalion commanders to carry out similar directives. Captain Ernest Medina, at a Charlie Company briefing, told his men that nearly all civilian residents had left for the market, implying that any remaining civilians were combatants. Despite these orders, LT. Calley was the only one charged with a crime, while higher-ranking officers did not face legal challenges or criminal charges.

This raises the question: how does one determine who should be punished for war crimes? Was Lieutenant Calley merely a scapegoat for his superiors' actions, or was he truly responsible for the events at My Lai?

Conclusion

The My Lai massacre and other similar incidents underscore the need for a more nuanced understanding of accountability in war. While soldiers must adhere to the laws of war, the complexity of military operations and the extreme circumstances they face make it challenging to achieve true justice. Legal and ethical standards must evolve to ensure that all those responsible, from the rank of private to the highest commanding officer, are held accountable for their actions.

Ultimately, the My Lai massacre serves as a stark reminder of the ethical and legal challenges inherent in war. It is an issue that continues to be debated, not only in military circles but also in the broader context of international law and justice.