Obeying the Authority - Research Paper Example

Obeying the Authority Introduction It is the mandated of any given state to protect its citizens from international invasion. Looking at the American history it is evident enough that the state has indulged itself in international wars with the aim of protecting and safeguarding the interests of the people. The Us Army has been sending its troops to fight with opposing forces in other parts of the world without being defeated. However, the invasion of US Army troops in Vietnam during the later 1970s raised a heated debate among the international community’s based on the conduct of the US army officers against the innocent civilians. The invasion of US troops into Vietnam lead to mass killing of the innocent civilians culminating to what is known as the my Lai massacre or song massacre. One man behind this scene is William Laws Calley who was the leading operation commander in the US Army troop in Vietnam. The paper would address the court trial of William Laws Calley highlighting his role and contribution in my Lai massacre in Vietnam, the justification of President Nixon in communicating his sentences and more importantly the challenges faced by the jury in ruling out this case. William Laws Calley is an American Army Officer who has been convicted by the court of law for extra-judicial killings against the civilians in Vietnam in 1968. Calley was born on the 28th May, 1943 in Miami Florida in United Sates of America. He was the first child in a family of five members consisting of one brother and three sisters. His father was an America war veteran who had taken part during the World War 2. At a tender age of 5 years Calley attended the Balm beach junior college where he performed poorly. In 1964, he dropped out of school and joined the corporate world where he worked as an insurance agent, train conductor and dishwasher before securing a position in the military defence (Greiner, 89). During his military career, Calley underwent many training sessions where he portrayed a character of brevity and competence that made him be appointed as the leading commander of the battalion company c and the 20th infantry battalion troops. It is during the training session in Hawaii Barracks where his character of brevity and competence was put to test by assigning him the obligation of heading these two grouped against the terror of Vietnam army forces. Additionally, it is during the same event that his character of being platoon leader was realized hence rising mixed reactions from the junior troop officers. His immediate friends had acknowlgded the fact that Calley was a humbly man with the humane attributes within himself. However, this character was never predisposed during the My Lai massacre in Vietnam where he took part in the killings of innocent civilians and aftermath concealing the evidence against him. Being a troop commander Calley was obligated with the mandate of organizing the war operation attacks by instructing his junior employees and advising them on the best approach. However, this was not the case because he went ahead to use the excessive force accorded to him by the laws of the defence force on the innocent civilians and not on the intended enemies. Before the US Army launched the war attacks against the NLF of Vietnam, the head of the military operation lead by captain Ernest Medina announced to all the villagers and civilian that they should leave before 7.00 a.m to the market place and any person who was found in their villages after that time was to be shoot by the US army because it was believed that he or she was NLF troop or a sympathizers. On the other hand, the instructions from Captain Ernest Medina were understood differently by the senior army officers below him (Kendrick, 78). William Laws Calley was one of the operation commanders who capitalized on this kind of confusion to exercise his powers as the leader of the battalion troops. He ordered his troop men to shoot at any innocent person ranging from children, women and men without any form of mercy. During this incident more than 500 innocent civilians were killed and tens thousands of animals were killed too. Most of the people killed were women, children and the aged who had lack energy and means to run a way. Additionally, all the crops and animals were never spared as they were destroyed by the US Army troops. Murder trial William Laws Calley together with other army officers was not held accountable immediately for his action because the information lacked substantial evidence. After thirteen months later it is when the public and the international community gained a better understanding on what transpired during the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. On 21st May, 1969, G.I wrote a presented a detailed investigation to the US secretary general of the defence on the atrocities against the US army troop in Vietnam. According to the report Calley was accused of committing premeditated murder of more than 105 innocent civilians during the My Lai massacre (Hammer, 45). The report further indicated that he committed this inhumane act by ordering his military personnel to shoot and kill at any civilian person whether children, women or men where more than 500 people were killed but is only 300 killings that were made available to the government. To second the affirmation of the report, a journalist by the name Hersh Seymour stated that Calley Laws was held responsible for killing more than 100 people in the Son village north of Vietnam. In one instance it is mentioned that Calley himself ordered a military personnel to shoot and kill more than 80 people who were unarmed and were pleading for mercy from the military officer (Hersh, 67). The officer declined the order and instead Calley took the gun and shoot all of them killing. From the testimony given the witness in the court, it was realized that calley was guilty according to the laws of the land and was to be persecuted for first degree murder. In his defence Calley stated that he was following orders from Medina thus placing allegation to him. After two weeks of hearing, the longest in the martial court in US, a panel of five judges headed by Colonel Clifford pronounced the verdict of the case where Calley was charged for premeditated murder and imprisoned for life term and hard labour This was travelling against the law that stated that criminals such Calley should be sentenced to death. This decision taken by the jury raised mixed reaction from people of all walks of life that called for the head of the state to intervene. President Nixon was compelled by the gravity of the situation to dismiss the ruling of the court by instructing the release of Calley from the stockade and placing him in the unrest house. This meant that the president had honoured the obligation to review the case a fresh so that the feeling of the people can be taken into account. In order to show commitment in this issue President Nixon ordered Calley to be placed under parole strategy while the issue was being investigated further. The president had no intention of disobeying the law as stipulated in the constitution but he was compelled to do so depending on the situation. He wanted to safeguard the interest of the majority and uphold the integrity of the nation under his regime. If he had not honoured this new stake the people could have rebelled against him and in return tarnish his reputation in the public. The interest of the state was paramount compared to the view of few people. In deliberating the case against Calley allegations, the jury were torn between a hard place and rock on giving their verdict. First, the testimony given by Ernest Medina contracted with what Calley had said in his testimony. Calley argued out that he was following orders from above and according to the military rules it is unlawful not to comply with such obligations (Peers, 56). On the contrarily, Ernest Medina stated that he never instructed officers to kill civilians but the member of NLf troops. This means that jury had to establish clarity and depend on solid evidence before pronouncing the verdict. Secondly, the jury wanted to safeguard the interest of the public and the state at large. Weighing the reaction from the public it was obvious that the issue could have sparked demonstrations and protests from the public hence it was worthy to take into account that in ruling process. Conclusion The court martial of William Laws Carrey raised heated debate among the people and placed great challenge in the judicial system of the state. The move by the president to oppose the ruling of the court was to safeguard the interest of the state and the people as it could have lead to protests and demonstrations thus affecting the economy. This was one of the challenges that faced the jury but at the ultimate end a solution was attained. But whether justice prevailed is a matter of discussion. Works cited Kendrick, Oliver. Coming to Terms with the Past: My Lai, History Today, 2006, Vol. 56, Issue 2:20-45 Greiner, Bernd. War without Fronts: The USA in Vietnam New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Peers, William. The My Lai Inquiry New York: Norton, 1979. Hersh, Seymour M). My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and Its Aftermath. Random House, 1970. Hammer, Richard. The Court-Martial of Lt. Calley New York: Coward, 1971. Read More