DTCI: Commitment to the rule of law is US’s greatest export

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Christopher Lee DTCIOur convoy departed at 0400 in eight up-armored Humvees, two Ford Rangers and a Mahindra jeep. Heading north, we passed Bagram Airbase and began the ascent up into the Hindu-Kush Mountains. The Afghan summer heat had melted the snow that had blocked passage through the Salang Tunnel at roughly 11,000 feet.

My interpreter, “A.J.”; a JAG officer (and fellow Hoosier), Hal Johnston; and I accompanied a platoon plus in their mission to relieve a similar platoon stationed at the newly constructed regional command just outside of Mazar-i-Sharif. Hal had requested to accompany me with the infantry platoon in armored guntrucks.

In the fall, five months earlier and before the snow, the infantry platoon we were traveling to replace had a “small” traffic accident. Even a small accident with an up-armored Humvee can, and did, cause injury to a passenger in an Afghan civilian vehicle. Wisely, the platoon leader had taken a picture of the injured passenger and saved the GPS coordinates of the accident. He also reported to me and the rest of the command that the accident was indeed the fault of the U.S. Army.

As we reached the coordinates, we pulled our convoy off the dirt road, set security and started our search for the victim who had been injured five months previously. A.J., in perfect Dari, showed the picture to several locals who replied that they knew the gentleman and would go and bring him to us immediately. Three hours later a small, frail, very nervous man matching the picture emerged from the back of a beat-up white and yellow Toyota Corolla. As we approached the Afghan who had been summoned by the Americans, I noticed that he was shaking … with fear.

At the time, in Afghanistan, “fault” and “responsibility” had a very different meaning from what we understand in the United States. If the other driver was an employee, distant relative or friend of a warlord, the accident was your fault. There were no juries, lawyers or fact finders. Facts of the accident did not matter. What mattered was your position, status or relationship.

To this poor Afghan who had been hit by a U.S. Humvee five months previously, the Americans were the warlords. In his mind, we certainly had returned to find him and recover from him, and his village, the damage he had done to our Humvee.

I asked the man through A.J., “Were you involved in an accident with U.S. troops last fall?” The man shook with fear so much that the other Afghans around him propped him up so he would not fall. He nodded affirmatively.

Hal, the JAG officer, stepped forward and said, “I have come here on behalf of the United States.” The Afghan’s face was pale, and he clearly anticipated that Hal’s next words would reveal his fate. Instead, Hal reached into his field expedient briefcase and pulled out a handful of Afghan money.

“We are here to make it right.” As Hal counted off the payment into the shaking and dirty Afghan hand, I saw a face I will never forget. On the bearded and weathered Afghan, whose eyes were now tearing in disbelief, I witnessed the face of justice. At that moment, we were no longer tyrants. We were there to ensure justice was served. This Afghan, and his entire village, stared in disbelief. Revealed to them, for the first time, were the warlords taking responsibility and attempting to provide justice.

The United States shines like a beacon of light to the world – not just because we possess the most capable military in the history of mankind – because each American is accountable to laws that are equally enforced and independently adjudicated. The adoption of the rule of law into the American way of life is distinct and envied by much of the world. Certainty in the application of laws, impartial procedure and an independently determined outcome assure liberty and are necessary ingredients in a free society. As Americans, we too often take for granted the vital and necessary role the American approach to the rule of law plays in maintaining the American way of life. Americans, and more specifically attorneys, should guard no differently against an executive that picks and chooses which laws to enforce, than against a judiciary that inconsistently applies our laws. Truly, the single greatest quality the United States can export is our commitment to the rule of law.•


Christopher Lee is a partner in Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn and is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions in this article are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.