Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T05:23:36.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Military Honor After Mylai

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2018

Wilson Carey McWilliams  and
Henry Plotkin
Get access

Extract

There was more than one crime involved in the tragedy of Mylai. Behind the immediate facts of the massacre lie a host of charges which ultimately amount to an indictment of America as a political society. Since we are prosecutors as well as defendants, we have been tempted to drop the charges and to lower the voice of outrage to a timorous whisper. But that murmur will be insistent and eventually maddening; nations, as well as individuals, can be pursued by the Furies. The accusations must be taken up and examined, for they reflect an inescapable crisis in our political life which taints the present and threatens the future.

Type
Research Article
Information
Worldview , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 39 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Garrison vs. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 1964.

2. See Lowi, Theodore J., The End of Liberalism (New York: Norton, 1969), pp. 158-188.Google Scholar

3. Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, ch. XIV, sect. 160.

4. Jackson, Robert, “The Significance of the Nuremberg Trials to the Armed Forces,” Military Affairs, X (1946), pp. 3-15 Google Scholar.

5. On the whole issue, see Moore, John N. in Richard Falk, ed., The Vietnam War and International Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968) I, p. 1069 Google Scholar; Ferencz, Benjamin, “War Crimes Law and the Vietnamese War,” American University Law Review, XVII (1968), pp. 403ffGoogle Scholar.; Taylor, Telford, Nuremberg and Vietnam (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1970), p. 103 Google Scholar; and McWilliams, Wilson C, review of Ralph Stavins, et al., Washington Plans an Aggressive War (New York: Vintage, 1971 Google Scholar) in New York Times Book Review, Sept, 26, 1971, pp. 5ff.

6. Commonweal, “The Dissent Ahead,” LXXXVI (1967), p. 252.

7. Fallc, op. cit., II, p. 240; Taylor, op. cit., pp. 133-137, 170-171.

8. Thornton Read, “Nuclear Strategy,” in Lanyi, George and McWilliams, Wilson C., eds., Crisis and Continuity in World Politics (New York: Random & House, 1969), pp. 160-261.Google Scholar

9. Taylor, op. cit., p. 128.

10. See Bennett, John C., ed., Nuclear Weapons and the Conflict of Conscience (New York: Scribner's, 1962), p. 102 Google Scholar.

11. Taylor, op. cit., p. 143.

12. Sheehan, Neil, “Should We Have War Crimes Trials?,” New York Times Book Review, March 28, 1971, p. 30 Google Scholar.

13. Ibid., p. 2.

14. Leonard, R. A., ed., A Short Guide to Clausewitz on War (New York: Putnam, 1967), pp. 201-202, 204-207, 211-222.Google Scholar

15. Lowi, op. cit., p. 180.

16. Stephen, James Fitzjames, A History of the Criminal Law of England (London; Macmillan, 1883), II, p. 205.Google Scholar

17. Dinstein, Yoram, The Defense of “Obedience to Superior Orders' in International Law (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1965), pp. 8, 9, 26-37;Google Scholar Redish, Martin, “Military Law; Nuremberg Rule of Superior Orders,” Harvard International Law Journal, IX (1968), p. 169 Google Scholar.

18. McWilliams, Wilson C., “On Violence and Legitimacy,” Yale Law Journal, LXXIX (1970), pp. 623-646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. Sheehan, op. cit., p. 31.

20. General Ridgeway, Matthew, “The Ordeal of the Army,” New York Times, April 2, 1971, p. 39 Google Scholar.

21. Just, Ward, Military Men (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 26, 45.Google Scholar

22. Ibid., p. 29.

23. Speier, Hans, Social Order and the Risks of War (New York: George Stewart, 1952), pp. 26-52, 271.Google Scholar