Ignorance of the Law

Back in the old days, when the USA was just another heathenistic, secular humanist deomocracy, it wasn't an excuse...but now, it's a justification for actions resulting in the death of at least one prisoner in Iraq on the foreign side--and, hitting closer to home, it's just as effective when it comes to creditors and their grubby fingers.

From the first article:

...they determined the soldier involved had not been well informed of the rules of engagement.

That's setting the bar awfully low, if you ask me. Yeah, I'm aware that the 'all-volunteer' military sometimes forces them towards the duller knives, but I didn't think it was all that difficult to provide these less-than-stellar individuals with a skill set that includes the ability to recognize, say, friend from foe, or armed combatant from surrendered soon-to-be-prisoner-of-war (not to mention that POW's should as a rule be treated humanely--if nothing else, you do that as a safeguard).

I read somewhere--sorry, but I don't have the link--that the US refusal to sign on to the International Criminal Court was precisely for situations like this. Interesting...

Oh--and here's another interesting story--a North Carolina representative is sponsoring a resolution requesting that no charges be filed against a US Marine who shot two fleeing Iraqis (who turned out to be unarmed) during the first assault on Fallujah. To be honest, I don't know if prosecuting the Marine would solve anything anyway...who, in his position, WOULDN'T be a little quick on the trigger? On the other hand, the two Iraqis WERE shot in the back...thus showing that this war has really degenerated down to levels of ugly that no one wants to think about too much--no wonder coverage has been scaled back so drastically.

But, back (no pun intended) to the 'ignorance of the law' theme--but on this side of the globe:

The problem, most military law specialists say, is that too many lenders, debt collectors, landlords, lawyers and judges are unaware of the federal statute or do not fully understand it.

The law, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, protects all active-duty military families from foreclosures, evictions and other financial consequences of military service. The Supreme Court has ruled that its provisions must "be liberally construed to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation."

Since this was picked up by Atrios, you've probably seen it already. But, for anyone who doesn't have a Times account, here are a few more excerpts:

The relief act provides a broad spectrum of protections to service members, their spouses and their dependents. The interest rate on debts incurred before enlistment, for example, must be capped at 6 percent if military duty has reduced a service member's family income.

The law also protects service members from repossession or foreclosure without a court order. It allows them to terminate any real estate lease when their military orders require them to do so. And it forbids judges from holding service members in default on any legal matter unless the court has first appointed a lawyer to protect their interests.

The law is an updated version of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, which was adopted on the eve of World War II and remained largely unchanged through the Persian Gulf war of 1991. But in July 2001, a federal court ruled that service members could sue violators of the relief act for damages. And the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 prompted Congress to take up a long-deferred Pentagon proposal to update the old act. The revised statute, clearer and more protective than the old one, was signed into law in December 2003.

"There are 50,000 judges in this country and God knows how many lawyers," said Alexander P. White, a county court judge in Chicago and the chairman of one of the American Bar Association's military law committees. "Are people falling down on the job - the judges, the bar, the military? Probably." And broad understanding of the law "is not going to happen overnight."

Military lawyers, credit industry organizations and some state courts and bar associations have also tried to spread the word about the new law. But these efforts are not enough, said Col. John S. Odom Jr., retired, of Shreveport, La., who is a specialist on the act. "What we need is a way to reach Joe Bagadoughnuts in Wherever, Louisiana," he said. "Because that's where these cases are turning up."

One reason they are surfacing in unlikely places is the Pentagon's increased reliance on Reserve and National Guard units that do not hail from traditional military towns, said Lt. Col. Barry Bernstein, the judge advocate general for the South Carolina National Guard. When these units are called up, he said, their members find themselves facing creditors and courts that may never have dealt with the relief act.

Now, I hate to get cynical, but stop and think about it: soldiers are being sent off to a particularly ugly war--a war where killing unarmed civilians is now considered an acceptable practice (true, insurgents generally don't wear uniforms or other identifying material). If prisoners--who, as we now know, are being abused (or tortured), die in custody, then it's probably ok, especially if you're knowledge of regulations is a little hazy. However, regardless of how liberal (no pun intended) the rules of engagement are, war is still something that, to put it mildly, can stress the hell out of you (after all, one IED can really change your life forever). Add to this the very real possibility of the system screwing up and the bank forclosing on your house, or repossessing your car--and add to THIS the appalling cuts in veterans benefits...

The odds of someone "going postal" are, sadly, quite good. Maybe THAT'S what we should really worry about (note: the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City tragedy is not quite a month away).