Not many know that I was in the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps as an attorney from 1970 to 1974. Someday, I will tell that whole story, but for this Post, suffice it to say that I speak from first-hand knowledge, and not out of my ass.
I was reading this article a few moments ago and suddenly realized that it illustrates a modern-day application of the old "mere Gook" defense that used to crop up all the time in 'Nam era defenses. The crime is mitigated by the categorization of the victim. In the 1970's era, there is no doubt that the military "justice" system tacitly recognized the "mere Gook" defense. In retrospect, I'm not ashamed to say that if I was defending some Yahoo from Kansas (or New York to be fair) who had gotten all hot an bothered in a bar and blown away a Vietnamese citizen, I would at least try to mitigate the sentence, if not defend against the charges with the the mere Gook defense. I did not feel good about it by any means, but my sworn oath was to defend my client. Later, when I prosecuted, I vigorously pointed out that my "slimy opponent" had the audacity to even give the light of day to such a racist defense as the mere Gook defense.
Anyway, after reading the linked article above, it's clear to me that things don't change a bit. Now we have the "mere Irqai" defense, but what makes it worse is that it's being institutionalized and invoked not by fucked-up 18 year olds who were drafted in the 'Nam conflict, but by cold-hearted killers who are getting their rocks off on this whole scene. Shame on them and everyone involved.
My 2 cents worth...
Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment