International law extra - Essay Example

International Law: My Lai Massacre My Lai Massacre During the Vietnam War, the American military unit known as Task Force Barker was assigned to neutralize communist threat in the hostile area known as Quang Ngai province. Charlie Company, with platoon leader Lieutenant William Calley, was attached to this unit. On January 31, 1968, the 48th Battalion of the Vietnamese resistance launched the Tet offensive against the Americans and their South Vietnamese combatants. Americans and South Vietnamese bore many casualties during this incident, making the American soldiers and military leaders eager to apprehend and seek revenge against the Viet Cong.

It was however difficult to pinpoint the location of the 48th Battalion responsible for the Tet offensive. After gathering intelligence reports, the military authorities collectively decided that the 48th Battalion was near the village of My Lai. American military authorities then planned to seek out and neutralize the 48th Battalion through the elements of the Task Force Barker. Their orders from their military officers were to clean out the area and destroy the villages. The civilians however were to be spared.

When the different platoons, including Charlie Company, were deployed to the suspected area, they met no resistance, no Viet Cong, no 48th Battalion. Only Vietnamese civilians appeared to occupy the village. And for William Calley and other members of the Charlie Company, they felt it was their time to take revenge for the men they lost in combat and for the atrocities that the Viet Cong committed against them. “Soldiers shot old men sitting outside their homes, women carrying water, children searching for places to hide” (Olson & Roberts, p. 22). Not one of these Vietnamese fired back, and yet they were gunned down by the soldiers.

Calley ordered his men to shoot all the civilians because their superior officers ordered them to. Some of the soldiers disobeyed the orders and others reluctantly carried out the orders. Calley was in his element. He happily pulled the trigger on every man, woman and child at the My Lai village. And in the end, Charlie Company “rounded up and killed as many as 500 unarmed women, children, and elderly Vietnamese in the hamlet of My Lai 4 in Son My, South Vietnam” (Wilkins, p. 77). Lt.

Calley and Charlie Company Lt. Calley was court-martialed, charged with the murder of Vietnamese civilians. Four officers and nine enlisted men were also charged with murder. However, most of these charges were dropped and only a few, especially the charges against Calley, made it through to trial. Private Schwartz was sentenced to one year of hard labor, forfeiture of pay allotments, and dishonorable discharge (Wells, p. 114). Calley was found guilty for the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians.

He was later sentenced to life in prison (Gray & Oliver, p. 172). The American public’s reaction to Calley’s conviction was mixed. Many opponents of the war applauded Calley’s conviction. However, many Americans opposed it. “To them Calley was not a monster, but a martyr” (Conway-Lanz, p. 215). President Nixon was among these people. And having gained the sympathy and favor of President Nixon, military authorities were pressured to reduce Calley’s sentence to 20 years, then again to 10 years.

He was later paroled in 1974 (Zinn, p. 86). Officers in his chain of command were charged for various war crimes, but were not found guilty of the charges. Therefore, they were not punished for their role in the My Lai Massacre. Calley’s commanding officer Capt. Ernest Medina was court-martialed, charged with the overall responsibility of the My Lai Massacre. He was later acquitted. Col. Frank Barker, the head of the Task Force was killed in action. Col. Oran Henderson, the brigade commander was charged for dereliction of duty for failing to investigate the incident and to report the massacre to his superior officer.

He was also not found guilty of the charges (Christenson, p. 55-56). In effect, only Lt. Calley was punished for the My Lai Massacre, and then for only 3 years imprisonment. War Crimes Calley allegedly violated The Uniform Code for Military Justice which was in effect at the time of the Vietnam War. This code was a more relaxed application of the Nuremberg rules. He allegedly violated Article 18 of the Uniform Code, which constitutes the crime of murder (Newman & O’Brien, p. 18). The provisions in this code are very much similar to the civil provisions on the commission of the crime of murder.

Based on the decision of the court, Calley committed a premeditated and intentional act of murder. Calley’s defense was that he was just following orders. According to him, his superior officers ordered him to search and destroy the enemies. Calley alleged that, to his mind, the women, children, and other civilians in the villages were the enemies or, at the very least, were in league with the enemies. Therefore, his act of firing on and killing them were a necessary part of the war he was being ordered to fight.

He used the Nuremberg defense of ‘just following orders’ to justify his actions. The initial outcome of the case – his conviction of murder – is correct. Calley murdered the innocent Vietnamese civilians. These civilians were not armed, and they were defenseless. There was no threat to his life and to the lives of his fellow soldiers; therefore there was no valid reason for him to open fire on the civilians. He also committed mass executions on most of these civilians, which clearly indicate the helplessness of the victims and the malice in his intent to kill them.

However, the eventual outcome of the case – the reduction of his sentence – is not correct. His sentence should not have been reduced because it diminishes the crimes committed in My Lai. The reduction of his sentence was done for political purposes to appease public clamor and to defer to the preferences of the President. But the atrocities committed through the My Lai Massacre were not diminished by public clamor. Although warfare can indeed be used to justify killings in wartime, such defense has limits, including “the inadmissibility of killing unarmed noncombatants or prisoners whom one has disarmed” (Newman & O’Brien, p. 18). Calley’s conviction is very much justified, and his conviction should not have been reduced.

Works CitedChristenson, R. (1991) Political Trials in History. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Conway-Lanz, S. (2006) Collateral damage: Americans, noncombatant immunity, and atrocity after World War II. New York: RoutledgeGray, P. & Oliver, K. (2004) The memory of catastrophe. New York: Manchester University PressNewman, D. & O’Brien, J. (2006) Sociology: exploring the architecture of everyday life. California: Pine Forge Press. Olson, J. & Roberts, R. (1998) My Lai: a brief history with documents.

Boston: Palgrave Macmillan. Wells, D. (2005) The United Nations: states vs international laws. USA: Algora PublishingWilkins, B. (1992) Terrorism and collective responsibility. New York: Routledge.Zinn, H. (2002) Postwar America, 1945-1971. Minnesota: Boobs-Merrill