Sixty years ago the Western world decided “we were just following orders” is no justification for war crimes. When I wrote this series, I figured Obama looking the other way was throwing out decades of wisdom earned with the suffering of our own people and millions of innocents. The feedback has been mostly positive. Most people got the point and didn’t read too much into it. But the negative feedback has me wondering if we ever really had any wisdom to squander in the first place, because it can all be summed up in the following sentiment: “Our war crimes weren’t anywhere near as bad as their war crimes.”
Where do these people think barbarism begins? The Japanese hadn’t always been butchers. The Germans hadn’t always been butchers. It started with people accepting small injustices in the name of security. Then, years later, they’d accept just a little more. Then a little more after that. Before long, they were turning a blind eye because they no longer saw their victims as human beings. Then came the blood. It happened gradually, most of them didn’t think it
was possible, and many to this day can’t accept the reality of what
their nations did.
Sixty years ago, the civilized world decided never to let it get that far again. International laws we championed mandate that member states investigate their own citizens when accused of even the smallest of war crimes, and prosecute them if warranted.
For some reason, President Obama is acting like he has a choice in the matter, when his hands were tied more than fifteen years before he was born. But it’s nothing new. We still haven’t investigated Kissinger.
View Comments (54)
I can be pretty harsh and sometimes I don't give any quarter, but that's just who I am. The other day I was asking my niece about her plans for the summer, and my 90 year-old grandfather interrupted to ask "did you go to law school?"
But I say if you can't cross-examine your eleven year-old niece, who can you cross-examine?
All I can say is, Darrin YOU ARE BRAVE. I think you are more brave than is Obama.
Yes, I thought he pointed it out in a way that characterized "Darrin's" (friend of yours?) strip as the work of an artist irritant who takes a position on the extremities of an issue, rather than that of an outraged supporter, as you both seemed to see him. He also did an excellent job of putting presidential decisions in historical context. You should try it sometime.
As for your previous remarks: I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me & sticks on you. Really, was that heap of insults your idea of fair debate? :P Have Ken explain it to you some more sometime.
"I'm rubber, you're glue"? Wow. When you put it that way, I guess I was wrong about everything. I see the light now. Thanks. o.0
"Darrin's" (friend of yours?) strip as the work of an artist irritant who takes a position on the extremities of an issue, rather than that of an outraged supporter, as you both seemed to see him."
First of all, it's strange that you're now commenting snidely on how people refer to Darrin (sorry, "Mr. Bell." Better?). You didn't seem to mind when Ken called him that, but whatever.
Second of all, that's a really sad commentary when someone can, with a straight face, describe opposition to torture as an "extreme" position.
There was no "heap of insults," but I guess the truth does hurt. My point stands: the whole suggestion that Darrin (sorry, "Mr. Bell") should turn a blind eye to his own guy's failings just 'cause you and I happen to like the president is shameful, un-American, and stinks of Republicanism.
I didn't get the impression Ken agreed with you at all about that.
Um... I appreciate the passionate defense of my constitutional right to be a smartass, but can we please not call people "un-American"? Let's leave that as a relic of the Bush era. At least on my site. =/
I'm very glad to hear you're not insulted by my comments, because they were indeed intended as an argument between "friends," for lack of a better word. I very much appreciate, coming from a family of artists, the role of artist as societal conscience-pricker (no offense); and I do, in fact, agree with the position that everyone in the torture permission-commission chain should (ideally) be held accountable in some way. I did NOT mean that being anti-torture was an extreme position (cough*duh*cough); rather, I was objecting to the characterization of President Obama as a Nazi apologiste due to his efforts to find a way to deal with this that wouldn't automatically enrage & inflame the opposition. And I was also saying that, despite the hallowed obligation (and I'm not being sarcastic) of the artist to highlight societal ills and hold a mirror up to the less attractive sides of the American face, in THIS case I do think an exception is called for.
Why? Because this is an exceptional time in every way, and we must be very, very careful to not be so theoretically righteous that we overlook the real-world implications of those positions. Existentialists still have values and ethics, but sometimes in the real world it comes down to: is stealing always wrong? what about if you're doing it to feed your hungry child? how about lying? what if someone you knew was a murderer, who had gotten away with it in the past, wanted to use you as an alibi - not for the ones s/he had gotten away with, but for a different one s/he actually hadn't committed? would it be wrong to say "no, I didn't see them there" to take a dangerous, evil person off the street?
This may seem like stretching the argument pretty far, but this is about more than the strip - it's about the question of when do you ignore the theoretical good in favor of the greater actual good? BTW, the torturers did the opposite of this: they ignored the greater, actual evil (many, many bad repercussions for their country in every way) in favor of what they as individuals wanted to do (I hate these guys, they're the bad guys, the POTUS says we can do it, the legal briefs OK it, etc.). Cedric only thinks this is the same as Republican-think because he's thinking too simplistically about it. Not everything is black and white (no pun intended) in the real world, and not everyone who asks that real-world implications be taken into account is a right-wing fascist. That's one of President Obama's great qualities, that he understands all the shades of gray in-between, and how to find where the truth lies among them.
The real American pastime is shooting the messenger.
...especially when the messenger strap a big bulls eye on their chest.
"...especially when the messenger strap a big bulls eye on their chest."
Oh, I expect this sort of thing. I love that motherseer's speaking her mind. I take shots at people, other people take shots at me, and somewhere in the crossfire we all get something to think about. I prefer a reasoned discussion where we each try to understand where the other person's coming from, but unless things get out of hand I'll take what I can get.
You generally wear your "favorite shirt" well. Sometimes your responses are a little strong. I've learned that those are the product of your artistic flair and your commitment to principle. I can see why some people come away from your posts feeling a little battered.
I can be pretty harsh and sometimes I don't give any quarter, but that's just who I am. The other day I was trying to have a casual talk with my niece about her plans for the summer, and my 90 year-old grandfather interrupted to ask me "did you go to law school?"
But I say if you can't cross-examine your own eleven year-old niece, who can you cross-examine?
I have no doubt that you could get more out of these terrorists than traditional torture. However, until "evil doers" start posting on Candorville.com we will have to rely on the CIA to get them to change their ways.
You are unrelenting in pressing an issue. However, I've learned that you truly respect those of use who occasionally disagree with you (roughly as much as your 11 year old niece).
But that's my favorite shirt.
I always thought that was an Aztec calendar.
Maybe I've been studying politics too long, but I understand and appreciate the views of both sides here. Every American leader has been flawed and failed to meet the highest standard since Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal" while slaves toiled in his fields. Obama likely understands that he can't really prosecute these Bush administration officials while a good chunk of the country still wants to give them medals for torturing our enemies. People like Darrin play their role in trying to keep the country driving toward a higher goal by tweaking our conscience. The loyalty of others helps Obama maintain his support even as he makes the compromises necessary to govern.
Darrin has played off the atrocities of World War II. Of course, our treatment of Japanese-Americans was shameful and many people across the globe considers our use of the atomic bomb mass murder. I can accept Obama's occasional failing while still supporting and admiring him because I've seen so many presidents achieve greatness even as they compromised some principles. I would like Obama to be a better man than the men on Mt. Rushmore, but I'll be pretty happy if he earns a similar place
BTW, I agree with you, Ken. Very well said.
Finally, a voice of reason. Thanks.
Yeah, I thought it was very reasonable to point out that Darrin's playing the role we need him to play.
...Not that I think it's a game.
I have to admit, I'm very disappointed that Bush and his cronies won't be prosecuted...but, I hope it is only a temporary lag. Perhaps in the future, they will be.
What you say is this: whether or not the terrorists, whomever they may be, signed the accord is immaterial. We signed the accord, we agreed to a code of conduct, and if we as a government have any honor we abide by that code. Not to be moralistic, but - OK, I'll be moralistic: as we tell children, wrong is wrong & a sin is a sin even if no one sees but God. Or the Great Spirit. Or your conscience.
Amen to that.
So, what can we answer to the people who say that waterboarding terrorists is NOT against the law because THEY didn't sign the Geneva accord with us? So, we have no contract with them.
I think also as Democrats we should stand behind Obama in support. We really don't know what are his motives for sure. He may have his hands tied
I actually hesitated using the phrase "aid and comfort" because of those Republican-terrorist associations, but it fit here and it didn't there. Yes, I think the people who authorized this are war criminals. I think pretty much the whole bunch of them are war criminals, Bush & Dick at the head (and their little toady Alberto). Speaking of just following orders, where's the strip mocking what Condi had to say at Stanford the other day about just following orders? Give the man room to work. You want him to get everyone all pissed off right away so that he spends his time putting out little fires instead of saving us from the tsunami coming at us from all directions. Let this thing lay, man - it's not going anywhere & he has much bigger fish in his pan. Our planet is dying - that takes precedent, along with, oh, say, the economy, Afghanistan, health care, North Korea...
Mr. Bell:
(This message is for you, not for the blog, if that is posssible)
We had this same discussion several years ago in Detroit with "The Fog of War" (I may have misremembered the name) came out. I concluded that in a free country where dissent is possible, agents are responsible for their obedience to illegal or unjust orders. Here's my reasoning, copied from Metro Times:
"In his article, "The Fog of Terror (Metro Times, Jan. 28), Jack Lessenberry describes Robert McNamara defending his sending of troops to Vietnam because "the president wanted me to do this."
(continued)
"That may be a legal excuse, but it is not a moral one. In law, the old doctrine of respondeat superior holds an employer (e.g., the president) responsible for many of the wrongs committed by his employees. Morally, some of us would hold that there is a reciprocal onus on free employees to refuse to perform the immoral acts of an employer. Perhaps someone trained in Latin can tell us if respondeat servitor is the correct phrase.
"Without the willing hands of willing employees, the leaders of the free world would be unable to commit works of evil.
"It is probably wrong to legally punish people who commit immoral but lawful acts. The earthly punishment for moral wrongs is social scorn. Let Mr. McNamara know what you think.
"Before he gets a second chance, a wrongdoer must admit his wrong, repent, and make amends to those harmed. "
Unfortunately messages are posted automatically to the blog. I can delete them if you'd like, but I think you've made a well-written, valuable point that contributes to the discussion, so I'd rather not.
I agree with pretty much everything you've written. Part of what you've written touches on why Obama's reluctance to prosecute is so egregious: "It is probably wrong to legally punish people who commit immoral but lawful acts."
That's a valid point. But those who ordered and carried out torture in our name were not committing lawful acts. And this isn't hindsight, this is an opinion I and many others advanced when we first heard of the waterboarding and the other torture: The Constitution specifies that foreign treaties become law. When we signed the Geneva Conventions against war crimes, that - notwithstanding any memos from White House lawyers or the CIA - became our law.
We've been breaking it ever since, first in Vietnam with Agent Orange and carpet bombing of villages, then in Central America when we funded death squads that exterminated civilians, then in Iraq and Guantanamo when we tortured and murdered prisoners of war (I don't buy the argument that they're not POW's, considering the last president insisted we were at "war" with them). We've never successfully prosecuted the ones who gave the orders, and many of them went on to continue influencing government, at least into the Bush years. The mastermind behind our torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib is the same one behind atrocities we supported in Central America decades ago. Social scorn doesn't mean anything to people who have no shame.