Conservative Christians support U.S. legal defense for war crimes
Regarding the war in Iraq, the U.S. military has prosecuted more than 200 cases against its own personnel for crimes against humanity and the violations of the laws of war, including murder, rape, and kidnapping. Christian conservative groups, in coordination with some veterans associations, have established a grass-roots funding campaign to defend the accused and voice their support. Some of the donations include letters stating that “the bible says” Iraq will always be at war and that “the military’s work is God’s work.”
The groups are claiming that the top military brass are “eating their young” and basing their prosecutions on flimsy evidence. They site the recent dismissal of charges against Lance Corporal Justin Sharatt, who was charged with murder in Haditha in 2005. The groups are using evangelical rhetoric that appears aligned with some of the reasoning used by President Bush to support continued military operations in Iraq. The group www.marinedefensefund.com has stated that “the insurgency has found a new weapon” by accusing U.S. military personnel of war crimes. In addition, spokesmen for the group Military Combat Defense Fund stated that religious conviction drives their grass roots efforts. None of the groups, however, seek assistance for military personnel who have pleaded guilty.
Military records show that there have been many cases involving crimes against humanity and violations of the laws of war in Iraq. U.S. Marines have been accused of murder for 24 Iraqi citizens in the town of Haditha in 2005. In another case, soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division gang raped a 14-year old girl and murdered her and her family. The military is seeking sentences ranging from 100 year sentences to death.
Religious beliefs are the justification for the most violent conflicts in human history. In recent times, both sides in the Iraq war are claiming some moral authority justifies their actions. Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims have been embattled over their beliefs for centuries, while U.S. officials continue with references to the Christian God in their inspirational messages regarding military action in Iraq. An objective analysis would put evangelical beliefs on par with some of the fundamental Islamic groups. The willingness of the U.S. military to examine its own conduct in the court of law, however, suggest there is still of voice of pragmatism in the laws of war.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:18 am
I think there are two things going on here: a political reaction against the demonization of the military, and the annoying inability to separate religion and politics among some on the right. I have no problem with Christians rallying to the defense of those who plead innocent to crimes - that seems perfectly in line with the American idea of “innocent until proven guilty,” and it is a principle of justice I think can be defended on Christian grounds.
The rhetoric these groups are using, however troubles me.
July 24th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Joshua,
Thanks so much for taking the time to offer your comments. It’s great to see some engaging in the discussion! I really appreciate it.
Now, this may be going off on a tangent a little bit, but I see there to be an inability to separate religion and politics period. Granted, it’s most blatant on the right, but I think if an openly agnostic person were to run for political office, they would get run out of town. Why does it have to be a religious issue whether or not people are guilty or innocent of war crimes? Guilt or innocence is a legal matter. I agree that moral and spiritual influences lay the ground work for the norms of society, but when guilt or innocence become a matter of religion - with one side or the other claiming the moral high ground based on that religion - we’re in big trouble. Stating that the military’s work is God’s work is a scary scary thing no matter which God that is.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
[…] Actually, I think it is perfectly natural, even laudable, for Christians to assist in the defense of soldiers who plead not-guilty to war crimes. That would seem perfectly in line with that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing the Founding Fathers were so up on, and is a principle I think is the height of justice. The language these groups are using, however, concerns me—it seems they have fallen into the political debate around the troops, and don’t seem to make a very good distinction between their religious beliefs and the decisions and rhetoric of elected politicians. That’s a problem, and it doesn’t help anyone. […]
June 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Interestingly, there is not widespread Christian support of defendants from American inner cities accused of rape and murder. If the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” backs up the Christian support of soldiers (who are engaged in the moraly suspect career/job of killing people), then surely defendants accused while at home, living there lives in the US deserve support as innocent until proven guilty all the more.