Saw this online this morning, and I think it's a perspective that many, including the prosecution, lack.
Quote
During the 20+ years of my military career, I was part of several operations that resulted in the taking of prisoners. Some of these events occurred during war, some were part of law enforcement operations. Prior to those deployments -- and during -- we were given extensive training on the care and handling of prisoners. US law, military law and regulation, and international law is pretty damn specific about your responsibilities as captors. While the US military has a mixed record when it comes to this sort of thing -- especially in recent conflicts -- the units I served with were commanded by men who took the responsibilities of law VERY seriously indeed. And so, no matter circumstances or the captives, so did we. It's always about leadership. While some of those prisoners were just people in the wrong place at the wrong time, others were captured while actively trying to kill us. And, you know, in those cases, it's not always easy to live up the ideals of those who wrote the law. But we did. In EVERY case.
Because, and this is the important part, so pay attention, those captives were OUR responsibility. As prisoners, we had taken from them the right of self determination. They could NOT be responsible for themselves. Fundamentally, that's what being a prisoner IS. Due to the nature of the mission, we might have to hold those prisoners for several days. As such, it was our responsibility to provide shelter, food, water, medical care, hygiene, safety and protection, until they could be remanded over to other authority. The law is clear on this, ours and the international authority we as a nation have agreed to abide by. This is why so many of us in uniform were outraged by what happened at Abu Ghraib. Why ALL of us are outraged by the horrible treatment of prisoners in foreign nations. As the captor, YOU are responsible for the well being of the prisoners in your custody. YOU. And your chain of command. Period. No exceptions. And either this is a fundamental truth of our civilization or we're no better than the enemies we despise.
This is the failure of the Derek Chauvin trial. As a sworn representative of authority, Chauvin took George Floyd prisoner. At that point, Floyd -- NO MATTER HIS ALLEGED CRIME -- was no longer capable of self determination. The moment Officer Chauvin placed Floyd under arrest, Floyd's well being was the responsibility of the state. If *I* as a member of the US military had knelt on a captive, denied him medical attention to the point that he died, I would have been court martialed. If I had stood by, while another member of my team restrained a prisoner and denied him medical attention to the point that he died, I would have been court martialed. The difference, of course, is that in the military we don't accept excuses for dereliction of duty.
And that's what this trial is: one long list of excuses. Excuses of why a police officer SWORN to protect and serve should be allowed to summarily execute a prisoner, an American citizen, in his custody and get away with it. If Chauvin as part of the US military had taken Floyd prisoner in a war zone or during, say, counternarcotics operations on the high seas, there would be NO question of Chauvin's responsibility. If Chauvin had been an Iranian Revolutionary Guard who had taken prisoner one of those American sailors who'd come adrift in the Gulf a few years back and knelt on HIS neck until death, instead of treating the Americans in accordance with the law, we would have gone to war.
But as a cop on the streets of America? And that's the problem. RIGHT there. In far too many jurisdictions, the police have all the authority and NONE of the responsibility.
This post was edited by Surfpunk on Apr 8 2021 08:06am