Comment by JumpCrisscross
2 years ago
> level at which Henry Kissinger micromanaged the bombing of innocent civilians can not be overlooked
Sure. But legally irrelevant. He didn’t command them. The person receiving the order could—and in many cases, should—have refused. That’s different if e.g. Nixon ordered it directly, because in that case it’s a military command.
Again, these terms had meaning. But they’re practically unenforceable even in public opinion, now, because they’re bandied about loosely. That gives cover for actual war criminals.
If your argument starts with "Sure, he micromanaged the bombing of innocent civilians but", then I think you've gotten lost in the technicalities of being right on the Internet.
> then I think you've gotten lost in the technicalities of being right on the Internet
Legality is entirely technical. When we lose sight of that, and turn legal terms like war criminal into colloquial ones, we sap the terminology of strength. If everyone horrific is a war criminal, then it’s all just banal evil. Nuremberg attempted to draw a line. This type of rhetoric loses its clarity.
No one said that everyone horrific is a war criminal, this is a straw man argument. The claim is that someone who personally "approved each of the 3,875 Cambodia bombing raids" that killed 150,000 civilians can reasonably be called a war criminal. If you think that's diluting the term then I really don't know what to say.
That's the point. He was giving direct targeting data to bomber pilots that bypassed the chain of command. You can't say someone can't be a war criminal if they had underlings, supervisors, or peers who should have known better and stopped them. There would never be war criminals in that case.
> can't say someone can't be a war criminal if they had underlings, supervisors, or peers who should have known better and stopped them
This isn’t true. The persons who carry out the order are liable. As is the commander.
> The person receiving the order could—and in many cases, should—have refused.
5 replies →
I think I hate this website.
> I hate this
This is a natural response to divergent opinions [1]. It’s the mechanism through which social media polarises populations [2][3].
Our brains simply didn’t evolve to deal with multiple hypotheses and different opinions, and most of us never get the training to do so calmly and effectively.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sorting
[2] https://pnas.scienceconnect.io/api/oauth/authorize?ui_locale...
[3] https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/80/S1/351/2223236?login...
Yeah I watched that kurzgesagt video yesterday too. You're still a ghoul if you defend a man who was personally involved in bombing 150,000 civilians.
1 reply →
The effort of these apologists makes my stomach sick