« We Refuse To Learn | Main | Press the Meat »
July 23, 2006
The United States of America v. Osama bin Laden
(Posted by John.)
Alan Dershowitz, for the defense:
There is a vast difference — both moral and legal — between a 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are technically civilians, but the former is far more innocent than the latter. There is also a difference between a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism.
Finally, there is a difference between civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.
Osama bin Laden, April 27 2006: ("Bin Laden calls for attacks on civilians" was a common headline.)
Furthermore, I say this war is a joint responsibility between the people and the government. War continues and the people [are] renewing their allegiance to their rulers and politicians sending their sons to armies to fight us, and continuing the moral and financial support while our countries are being burned, our houses bombed, our people killed and no one cares about us....
Someone in the Israeli foreign service might want to put a phone call in to Mr. Dershowitz' office. This kind of help, they don't need. It's pretty much the only rule of war we have left that attacks on civilians are to be avoided, not rationalized.
July 23, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
It's hard to be beyond the monstrosity of reasoning here, but there is something else I'd like to bring up.
Suppose the truly innocent civilians heed the warnings and flee their town before it is bombed. That still means that the bombing has displaced thousands of people, and destroyed the homes & businesses left behind.
Kinda like what hurricanes do, which is why we don't like them.
Posted by: Grumpy | Jul 23, 2006 1:16:05 PM
Isn't the term for forcing large groups of people out of an area through force and threats of force "ethnic cleansing"?
Posted by: Christmas | Jul 23, 2006 1:43:47 PM
"It's pretty much the only rule of war we have left that attacks on civilians are to be avoided, not rationalized."
When "civilians" are allowing their home and property to be used for the housing of terrorists and the launching of rockets they are no longer "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" (Geneva Convention 1949 - article 3).
While I think that the rule of war is worthwhile in its idealism, it doesn't represent the reality of the battlefield. I can reference no conflicts -- not one -- that are currently going on (or in the past for that matter) where civilians are not standard casualties of war. Can you?
Certainly none of the conflicts with Islamic Fundamentalists because they show no heed of either the Geneva convention nor the value of life.
In battles of the "little guy" vs. the state (call them insurrectionists, freedom fighters, insurgents, or terrorists), the approach that allows them to have some level of success is the ability to plan an attack in secret, execute the attack, and then fade back into the civilian background. This creates no small amount of conflict between the need to eliminate this type of threat and the desire to minimize actual civilian casualties.
Posted by: m | Jul 23, 2006 1:58:29 PM
Really this 'rule' of war has to do with our confidence in our ability to conquer any given enemy. Since we have a military that can vastly overpower most of enemies we have the luxury to pick and choose those we wish to target, and the populace has the luxury to demand that we do so. If were in a real fight for our survival much as we were in WWII whole nations would be valid targets.
Dont misunderstand me, war sucks ass, and I dont want to wage it or have it waged upon my country. But if a country is at war, that includes its citizens. If the citizens of that country dont want to fight they need to do something about ending it.
Especially in a country like the US, we cant vote for our leaders, vote for their policies, have them declare wars and then claim no responsibility. If our enemies come to attck our cities, then we earned it.
..and ethnic cleansing isnt about warning civilian populations to leave before a military strike. Thats called an honorable warning. Ethnic cleansing is much more evil. When used in the Bosnian conflict and some places in Afrika it usually involves:
1. burning people or running people out of their homes at the point of a gun.
2. murdering the males, especially the young.
3. raping the women in order to impregnate them or keep them from having children.
All intended to kill of or 'cleanse' the world of a given ethnicity, not just move them. ..its vile and disgusting and it shouldnt be a term that is used lightly.
Posted by: david b | Jul 23, 2006 3:56:41 PM
It's funny- I thougt the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war were about us, not them, but according to m, they are about what the enemy is willing to do. Interesting. I guess I will have to rethink the whole moral part of the debate in favor of an ethicis of circumstances.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 23, 2006 5:53:29 PM
Dershowitz presumably isn't vile just for the sake of it. He rationally seeks opportunities to erode encumbering moral strictures. The opportunities are presented mostly by the changing contours of elite opinion. Where the political class permits him to push the boundaries of what's acceptable, he will. That's what agents of cultural & moral change do.
In the past, he's been a fairly good judge of the political class's toleration for the erosion of traditional moral restraints.
The question now is whether elite opinion will regard his comments on the killing of civilians as beyond the pale - like Ward Churchill or perhaps Noam Chomsky - or will permit him to convert the formerly unsayable into the merely controversial, the merely thought-provoking, & then the routine.
People say ugly things all the time. The political culture's response is the index of its moral hygiene.
Posted by: KH | Jul 23, 2006 5:55:07 PM
I suppose that a civilian that willingly allows the storage of war material on his/her property, or that willingly gives shelter to soldiers could be considered fair game.
I'm glad that we are able to know with certainty that all of the the civilian deaths that have occured in this situation were the result of people who willingly gave shelter to either Hezbollah men or materiel.
It's funny- I thougt the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war were about us, not them, but according to m, they are about what the enemy is willing to do. Interesting. I guess I will have to rethink the whole moral part of the debate in favor of an ethicis of circumstances.
This is fascinating. The letters to the editor of the Kansas City Star have shown the shift that you are describing, especially with the recent court case regarding the death penalty in Missouri.
The people of the heartland are thirsty for vengeance, for pain that is inflicted upon criminals and "enemy combatants" that is equal to or even greater than that which they inflicted upon their victims. The letters chafe at the restrictions under which the state operates, restrictions that until recently I thought were merely assumed to be part of what it means to live in a rational, civilized society.
Because they have committed a crime or an act of war, we are apparently free to act in exactly the same manner, with exactly the same disregard for our laws or the rights of those we term "collateral damage" or "lamentable side-effects," to use Tony Snow's delightful turn of phrase.
I expect that criminals and terrorists will act outside the boundaries of law and civilized society. That so many of my neighbors, people who by all appearances are law-abiding and peaceful, would wish to adopt the same tactics out of their thirst for revenge, scares me. If all of society casts aside the rule of law and moral boundaries, no one is safe.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 23, 2006 6:51:16 PM
Stephen
I am no longer shocked by what Americans (my people) think on anything. Show them a Wallmart sell, and then moral values themselves can be up for sell. the only thing that annoys me at this point is to realize that some of those pesky political scientists were right whom I used to deride. Their claim was that if you have a comfortable enough population in a democracy, then you can do anything so long as the population continues to feel comfortable. You can even stop having a democracy. In other words, it's not just about vengenance. It's about wanting to shop without thinking. Which maybe a little bit more scary because it says we can be bought for the right price- and apparenlty we are willing to sell ourselves- including our values for the right price.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 23, 2006 8:00:16 PM
akaison,
This has come up quite a bit in my theological studies as well. There are many theologians who believe that the current sorry state of affairs in the Church is due to the level of wealth, success and comfort that the Church enjoys in this society.
How sad that the "right price" for our complicity in the destruction of all for which our society once stood is $100,000 of debt and the ability to purchase shoddy trinkets with our ever-shrinking buying power.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 23, 2006 8:38:30 PM
Dershowitz' "argument" reminded me vividly of a frequent right-wing meme re post-Katrina New Orleans: New Orleans had been ordered to evacuate, therefore the people who "insisted" on staying deserved what happened to them. Of course, there was no government-provided evacuation, so people who were too poor, too old, and/or too sick to travel on their own were screwed--and those were overwhelmingly the people that got stuck behind. My husband pointed out that another corollary is the notion that since Hitler made it pretty clear what the Jews' fate in Europe would be, the Jews who stayed were to blame for what happened to them. You get the idea; this is revolting moral rot of the scummiest, most disgusting order.
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP | Jul 23, 2006 8:51:06 PM
Perhaps war - by definition -- is precisely "revolting moral rot of the scummiest, most disgusting order".
So now that we agree on that point, the question is NOT how do you prosecute a war so that the fewest innocent bystanders are impacted, but rather what steps should be undertaken to insure that future war is not required.
To add some historic context for the middle-east, how many lives were saved because Israel, Jordon, and Egypt have not had ongoing hostilities for the last 30 years?
As a government -- in this case that of Israel -- is it morally acceptable to allow your citizens to be attacked and killed on a regular basis?
The desire to stop this is not a "thirst for revenge" but rather an obligation that the Israeli government has to protect its people.
Posted by: m | Jul 23, 2006 9:23:59 PM
"Dont misunderstand me, war sucks ass, and I dont want to wage it or have it waged upon my country. But if a country is at war, that includes its citizens. If the citizens of that country dont want to fight they need to do something about ending it. "
I think this point is HUGE!
There are several points that everyone acknowleges but seem to get lost in the "don't hurt civilians" mantra: Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebonon has long been a haven for terrorists, the Lebonese government is to weak to do anything about issues one and two.
If you are a Lebonese citizen that does not support Hezbollah or terrorism, what responsibility do you have to prevent Lebanon from being used to attack Israel or train more terrorists?
Posted by: m | Jul 23, 2006 9:33:44 PM
david b: "Especially in a country like the US, we cant vote for our leaders, vote for their policies, have them declare wars and then claim no responsibility. If our enemies come to attck our cities, then we earned it."
I'd like our enemies to know that I, Grumpy, did not vote for the leaders who have declared these wars.
There. That should square me with the bin Ladens of the world.
Posted by: Grumpy | Jul 23, 2006 10:31:04 PM
It's pretty much the only rule of war we have left that attacks on civilians are to be avoided, not rationalized.
You're an innocent, fluffy, little bunny, John.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jul 24, 2006 12:29:00 AM
M
I see your point M. By extension on your logic- anyone who bombs American citizens because we by 50.1 percent voted for Bush- would be justified because what responsibility do we all have for Bush being elected? After all that sort of logic means by extension also- what responsibility do the Israeli citizens have for the actions of their government. I suppose it would be acceptable under that rationale to say that its okay there too.
Of course, you don't think that. But for the purposes of sounding "reasonable" rather immoral- you argue that position here.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 24, 2006 1:17:51 AM
M,
I think akaison took care of the moral dimension, but I would also like to point out how stupid Israel's actions are from a purely selfish point of view -- Hezbollah was created during their occupation of Lebanon. With their withdrawal, Hezbollah both declared victory and lost its raison d'etre. It's popularity was on the wane. The kidnap of the Israeli soldiers was not just a random act of hate, but a deliberate provocation.
Israel, whom it must be said have been planning for this war for quite a while now, took the bait. Now they are in the uneviable position of having caused massive civilian and infrastructure damage to Lebanon, one of the bright spots of the Mid-east, without having de-fanged Hezbollah. If they leave now, they Hezbollah celebrates victory. If they stay, they commit more war crimes until they finally appal the international community. There's no winning this.
Posted by: Battlepanda | Jul 24, 2006 3:21:37 AM
"There's no winning this."
If the definition of winning is the elimination of Hezbollah, I agree. But if the definition of winning is to change the status quo that allows Hezbollah to operate freely in southern Lebanon and kill Israeli citizens at their leisure then I believe there is much to be won.
As it relates to a moral view of this conflict, the 50.1% argument is exactly the type of moral relativity that Stephen does a nice job of calling into question.
Why is it morally OK for Hezbollah to kill Israeli citizens? What responsibility does the Lebonese citizen have toward his fellow man to prevent their death and distruction?
As it pertains to the capabilities and presence of Hezbollah, Battlepanda's point of "with [Israel's] withdrawal, Hezbollah both declared victory and lost its raison d'etre" is flat wishful thinking. Hezbollah is a significant political and military presence in Lebanon and their strength in both areas has continued to grow.
Posted by: m | Jul 24, 2006 7:06:52 AM
When reading these comments that are shocked that war exists and attempt to dissect it, I must remind myself that all of the political boundries that I can think of have been decided directly, or indirectly by war.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 24, 2006 9:51:27 AM
Dershowitz presumably isn't vile just for the sake of it.
Dershowitz is pretty much the definition of the sleazy lawyer. He was openly making the case for legalized torture years before 9/11 gave the neocons an excuse. George Bush at least had enough of a sense of guilt to be embarassed when he was caught at it. Deep down, Bush knows it's not acceptable behavior, Dershowitz never blinked when he stepped over the line.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 25, 2006 12:19:13 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
