All You Need To Know
Tweet
In an attack on the idea that we have trials like Nuremberg for the truly odious, in order to show that civilization trumps barbarism, Jay Tea of Wizbang opines
But sometimes being too civilized can be suicidal.
Because, you see, sometimes standing up for decency and civilization is hard.
56 Responses to “All You Need To Know”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
And one of the lessons of September the 11th, 2001, is that this sense of — that tyranny is okay, but underneath the surface there was resentment. And the way — and anger, that became the breeding grounds for these killers
just kill them, make their deaths widely known, then dispose of the body in a way that there is no grave to become a shrine.
It s OK with me.
Frank? Remember me? From yesterday?
This position doesn’t seem to jibe with your position from yesterday when you said this,
I m divided on the death penalty: peronally, I m opposed to it (you killed someone, so we re going to kill you doesn t seem right to me), but I also fully understand that people think retribution is crucial to justice (you took a life, so yours must be taken ).
Now, I am not attakcing you or insulting you in any way, I am merely asking you to rectify this seeming contradiction.
Pedro forgets, yet again, that there are liberals currently serving in the military. Pedro forgets that there are rough men and women ready to do violence who are also liberals. He forgets that there were people who opposed the war but went anyway so he could sleep peaceably at night and then wake up and forget that liberals do a hell of a lot of heavy lifting on his behalf.
I doubt Orwell would have forgotten that. You can quote Orwell all he likes, but you lack any of Orwell’s insight. Cretin.
I’d say that accused tyrants being tried in a military tribunal, rather than some form of a civil court, is a debate worth having, especially given Milosevic’s behavior and ultimate death before the justice could be delivered.
For a civilized society, however, summary executions should be out of the question, and, of course, they are, except for certain fringe elements.
Oliver why do you even write stuff like this? Has Media Matters so addled your mind that you can’t even write honest opinion, but have to pick quotations to suit your idea? I mean, did you think we weren’t going to read this piece?
“Unfortunately, the legacy of Nuremberg has been perverted into something hideous. The Nuremberg trials were not civil courts, but military tribunals. The war’s victors chose the judges, and the defendants had no appeals. In fact, in many ways the Nuremberg trials violated many basic tenets of civil and criminal justice. Regardless, 12 Nazis were given death sentences, three sentenced to life, and four more sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison.”
His point is that we are allowing the inmates to run the asylum. Nuremberg was a military tribunal….remember all the squawking about “constitutional right” the leftists made about military tribunals? The idea of classical american rules of evidence don’t apply to these cases, but unfortunately that is not what our leftist citizens want. They would like to see the same circuses that our court trials have turned into, spectacles where any sort of allegation can be raised in order to try to develop a kernel of deniability.
What the hell do you know about standing up for “decency and civilization” anyway?
As George Orwell once said…
“”People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
As most of the leftists here know, since they are the ones sleeping peaceably while the “rough men (and women now) do the heavy lifting…
Actually BD I don’t forget….my comment was that none of them frequented this site…..You weren’t IN the military were you BD?
So you support tribunals big gay?
You’re showing your age.
Stack – o – Lee, the Afro – American folk hero, goes back at least to the 20′s as either Stack – o – Lee or Stacks – o – Lee.
Stagger Lee is the name given him Lloyd Price on his late ’50′s hit…
http://www.bobshannon.com/stories/Stagger.html
duros: I had to go out after I posted that — but I knew it was coming.
So I was thinking about it. It’s easy.
These guys didn’t shoot a clerk in a convenience store, or shoot their wives and boyfriends when they caught them in bed.
They killed thousands for political reasons — to maintain their hold on power.
I’m not familar with all of Milosevic’s crimes but Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds, flooded out his own people in the South, killed hundreds, if not thousands of his political opponents.
This isn’t “Stack – o – lee shot Billy in the barroom.” This is genocide, ethnic cleansing, and political massacre.
I think it’s different.
Pdero’s point might be valid had Tea actually advocated a return to military tribunals for accused tyrants. But he is not; he is advocating summary execution. How does that return us to the spirit of Nuremburg?
I’m not sure the purpose of the Nuremberg Trials was to show that civilzation triumphs over barbarism — not everyone “got what was coming to them.”
I’m sure Milosevic’s trial indicated no such thing, Hussein’s trial doesn’t seem to be indicating any such thing.
Sometimes a waste of time is a waste of time.
… just kill them, make their deaths widely known, then dispose of the body in a way that there is no grave to become a shrine.
It’s OK with me.
I don’t disagree with you except maybe for this; it’s “Stagger Lee shot Blly DeLion”
If we look at the word “suicidal” as meaning “headed toward self – destruction” [which I believe is correct] as opposed to “resulting in one’s own death” [which I believe is incorrect], then the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, and Chamberlain and Hitler’s agreement in 1938 were “too civilized” and “suicidal.”
I stand corrected. i was actually thinking of the Jerry Garcia cover.
But here’s another hypothetical for ya. If there was an embryo that you knew beyond a doubt would grow up to become Slobodan Milosevic, would you use it for ebryonic stem cell research and save Terri?
“… it is a dirty cruel war and cannot be fought or managed with kid gloves or treated likesome sort of domestic criminal case.”
So naturally the solution is summary executions for everyone.
The Nuremberg trials were set up the way they were at the time because there was no universal definition of genocide or crimes against humanity. The only benchmark for such a crime prior to WW2 was the Armenian Genocide. Even then, any system of justice for mass murder crimes was deeply flawed bordering on broke. The Nuremburg trials were under military jurisdiction (presided by the IMT) because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war.
Both legally and historically, Nuremburg can be viewed as farcical but it’s widely acknowledged that it was a start in terms of establishing some standard of justice and due process even though the bar was set very low.
Unfortunately, some espouse the view of the arcane Nuremburg trials when the appallingly abstract idea of justice should be applied when someone commits such atrocities -as long as it’s someone else, that is.
In other words, official enemies should be railroaded straight to the gallows without question while others on the other hand, well, moving on& & .
No mystery as to why the ICC is viewed with so much contempt by some. “Unaccountable judges, prosecutors, could pull our troops, our diplomats up for trial..” Yes If they commit criminal actions.
But hey, why lead by example? Thats sooo yesterday.
In the words of Oliver, dugger, do you need a barn for all that straw? No one is advocating Marines read Miranda right to combatants; at issue here is whether we can still call ourselves civilized should we engage in summary executions, and, further, whether to be civilized is a worthy goal.
I’d argue it is. After all, we could win very easily militarily in Iraq; we could drop some nuclear bombs on the place, and the insuregents (along with everyone else) would be eliminated. As a country, though, we’ve chosed not to take that step.
You might argue it is because we are weakened by liberal sentimentality. I’d argue that it is because we value our humanity. They are the bad guys precisely because they kill and maim civilians. We are the good guys precisely because we abhor such behavior.
I fail to see the connection, but all right. At least you’re consistent.
Thought I had you, there.
No I don’t think so. I guess the main point is that we vigorously defend ourselves.
I would argue that toothless, pandering, politically correct organizations like the UN, the International Court etc don’t “vigorously defend” democracies against these sorts of demons.
I don’t forsee any time when we just routinely shoot world leaders, regardless of their crimes, but I think the issue is certainly more complicated that Ollies snarky and holier-than-than depiction of what Jay was trying to describe.
Going back to Mr. Tea’s idea that, “But sometimes being too civilized can be suicidal.“, can anyone provide an example from history that proves such a thesis? Was there some ancient civilization, perhaps, that commited suicide by being “too civilized?”
What does it mean, anyway, to be “too civilized?” The United States defends itself under certain norms outlined in the Geneva Convention, but we still vigorously defend ourselves. Is that being “too civilized?”
duros: No.
Read the short story “Genesis and Catastrophe” by Roald Dahl
Or, if you don’t want to go looking for it:
http://www.roalddahlfans.com/shortstories/gene.php
But, I have to tell you, any collection of Dahl’s short stories is not for children, and they put the “Hitch” in “Hitchcock” — who put at least two of the stories on his TV show…
Jay Tea is right. We can be too civilized. But the crux here is what is being ‘too civilized’? Just fighting a war, especially like the Marines often have to fight, is, BY NATURE, uncivilized. While fighting a war, soldiers must be allowed to be ‘uncivilized’ or they will ultimately be dead soldiers. Nuremberg was AFTER the war – during peace time. Thus war criminal suspects could be afforded the rights of a trial of sorts – per Nuremberg standards (still, not even then, modern American or European peacetime standards). We are in the midst of the WOT but it is not a war fully like WWII wherein a concerted national effort was called for. Nevertheless, it is a dirty cruel war and cannot be fought or managed with kid gloves or treated likesome sort of domestic criminal case. Just can’t do it. Don’t go to WAR, appease the terrorists, if you want to employ/force peacetime law enforcement procedures on combatants.
Dugger (Sorry Mr Marine, you must first read that terrorist his Miranda rights)
drpedro- If I say yes, does that give me credibility? If I say no, does that mean posters like Dkelsmith aren’t to be counted? And regardless, how on earth can you verify anything on a blog? I don’t know at all if you are (a) a doctor or (b) of Hispanic origin.
The point is simple–you yammer on and on about “leftist Americans” being everything that’s wrong with this country, but when you get reminded that there are leftist Americans fighting and dying overseas, you pretend you only meant “on this website.”
Dugger -
Just fighting a war, especially like the Marines often have to fight, is, BY NATURE, uncivilized. While fighting a war, soldiers must be allowed to be uncivilized or they will ultimately be dead soldiers.
This is true, and yet some of us decided that there are protocols and conventions, in order to try and maintain our humanity even when we’re at our least humane. What is bothersome about our current mode of thinking is that such protocols are no longer necessary. That way lies madness. That way lies Nanking, or My Lai, or any number of historical atrocities committed by all sorts of soldiers.
..and then shoot him.
Bingo. These bastards are gonna fry anyway, why not hold them up as examples to the other bastards in training while you’re in the process. We didn’t just put a few Nazis on trial, we put the entire thought process of nazism on trial (and even though the outcome was far from ideal, ethnic cleansing in the case of Milosovic) and showed that good should triumph over evil without becoming evil.
This is why Superman puts the bad guys in jail instead of incinerating them with his heat vision.
Looks liek someone in Take-A-Wizbang’s comments agrees with Oliver:
But if everyone knows the outcome beforehand, doesn’t that ruin the credibility of the proceedings?
Good point, Leo.
A little off topic here, but noteworthy nonetheless;
“Witness the trial of Saddam Hussein. He appears to be trying the same tactic, tossing up as much confusion, chaos, and anarchy as he can.
Jay says he doesn’t blame him. I wonder why he seems to give saddam
and Milosovic a pass on legal hijinks?
hint; SCOOTER LIBBY.
Thought I had you, there.
But wait a minute.
Are you saying it is better to let Terri die and Slobodan survive so that he can then grow to power and kill thousands? One embryo is that important to you that you would discount thousands? What about those disposable people we spoke of? Isn’t that what the future victims of a dictator become?
What on earth are you jabbering about, Dug?
Neither Jay Tea nor Oliver said anything about using “peacetime law enforcement procedures on combatants.” Jay Tea wants to take Saddam out and shoot him now. Oliver wants to give him a trial first. Neither is suggesting “peacetime law enforcement procedures.”
..and then shoot him.
Or as ‘V’ would prefer, a well placed knife blade between the eyes.
BGA
No to nukes, of course. But if we write off nukes, the point is that with an uncivilized, brutal enemy we can’t expect our soldiers to fight ‘completely civilized’. Would you want to do that? War is uncivilized. Don’t fight in wars and don’t expect your soldiers to risk hteir lives by making them behave to a much higher standard than the enemy. Is shooting a combatant a summary execution? In WWII our troops would shoot and our aircraft strafe farmers etc because they kept the German Army fed.
Its very complex on paper, but damn simple on the ground: kill or be killed and sometimes that means shooting first and shooting when in doubt.
I know of no such lowered standards re fighting a war. Excesses or crimes committed by soldiers don’t count- by definition.
Quaker, Howard Dean talked about a trial for UBL. Would he agree to let Durbin’s Nazis conduct that trial?
Dugger (OK, that last ‘question’ was hyperbolic)
Dr. “P” opined:
Perhaps you ought not quote Orwell’s words, Dr. “P.” Two years later, Orwell recanted them:
duros: I didn’t speak of disposable people, and if you did, I don’t recall.
In my view, no one is “disposable.” We are all here, if even for a moment, for a purpose.
Imagine a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle with one piece missing. It will always be a 499 piece puzzle. Even if we replace the piece, it is not the piece the puzzle came with.
The same way with people. There is no other person like me. There are any number of people like me in many ways, but not exactly like me. I’m the only me there is, like the 500th piece of the puzzle.
A simple story will illustrate: Once, while standing on a chair, adjusting the FM antenna on my radio, the chair I was on collapsed, and my foot went through the side my fish tank which was on the floor. Yucky fish water spilled over my foot as the glass opened up my foot. I thought, “Infection!”, and headed for the nearby Emergency Room.
When I got there, there was hardly anybody there — it was early Saturday morning. Then two gurnies came in, from a horriblr collision on the nearby Thruway. I was sitting on a gurney near the nurses’ station (common practice when the treatment rooms fill up), when an obviously Hispanic woman came in, late thirties. She was looking over the Nurse’s shoulder, as the nurse was going through some miscellaneous stuff. From a little eavesdropping and observation of the ER, I figured out that her daughter had been in one of the cars, and was in one of the Treatment Rooms. She was so upset, she was visibly trembling, as she stood over the Nurse. Right behind her was a chair. I said, “Sentate” (sit down). She did, and appeared to be ever so slightly relaxed.
I thought to myself later, I must have been there to suggest to that lady that she sit down. Incidents like these serve to remind us that we have a purpose, and that many things are pre – ordained.
We avoid one thing, and end up confronting another. I have told this story before, and now, thanks to the Internet, my computer, and Oliver’s topic, I’m telling it to you. I once heard the world described as a Persian rug: A beautfully designed pattern that we see on “top” of the rug; underneath, a tangled web of many colors (as God sees it.)
That’s why, to me, there is no difference between the potential for life, and life itself.
One more time: No World War II, no PT 109, no Joe Kennedy plane crash, no JFK, no assassination, no SDS, no Weathermen.
That’s right.
Delusional Howard was imagining that bin Laden might be captured and brought to the U.S. Seems like a fool notion now, doesn’t it?
Exactly, Quaker… Like any other “good” criminal mastermind of 3,000 deaths, he’s supposed to die “resisting arrest.”
My apologies for my tardiness in responding, Oliver. I had to work late yesterday, and my employer deeply frowns on me blogging from work. They are extremely unreasonable people — they expect that if I’m on the clock, at work, I should actually do what they pay me for and not write blog posts or comment on others.
First of all, I appreciate your pointing out that my position is more honest than yours. We both agree that Hussein is obviously, flagrantly guilty of some of the most heinous crimes against humanity. I say kill him, you say “let’s give him a fair, impartial, trial and THEN kill him.” We’ve both pre-judged him, rendering us guilty of prejudice; you just want to maintain the facade of fairness, while I say let’s be honest and dispense with a sham trial. Justice delayed, after all, is justice denied — witness Milosevic.
Secondly, to cite a few examples of people being “too civilized:” where to begin? How about the convicted child molester who was paroled in Massachusetts after numerous offenses as long as he moved out of state. He went to Montana, where he promptly kidnaped, molested, and then murdered a little boy. How about the numerous cultures that fell before the Mongol hordes. (These examples are a little tougher to cite; they didn’t survive to write their stories, and the Mongols tended to destroy those that pre-dated their attacks.) Or the Greeks, vs. the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire itself.
Or, since you brought up the Superman angle, I feel free to cite fantastic fiction myself. From Star Wars, the Jedi Order and the planet Alderaan. From Star Trek, the Mirror Universe Halkans.
Finally, I have to say I was surprised at the contempt you show your readers. “All You Need To Know” about an essay of mine is the penultimate sentence. They don’t need to know any of the context, the history I cited, the examples I used, or even that I limited the scope of my piece to three brutal, genocidal dictators. (And in a nod to diversity, I chose a European, and Arab, and an African.)
Like it or not, Oliver, the International Court of Justice is NOT the heir to the Nuremberg trials, Guantanamo is. Military tribunals of the victors imparting justice on the defeated. To the victor go the spoils — the court was made of Americans, Russians, British, and French. Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Norway, and all the other nations who were conquered by the Nazis weren’t invited to participate in the trial, only the major powers who fought and defeated the Nazis sat in judgment.
I could go on, but (as usual) I’ve spent far more time and effort and done a far better job shredding your argument than you spent on it in the first place. Also, Frank_D, DrPedro, Dugger, and Duros62 hit a lot of great points before I had a chance to respond — thank you, folks.
Finally, Wurmser, about that comment you cited:
1) I sincerely doubt it’s the same Buckhead who first noted that the Texas Air National Guard CBS aired were obvious forgeries, an attempt by a major media outlet to illegally sway a presidential election.
2) I find myself wondering what would happen if Oliver and I were to compare your IP with the one used to place that comment. Of course, that would necessitate Oliver and I cooperating to expose a bit of sock-puppetry, and I doubt he’d be interested in making one of his supporters look bad even if they deserved it. After all, one of his favorites once reprinted a private e-mail from me in his comments without my knowledge or permission, and Oliver let that stand.
J.
And thus proving Jay Tea’s point earlier in the week how Oliver is a lazy thinker.
I don’t know myself whether or not I’m willing to make the leap that Jay makes. But he certainly brings up good points about Slobo and Saddam’s trials. His post was intended to make the reader think.
As we all know, that’s not possible for Oliver.
Dugger – Fine, then let’s end the GI Joe propaganda once and for all. Either we can be the Good Guys or the Guys Who Do Anything to Win. We can’t be both.
We can’t have gone over to liberate Iraq and still be the people who have tortured and raped the prisoners. One or the other…we’re either Captain America or we’re Conan the Barbarian.
And if you want the latter, I suppose that’s your right. But it makes me weep for the country.
I am troubled by this concept among the far right that fair, open trials aren’t required for some people. I thought the point of the Hussein trial was to show the world that Iraq was now ready to become a Democratic nation of laws. (It’s not, but I digress)
I always was taught that no justice for someone was no justice for anyone, but I guess that’s radical leftist thinking in Bush’s America.
I always was taught that no justice for someone was no justice for anyone, but I guess that s…
That’s just adolescent rhetoric. No trial for someone is sometimes more “justice” than they gave many.
Some of us don’t necessarily associate years of showboating and histrionics with justice (“If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”)
I like this one: “If you murder the masses, we’ll burn your asses.”
Nobody weaves a conspiracy like JayTea does. I do think its a shame your employers are so closed minded about blogging, though. Also, you do realize that outside of the right wing echo chamber it doesn’t really work to say “I shredded your argument” simply by saying “I shredded your argument”. You support barbarism and vigilantism. I think society has gone to far – especially American society – for us to just have hordes of idiots roving around and killing bad guys. Yes, it isn’t a perfect system, but its the very fact that we have a system that separates us from the savages.
Oh, and Oliver, let me make one correction for you: you should have said “Because, you see, sometimes standing up for decency and civilization is hard work.” That would have been an ironic use of one of Bush’s most tiresome cliche’s, and would have fit in nicely.
J.
My employers aren’t close-minded about blogging, Oliver; they hired me with the expectations that I will perform certain duties while on the clock, and blogging isn’t one of them. I have no issues with their policy; they are paying me, and as such I owe them my labors. If that means that I don’t have time to sit down at a computer and blog, so be it. If I didn’t accept that, I’d seek employment elsewhere.
You are correct, though, when you say I didn’t “shred your argument.” You didn’t present one to shred. You lifted a single line out of context, pronounced yourself morally superior, and ended it right there. You didn’t address a single point I made, so I should have just accepted that you didn’t challenge any of them. That was an error, and I apologize.
Oh, and “conspiracy?” Please. One of my favorite aphorisms is “never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity,” and I believe that a major element of paranoia is rampant egotism — one has to think that one is worth conspiring over in the first place. The real masters of conspiracy theories are on the Left, who see Karl Rove behind everything.
As a commenter over at Wizbang pointed out, another outstanding example is Nicolae Ceausescu, the former Romanian dictator. He was hauled out of his palace and shot sans trial, and the Romanians are doing pretty well since. Yet another would be Benito Mussolini, who danced at the end of the piano wire without the benefit of a conviction.
If you’d like to argue the issue, I’m willing to continue. If you want to cherrypick lines out of context and run me down, be my guest. It’ll just be more admission of your intellectual bankruptcy. I’ve been called worse names by better people than you. And they are at least entertaining.
Frank
I don’t want to take up a whole lot more of this thread on the subject, so let me be brief.
First off, I am pleased that we have been able to have this discussion civilly and with no name calling or infantilism (no pun intended). I hope you feel the same.
I respect your postition but still feel that pro-summary execution and a pro-life stance are contradictory.
I don’t really subscribe to fate, destiny or pre-ordination of events. The universe doesn’t work that way, and even if it did, it would fly in the face of God’s greatest gifts to mankind, the gifts of free will, self-awareness and identity
I believe in, as Sting said, the random geometry of chance. Sometimes coincidences occur when conditions are right. Sometimes you are just in the right place at the right time. Were you destined to tell that lady to sit down, or was she destined to sit down? Who knows?
And no, I don’t think you ever metioned disposable people, but the links you provided were pretty implicit.
Anyway..this has been pretty off topic. Sorry.
JayTea: you have no idea what I’m doing when blog and where, yet you’ve concocted this -amusing – conspiracy theory.
I’m not full of steam like conservative bloggers. I don’t believe in writing 1,000 words when 3 will suffice (I love the sound of my own voice like any egotist, but not that much). Your argument boiled down to – we should shoot bad guys. I say we should have trials for them that make it clear to the world what they did is wrong, because we are civilized and they are not. It’s not just a battle of dueling manhood.
BTW, on the topic of expendables, I saw The Constant Gardener last night. Good flick. Proves once again that shit goes on behind our backs all the time, and that the west is screwing Africa.
..and then shoot them.
Sorry, Oliver, you keep leaving that part out.
Excellent response Jay….
Remember though, this blog does good things for Media Matters….I would guess they like having another “portal” to spew their nonsense.
More importantly though, you succinctly summarize the OW style….don’t actually present an argument. Just put down a quote from someone or a news article, following with a short bit of snark, then let everyone “decide for themselves” what he meant. It helps prevent his statements from coming back to bite him later….he can always say “I didn’t mean” or “show me where I said that…”.
It is a wonderful rhetorical trick, dishonest and lacking character, but a good trick none the less.
Says the guy who throws in unrelated non-sequitors and pretends to be a doctor. Hah.
It is a wonderful rhetorical trick, dishonest and lacking character, but a good trick none the less.
That must be why you’re so good at it.
“Says the guy who throws in unrelated non-sequitors and pretends to be a doctor.”
Says the black guy with a icon of a white guy and pretends to be a writer. Hah.
Oh, and Oliver? It’s “non sequitur.” Latin, “does not follow.”
J.
You started it. Poopy head. :-p
Oh, and Oliver? I didn’t want this to detract from the actual subject at hand, but I did notice your very Clintonesque non-denial denial. Are you prepared to say decisively that you have NEVER posted to your blog while at work for Media Matters? That you have NEVER set aside your obligations to your employer to post something on your own site? That you NEVER have taken time away from work for your blog? That you have NEVER conflated your blogging and your duties to MM, not even to the point of using your blog to push their agenda or their works?
J.
OK, Oliver, let’s run with that. I say we should just shoot certain bad guys, on a very limited basis — brutal dictators with long, documented histories of crimes against their own people and their neighbors. You say that every single person deserves a fair trial, and THEN it’s OK to kill them.
This may be one of those odd cases where the right answer is counterintuitive, like cutting tax RATES to increase tax REVENUES and giving hyperactive children stimulants, but let’s look at precedents:
Romania and Italy got rid of their dictators summarily, and both did OK.
Serbia’s dictator got a trial — and spent literally years playing the courts, rousing his supporters, stalling and wasting everyone’s time and resources. In the end, Milosevic got the last laugh by up and dying on them.
Iraq has plenty on its plate already; they really didn’t NEED to have to deal with their former oppressor taking every chance he has to grandstand, to praise the insurgency, to boast about his crimes, to rationalize them away in ways designed to give encouragement to the terrorists.
Howard Dean was once asked about Bin Laden, and said he wasn’t convinced he was guilty; he thought he deserved a trial, with the best lawyers he could get (and you KNOW they’d be lined up to do it pro bono, or better yet on the government’s dime). Dean was an ass for saying that.
Criminal trials are for CRIMINALS. Dictators are not criminals in the common sense; they usually don’t break the laws of their own nation (largely because they WRITE those laws), and “international law” is nothing more than a polite fiction UNLESS someone is willing to attempt to enforce it. And when someone around the world dials 911, it rings in Washington, DC.
J.