Comments on: War Crimes (Follow-Up) http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/23/war-crimes-follow-up/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:35:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: The “costs of war” « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/23/war-crimes-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-13666 The “costs of war” « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:43:18 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/23/war-crimes-follow-up/#comment-13666 [...] UPDATE: This, from a frequent commenter at Eunomia, puts things quite well, too: … the very rationale for the war - that we had to take extraordinary measures because “9/11 changed everything”, and the Cheny 1% Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War - that a state which bears even a 1% chance of a serious WMD threat to us should be treated as a 100% threat - of course led to this rationale being applied to the operations of that war, especially the use of torture. The rationale for torture is essentially the same - if we have even the slightest reason to think that someone has knowledge of attacks upon us, or our soldiers, we should treat it as a 100% certainty, and use whatever means are necessary to get that information, such as torture. This is the same principle you have stated - that the moral ability to wage a criminal war carries with it an increased ability to commit further war crime - but fills in the detail that is virtually unique to this government. [...] [...] UPDATE: This, from a frequent commenter at Eunomia, puts things quite well, too: … the very rationale for the war – that we had to take extraordinary measures because “9/11 changed everything”, and the Cheny 1% Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War – that a state which bears even a 1% chance of a serious WMD threat to us should be treated as a 100% threat – of course led to this rationale being applied to the operations of that war, especially the use of torture. The rationale for torture is essentially the same – if we have even the slightest reason to think that someone has knowledge of attacks upon us, or our soldiers, we should treat it as a 100% certainty, and use whatever means are necessary to get that information, such as torture. This is the same principle you have stated – that the moral ability to wage a criminal war carries with it an increased ability to commit further war crime – but fills in the detail that is virtually unique to this government. [...]

]]> By: John http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/23/war-crimes-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-10226 John Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:49:11 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/23/war-crimes-follow-up/#comment-10226 Exactly right. That's very much related to the point that I was trying to make. Exactly right. That’s very much related to the point that I was trying to make.

]]> By: conradg http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/23/war-crimes-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-10224 conradg Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:19:35 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/23/war-crimes-follow-up/#comment-10224 Another point that needs to be raised in regards to the Iraq war is that the very rationale for the war - that we had to take extraordinary measures because "9/11 changed everything", and the Cheny 1% Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War - that a state which bears even a 1% chance of a serious WMD threat to us should be treated as a 100% threat - of course led to this rationale being applied to the operations of that war, especially the use of torture. The rationale for torture is essentially the same - if we have even the slightest reason to think that someone has knowledge of attacks upon us, or our soldiers, we should treat it as a 100% certainty, and use whatever means are necessary to get that information, such as torture. This is the same principle you have stated - that the moral ability to wage a criminal war carries with it an increased ability to commit further war crime - but fills in the detail that is virtually unique to this government. The legal basis for this war was that the US has the right to invade a country it deems even a potential threat somewhere down the line - 5, 10, 20 years perhaps. I'm not sure anyone else in history has been creative enough to offer this rationale. Once made, however, the same principle can be applied to a whole host of issue in the ensuing war, and in other areas of government as welll. This is why it is such a dangerous doctrine, and should be legally challenged at a war crimes trial - the only way to truly confront these issues and decide their legal basis in international law. Of course, the real question is what institution has the balls to actually confront this issue and put the President and members of his administration on trial. Avoiding that, unfortunately, gives de facto approval to the rationale and all that follows from it, which includes the rationale for torture and other war crimes. Another point that needs to be raised in regards to the Iraq war is that the very rationale for the war – that we had to take extraordinary measures because “9/11 changed everything”, and the Cheny 1% Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War – that a state which bears even a 1% chance of a serious WMD threat to us should be treated as a 100% threat – of course led to this rationale being applied to the operations of that war, especially the use of torture. The rationale for torture is essentially the same – if we have even the slightest reason to think that someone has knowledge of attacks upon us, or our soldiers, we should treat it as a 100% certainty, and use whatever means are necessary to get that information, such as torture. This is the same principle you have stated – that the moral ability to wage a criminal war carries with it an increased ability to commit further war crime – but fills in the detail that is virtually unique to this government.

The legal basis for this war was that the US has the right to invade a country it deems even a potential threat somewhere down the line – 5, 10, 20 years perhaps. I’m not sure anyone else in history has been creative enough to offer this rationale. Once made, however, the same principle can be applied to a whole host of issue in the ensuing war, and in other areas of government as welll. This is why it is such a dangerous doctrine, and should be legally challenged at a war crimes trial – the only way to truly confront these issues and decide their legal basis in international law.

Of course, the real question is what institution has the balls to actually confront this issue and put the President and members of his administration on trial. Avoiding that, unfortunately, gives de facto approval to the rationale and all that follows from it, which includes the rationale for torture and other war crimes.

]]> By: John http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/23/war-crimes-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-10218 John Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:14:31 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/23/war-crimes-follow-up/#comment-10218 I don't think that the misinterpretation was yours - it seems to me to have been a case where, at best, McArdle posted too quickly and wrote things ("when you choose war, you choose war crimes", and so on) that gave the clear impression that she was claiming that war crimes are an inevitable part of war when all she really meant to say was that they are very often a part of it, or that their frequency is unrelated to the reasons for which the war was undertaken. As to that latter point, the claim you make at the end - that "there is a connection between launching wars of aggression and the frequency of war crimes and other violations of international law" - is exactly what she wants to deny in any case. It's one thing to point out that war crimes are not the <i>sole</i> province of the Bush administration, but it's quite another to insist that the aggression that characterized our entry into the Iraq war has had nothing to do with the criminal ways in which it has been carried out. I don’t think that the misinterpretation was yours – it seems to me to have been a case where, at best, McArdle posted too quickly and wrote things (“when you choose war, you choose war crimes”, and so on) that gave the clear impression that she was claiming that war crimes are an inevitable part of war when all she really meant to say was that they are very often a part of it, or that their frequency is unrelated to the reasons for which the war was undertaken. As to that latter point, the claim you make at the end – that “there is a connection between launching wars of aggression and the frequency of war crimes and other violations of international law” – is exactly what she wants to deny in any case. It’s one thing to point out that war crimes are not the sole province of the Bush administration, but it’s quite another to insist that the aggression that characterized our entry into the Iraq war has had nothing to do with the criminal ways in which it has been carried out.

]]>