|
|
<< Dean is Optimistic | Main | What Would Jesus Drink? >> December 26, 2003The Fog of WarI saw the documentary The Fog of War and was fascinated that Robert McNamara referred to himself as a war criminal, NOT in regard to Vietnam, where his self-judgment was somewhat ambiguous, but about his role in World War II. Back then, he was on the statistical team that helped plan the bombings of Japanese cities, which led to the total devastation of most of them and over 300,000 civilian deaths; Hiroshima was in many ways a sideline to the much broader conventional firebombing of their cities. And McNamara noted his role as war criminal would only have come if the US had lost the war. With US victory, World War II recedes into memory as the "Good War" where the deliberate US mass murder of German and Japanese civilians is obscured. Saddam Hussein is an evil guy, but given our military support for him during the time he was murdering Iranians and many of his own people, the US is hardly in the position to sit in single judgment. War crimes tribunals should be drawn from multiple countries for a simple reason. No nation has the legitimacy to judge another, given the taint on all countries, so the best we can hope for is that in drawing on judges from multiple nations, we can draw on the best of traditions from around the globe. Any single country imposing a judicial verdict, as the US appears ready to do in Iraq, merely accentuates its own historic hypocrisy. The US killed millions of Vietnamese in a country not our own. Who are we to sit in single judgment on Hussein's murders or Kurds or others in Iraq? Posted by Nathan at December 26, 2003 02:58 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI saw this movie at the Twin Cities "Get Real" documentary film festival. Very interesting movie. I was struck by how much McNamara reminded me of Donald Rumsfield. I wonder if Rumsfield will be as contrite in his old age. I didn't grow up in the 1960s, so I didn't know much about McNamara. I was struck by how wide-reaching his career was, as well as destructive. The way the questions were asked really made me feel like the interviewer hated McNamara. He seemed to be yelling at him. If that's the case, I really respect McNamara for sitting there in the face of such tough questions. Following "The Fog of War", the next movie was a short about global trade which I think you would enjoy, Nathan. It's called "The Luckiest Nut in the World" and uses nuts to illustrate the problems and benefits of globalization. Ironically, one of the first images was McNamara getting off a World Bank plane. Posted by: Luke Francl at December 26, 2003 04:35 PM So it's bad if one tainted nation tries another, but if a group of tainted nations get together and do it, it's okay? Doesn't make much sense to me. Posted by: Josiah at December 27, 2003 11:34 PM Nathan writes "Who are we to sit in single judgment on Hussein's murders or Kurds or others in Iraq?" It won't be us. It will be the Iraqis. Posted by: Mike Brown at December 29, 2003 03:22 PM Unless the trial waits until the Iraqis have full elections, debate and appointment of judges, etc., "the Iraqis" judging Hussein will be de facto picked by the US. So using proxies doesn't escape the problem of taint. Posted by: Nathan Newman at December 29, 2003 03:31 PM Should that be the case, and our fingerprints are all over the jury, Saddam stands a considerably better chance at getting a fair trial. If, however, the Iraqis are capable of running their own country now and (as many say) we should get out, then the Iraqis are certainly capable of putting Saddam on trial, applying whatever standards they deem best. Is that better? Posted by: Michael Brown at December 30, 2003 04:50 PM Michael, A pre-trial verdict which voids any pretense we can make that we will give Saddam a fair trial. I haven't seen any media coverage that indicates anything but a show trial...the debate seems to be mainly who gets a cut of him, where, and how to keep our dirty laundry under wraps while using the trial to maximum political effect. But whatever, I think Saddam Hussein is a distraction from the civil war that's slowly building in Iraq. And his trial, fair or not, would be a farce in the face of that. Posted by: Patrick (G) at December 31, 2003 01:01 PM There is simply no legal basis for handing over for trial an American prisoner of war to an agency of a non-sovereign country, which is what the IGC is. The notion of a "fair trial" by Iraq is therefore mute. The U.S. would essentially be handing Saddam over to itself. This would reduce any subsequent proceeding to nothing more than a show trial. Of course, this is exactly what the administration needs. There is simply too much evidence that would be laid out by a proper defense, and while this might not be sufficient to exhonerate, it would certainly be mitigating. This could produce perhaps the worst possible outcome for the administration; exposure of the heavy-hand of U.S.-Saddam complicity and a guilty verdict without the death penalty. An intollerable result as the administrastion faces re-election. Posted by: Benedict@Large at January 1, 2004 10:26 AM I think Nathan confuses the guilt of individuals and the guilt of nations. When Saddam is tried, Iraq will not be on trial. Whether or not the US government through its elected representatives made morally questionale decisions, or even committed war crimes, does not make a person like Saddam any less guilty. To be consistant, maybe McNamara should be prosecuted as well, but I can still sit in judgement of Saddam. Posted by: mrkmyr at January 7, 2004 02:51 PM With all respect to the People of the USA, and itīs military forces where ever they may be, i think the prescent state of the USA can be summed up with "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." First off, the US People: In manys eyes the US population is loud, overbearing and holier-than-thou. That is because of an unfortunate fact that "Empty cans rattle the most". In other words, itīs the morons with stupid opinions that shout the most, thereby silencing out the main group of logicaly discussing adults that is the large group of the US People. If you can find a solution to that problem, you will not only have made your own country a better place, but done a huge favour to the entire humanity. Second, the US Military: It is with respect and a certain admiration i salute the US troops stationed around the world. Now donīt get me wrong, i do not think the US military has anything to do all over the world any more, but that is a political desission more than a military one. From raw recruit up to large unit commanders i respect your skill and determination to do a job you have trained long and well for. Generals and up are a different thing though. They smell and act more like politicians than military people, being more interested in rubbing backs and earning favours than looking after their troops. (With a few good exceptions.) Third, the US Goverment: Oh boy, here is where it realy takes a horrible wrong turn. From everything i see and read the US Goverment is nothing but a bunch of self-serving leaches with 95% of the politicans giving the remaing 5% a bad reputation. If you look at it, it was the US Goverment that has cause some of the worst warlord dictators to come to power, all in the name of fighting Communism, and it is all coming back to take a huge chew out of the US collective @ss and then blow up in a very spectacular way. The biggest problem is the US inability to admit that you (The Goverment) screwed up in a magnificent way, even admitance that you (Againt the Goverment)made a few wrong calls is like prying out teeths with a plyer. And there you have the reason why so many are disliking USA these days. We see you doing wrong, we see you making right decisions for the wrong reasons and the other way around, and still your Goverment goes on like it can do nothing wrong, like your allies never do anything wrong. To close this of i would just like to state that i have nothing against the American people, and i have respect for the US military. It is your Goverment that is causing the problem, and you,(The People) need to deal with it soon before a real wack-job gather enough political backscratchers to get into the oval office and causes a dissaster. Donīt think it can happen? Remember that Hitler was elected too, and made his way to power by chance and the support of a few very wealthy businessmen and bankers. Hereīs hoping for a better future for us all. Yours Truly Neutral-View (And pardon any spelling errors. English is not my main language, and iīm a bit rusty on the spelling.) Posted by: Neutral_View at January 12, 2004 08:34 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|