Importance of Accountability in the U.S. Military

Military Accountability

The importance of accountability in the United States' military has come under fire in recent weeks with the appearance of accusations that American soldiers have tortured and abused Iraqi captives at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. While accusations of military misconduct are not new, the abuses in Abu Ghraib have ignited a great deal of discussion about the accountability of the U.S. military. The U.S. Army has already made recommendations to discipline lower-ranking officers and Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the officer in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison. Taken together, these recommendations show that the U.S. military is holding itself accountable for abuses according to the Geneva conventions. Such accountability is essential in maintaining the moral credibility of the actions of the U.S. military, as well as ensuring that the military acts in accordance with the principles of democracy.

In the past weeks, American soldiers have been accused of a number of abuses against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These abuses have been illustrated by a number of published pictures showing American soldiers laughing, and pointing at naked Iraqi prisoners. In one photo, an Iraqi prisoner appears standing on a chair, with what appear to be electrodes attached to his body. Other reports of anal penetration with objects have also appeared in the press.

Accusations of military misconduct in the U.S. military are not new. For example, U.S. soldiers have been accused of killing hundreds of Korean civilians during the Korean War. Further, in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, U.S. military personnel were accused of killing Vietnamese civilians. These actions directly violate humanitarian law that prohibit attacks against civilians in times of war (Aceves).

Accountability in the military can take the form of either personal accountability for individual acts, or accountability for orders issued from high ranking officials. Interestingly, Aceves writes that if "an accused person committed atrocities pursuant to a superior order does not necessarily relieve the individual of criminal responsibility." In essence, this means that individual soldiers can be held responsible for their actions, regardless of the fact that the order was issued by a superior officer. The individual soldier in this case is assessed as to whether they "had an honest and reasonable belief in the legality of the order" (Aceves).

In the case of the controversy surrounding the actions of the U.S. military in Iraq, a great deal of the focus on accountability has been in trying to determine who was responsible for the torture and mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. Recently, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski has been temporarily suspended from her command of the 800th Military Police Brigade. Brig. Gen. Karpinski has been accused by Army investigators for "paying too little attention to day-to-day operations of the Abu Ghraib prison and for not moving firmly enough to discipline soldiers for violating standard procedures" at Abu Ghraib prison. In addition, Spc. Jeremy Sivits (on of seven members of the 372nd Military Police Company that have been charged) has been given the maximum penalty in a first-class court martial stemming from the abuses at Abu Ghraib (CNN.com).

Important in this discussion of accountability is the adherence of the U.S. military to requirements of the Geneva conventions, which provide protections for the basic rights of war and civilian prisoners in times of armed conflict. In accepting the Geneva Conventions as models of conduct, the U.S. military then implicitly agrees to be bound by these rules. As such, any violations of the Geneva Conventions must be dealt with by the U.S. military. In this sense, the U.S. military is then held accountable to the protections outlined within the Geneva Conventions.