FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The Face of the Modern War Criminal

I read with interest Ron Jacobs’ recent piece in CouterPunch, A Conspiracy to Kill Iraqis?  His analysis of modern warfare and the near inevitability of civilian casualties for some reason dragged my memory back to my first year of law school, and the famous battery case, Garrett vs. Dailey, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955), a standard included in virtually all first-year torts casebooks.  In Garrett, a five-year-old boy (Dailey) pulled a chair away from Garrett, and elderly, arthritic woman, just before she sat down.  Garrett fell and suffered injuries, including a broken hip.  Garrett sued Dailey for battery, and the case eventually found its way to the Supreme Court of Washington.

The court in Garrett grappled with the definition of battery and how that definition would apply to these facts.  Essentially, battery is defined as any intentional harmful or offensive contact for which there is no consent or other legally recognized justification.  The court focused in the issue of intent, holding that a person is liable for battery if he or she knows with substantial certainty that his or her actions will produce a harmful or offensive contact.  The Supreme Court of Washington remanded the matter to the trial court for review based on its guidance, and the trial court subsequently awarded damages for the plaintiff, Garrett.   The approach to civil battery utilized by the court in Garrett is almost universally applied in U.S. jurisdictions today.

Garrett was a civil case, though criminal law provides an analogous analysis.  The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code (MPC) offers four levels of mens rea, or mental culpability, to analyze potential crimes:  purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently (there is also a fifth level, strict liability, which requires no guilty mental state).  The MPC is not itself law, but is offered as a model to states.  Many states have adopted provisions of the MPC.  As an example of how this mental culpability analysis works, the MPC provides

§ 210.2. Murder.

Except as provided in Section 210.3(1)(b), criminal homicide constitutes murder when:

(a) it is committed purposely or knowingly; or
(b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary,  kidnapping or felonious escape.

MPC § 210.2.

Under the MPC one acts purposely when one acts desiring a particular outcome.  One acts knowingly when one acts knowing with practical certainty that a particular outcome will result (it is not necessary to desire or hope for the particular result – knowledge with practical certainty is enough).

How does this analysis relate to Ron Jacobs’ Conspiracy to Kill Iraqis?  Paraphrasing Howard Zinn from his book, Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal, Jacobs writes:

Since killing civilians is inevitable in modern warfare it cannot be called an accident.  Bombers and helicopter pilots don’t necessarily intend to kill civilians, but when they attack villages and crowded city streets they know that civilians will be killed. When soldiers and Marines on the ground cannot tell the difference between a civilian and an insurgent and are told to clear an area, they will kill civilians. This killing may not be deliberate, but it is not an accident.

The civil and criminal legal analysis almost begs to be applied here.  Clearly, under the tort (civil) standard, bombers and pilots act with substantial certainty that their actions will cause the death of civilians.  Similarly, in the criminal context, under the MPC, these actions are taken with practical certainty that civilians will die.

Naturally, those who attempt to justify modern wars will proudly assert the righteousness of the cause and the great intentions of those prosecuting the wars.  Yet, when wars are justified by trumped up charges, bogus claims, and fabricated evidence, this line falls to the ground like poor Ms. Garrett, her chair pulled unceremoniously from under her.

Not so incidentally, the MPC defines criminal conspiracy as follows:

§ 5.03. Criminal Conspiracy.

(1) Definition of Conspiracy. A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
(b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.

MPC § 5.03.

I wonder who might fall into the category of co-conspirator for the murder of civilians in this context?    Who has agreed with others to commit such crimes, or solicited others to commit such crimes?  Just off the top of my head, a few names come to mind….

DAVID W. REMINGTON, J.D., a former law professor, works as legal counsel in private industry in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
December 05, 2019
Colin Todhunter
Don’t Look, Don’t See: Time for Honest Media Reporting on Impacts of Pesticides
Nick Pemberton
Gen Z and Free Speech
Bob Lord
The U-Turn That Made America Staggeringly Unequal
Josh White
The Most Important Election in British History
Daniel Warner
The Hillsborough Soccer Tragedy: Who is Responsible?
Dean Baker
The Big Deal in Warren’s Prescription Drug Plan
George Ochenski
Another Utility Disaster Headed Our Way
Binoy Kampmark
Spying on Assange: the Spanish Case Takes a Turn
Victor Grossman
Big Rallies and Big Differences in Germany
L. Ali Khan
A Playboy Misrules Pakistan
William J. Astore
How American Exceptionalism is Killing the Planet
Susie Day
The Mad Activist Impeaches Western Culture
Andrés Castro
Look Out for the Drift
December 04, 2019
Jefferson Morley
RIP Fred Hampton: a Black Visionary Assassinated by the FBI
Vijay Prashad
Wealthy Countries’ Approach to Climate Change Condemns Hundreds of Millions of People to Suffer
Kenneth Surin
The Tory Election “Campaign” to Date
Maria Paez Victor
Indians Shall Not Govern
Peter Lackowski
Bolivia’s Five Hundred-Year Rebellion
Dave Lindorff
Billionaire Entitlement Run Amok: the Case of Michael Bloomberg
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Is Corbyn for Christmas Just Another Stove Pipe-Dream?
Howard Lisnoff
Elizabeth Warren: Savior of a Fallen System?
Robert Fisk
The Remembrance Poppy is Becoming a Weapon Against Immigrants to Canada
Dean Baker
NAFTA was About Redistributing Wealth Upwards
Richard Greeman
French Unions and Yellow Vests Converge, Launch General Strike
Binoy Kampmark
Legitimised Surveillance: Kim Dotcom’s Case Against GCSB
Walter Clemens
Goodbye Law and Morality, Welcome Pretend Tough!
Sam Pizzigati
Football Without Billionaires? Why Not?
Anthony Giattino
Royal Forests of America
December 03, 2019
Richard Lachmann
Can the US Get Out of Its Endless Wars?
Ramzy Baroud
Israel’s Unfinished ‘Coup’
David Rosen
The Dialectics of Postmodern Sexual Identity
Robert Fisk
Reporting Syria: I Talked to Everyone, Except Assad
Patrick Cockburn
Why the Resignation of Iraq’s Prime Minister May Not Stop the Mass Uprising on the Horizon
Norman Solomon
For Corporate Media, It’s ‘Anybody But Sanders or Warren’
Bob Scofield
Uruguay Turns to the Right
Joe Emersberger
Talking About Ecuador’s Political Prisoners: an Interview With Marcela Aguiñaga
Medea Benjamin
Trump Was Right: NATO Should Be Obsolete
Nyla Ali Khan
Lesson in Diplomacy for India’s Consul General Sandeep Chakravorty
William Gudal
The Bubble Machine
Gaither Stewart
Dirty Hands
Peter Certo
End the Wars, Win the Antiwar Vote
Binoy Kampmark
The Liveris Formula: Dow’s Inclusive Capitalism
Dan Bacher
California Freezes New Fracking Permits – But All Oil Drilling Permits Still Outpace 2018
Kay Sather
Can’t Get No Satisfaction?
December 02, 2019
Rob Urie
Ukraine, the New Cold War and the Politics of Impeachment
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail