In the comments section over the weekend, Andrew J Lazarus made a one-sentence comment that provides a revealing window into the Left's mentality, its real feelings about the military, and its notions of both justice and citizenship. The latter elements are especially important, and so I thought I'd discuss the civics of it.
"Pretty soon Haditha-deniers like Rockford will be the new Holocaust-deniers from Stormfront..."
Actually, the neo-nazis at Stormfront and the majority left like Andrew are singing from the same sheet in more than a few areas these days. Aside from being something of a dangerous "glass house" accusation for Andrew to make, one is left to wonder whether someone who would say something like this actually understands the legal/political system he lives under - or the basic civic obligations of citizenship and what that means.
That last bit transcends the issue of the moment, and goes to the heart of a stable and free polity. Which makes it worthy of review...
What the Presumption of Innocence Means
The Marines involved in the Haditha allegations are Andrew's fellow citizens. He therefore owes them several duties, as part of the shared obligations of a citizenship that asks you first and foremost to protect each other.
One key duty is the presumption of innocence.
The Left gets this wrong two ways. One, by abolishing it for their fellow citizens whenever convenient - one sees that readily in the kangaroo quasi-courts and star chamber proceedings that prevail in universities and other realms in which the Left achieves dominance. The second mistake is the Left's frequent attempts to deflect all discussion of inconvenient civilian criminal cases by arguing that until someone is convicted, one should not discuss the case.
Both of those approaches are dead wrong, of course. Extending the presumption of innocence does not stop a reasonable person from making moral judgments. So long as one is not a public official whose statement could pejudice or influence the result, one can even say "I think they're guilty" and argue why.
What the presumption of innocence DOES do, however, is prevent citizens from treating the verdict against a fellow citizen as a foregone conclusion - a mentality that would make any trial pointless, and undermine the very foundations of the American justice system.
I'll add that there are a lot of discrepancies emerging in the stories around Haditha, and that it's entirely reasonable to hold serious doubts pending evidence that clarifies the picture. Something that doesn't really come until trial.
To compare this attitude of reasoned doubt to Holocaust denial, in an attempt to bully others into treating the pre-trial guilt of one's fellow citizens as both undeniable and undiscussable, is to display more than a little bit in common with the fascists oneself.
Yet Andrew's error is even larger than this, and this is so in another way that impinges upon citizenship and its obligations.
The Citizens' Obligation to The Sheepdogs
While his attitude would be reprehensible in any context, the status of those accused as soldiers also lays its own duty upon him. What is that duty? Simply this: a greater duty than usual to consider their side of the story and give it a fair hearing.
Now, we have argued here before, correctly, that soldiers, police, et. al. are not some form of super-citizen with greater authority on the political issues of the day. That remains true. At best, there are some issues wherein their personal experiences may inform their judgments in ways that enhance the baseline credibility of some of their arguments. This is no more, and should be no less, than the qualified benefit one accords to anyone with personal expertise in an area.
Where soldiers, police, et. al. do deserve and even require additional consideration is in the performance of their duties, wherein they put their lives on the line at the explicit request of a free polity. In other words, on behalf of Andrew as a citizen of that free polity. That potential sacrifice makes their jobs qualitatively different, and that difference places a moral burden on the citizens they serve. As such, they are morally as well as legally entitled to having their side of the story heard respectfully and fully before any rush to judgment.
Whether Andrew personally wishes the Marines to be in Iraq or not is irrelevant; the decision was made and the situation remains. Which means the corresponding moral duty remains as well.
Now, one may legitimately argue that IF the Marines are guilty, their status and sworn responsibility (as "sheepdogs," to use Whittle's term) would make their crimes even more problematic. The existence of the case also has implications within Iraq. Addressing those possibilities should be part of any civic-minded discussion. But treating the Marines' guilt as a foregone conclusion, and arguing that failure to agree with that is an illegitimate point of view, is an even larger breach of civic duty than usual on Andrew's part.
It is also a neat demonstration of the absolute lie behind the Left's oft-repeated "we support the troops, honest we do" mantra and shield. Few people really believe this, and military voting patterns reflect it, precisely because of the kind of behaviour Andrew displays here. Andrew and those like him have chosen the role of bigot whose "best friends are black people," but who just can't help letting his true feelings slip in unguarded moments. I mean, you know how "those people" are, right? (And can I borrow your gun, just in case?)
In a similar fashion, the Indecent Left makes its real feelings about the military, religious individuals from non-approved denominations, et. al. abundantly clear despite its pious denials. Nor is Andrew unusual as an example among his fellows... "cut and run" Murtha comes to mind, and indeed his actions are even more reprehensible because his official position on key funding committees creates a real risk of tampering with the trial.
Haditha
The Marines involved may indeed be guilty. We shall see. But right now we don't really know very much except that there's enough credible evidence to lay charges. Which is is a serious thing - but not dispositive, and to date we have not heard from the people involved. I've explained why that matters; Marine platoon commander Ilario Pantano could also tell you a thing or two about why that's important.
These are not academic points; in many ways, they go to the heart of whether one has a common citizenship, or just a power arena in which various factions compete. Many countries have the latter, and you can often see them headlined on the TV news as a result. But a free government that wishes to endure peacefully must have both.
Which is why an honest arguer, on either side of the Haditha question, needs to acknowledge the uncertainties involved, and argue their points with a bit more civics and civility behind them.
The indicted Marines may or may not have failed in the performance of their basic duties. We shall see. I am quite certain, however, that citizen Andrew J. Lazarus has failed in the performance of his.
His failure is emblematic, and typical. That does not make it less reprehensible, or sad.
Speaking Logic to Moonbat, is an exercise in futility.
Most of the non-unhinged understand simple concepts, and when you read through most of the comments here, many are reserving judgment on Haditha until more information comes out.
Its only when one allows pure emotion (in this case hatred) to interfere with critical thinking ability and the logical thought process that you get the resulting Andrew Lazarus screed.
What always cracks me up about the more unhinged left, is their intellectual dishonesty and rank hypocrisy. We are to praise John Kerry because of his "nuanced" position, his ability to look at all sides of the issue and come to a conclusion (at least thats what they were saying in 04). We are told that we should accept and tolerate a diversity of ideas, except when they run counter to the lefts. We keep hearing that "we support the troops", yet the first reaction to a story like Haditha is automatic guilt.
Once upon a time, it was easy to dismiss these ramblings as that of a kook or fringe element, sadly it appears that this viewpoint has become ingrained in the lefts mainstream message.
Just a little nit to pick here.
One way to summarize your comments is that while you believe it is unfair for Andrew to pre-judge the guilt of the marines in Haditha, it is ok to indict the entire "Left" on the basis of one persons comment.
You're peering through a microscopic pinhole and somehow think you've found "a window"...
Also, I think Andrew's comments can be more accurately interpreted as a prediction of an outcome in assigning blame for Haditha ("pretty soon..."), not a conclusion on this.
I will leave it to others to pick apart the rather overwhelmingly large number of false assertions and straw-men in this screed, but at least on the basis of its fundamental assumptions, I think you've wildly missed your mark.
WR, I am using Andrew as an example of a phenomenon that I have found to be pervasive and consistent. Andrew is not the basis for my indictment of the Left, merely the most recent illustrative example.
This was funny, though:
Yes, of course. Calling people who are not certain of the Marines' guilt Holocaust-deniers couldn't possibly represent any kind of conclusion about what happened.
Way to insult the intelligence of your audience.
In response to WR's characterization of the piece, for which he provides no intellectual support or even examples, I'll simply submit it as another example of the same kind of behaviour, as well as a good illustration of the Left's intellectual M.O. these days.
Actually I don't believe that there have been any indictments yet, and it is to be hoped that political pressure won't produce unwarranted indictments.
I would add that if someone committed murder and deserves prosecution, the comments of "Atom Heart" Murtha and others won't help that process one bit. The rush to judgment harms the prosecution of the guilty as well as the innocent.
Of course Murtha, et al, couldn't care less about dead Iraqis unless they can be exploited for political purposes. There is no other way to explain their indifference to Saddam's mayhem. Deliberate butchering of civilians (including deliberate targetting of UN personnel, Red Cross workers, and children) by the heroic insurgents also leaves them strangely serene.
For those who wonder if I'm questioning Murtha's patriotism, rest assured that I question everything about the man, including the way he smells and the way he ties his shoes. The verdict will await further evidence, though.
Presumption of innocence is a term-of-art for the burden of proof in criminal trials. Together with "beyond a reasonable doubt", it tells us the obligations of the citizens who are picked to serve on the jury (the military standards are, I believe, similar but not exactly the same).
Presumption of innocence does not mean, and never has, that society as a whole or individual members such as myself, must maintain a magically blank mind in the face of evidence. OJ Simpson is also my fellow citizen, and I thought he was guilty when he was arrested, and for that matter, I haven't changed my mind. I can't imagine you will be criticizing me for this particular opinion, nor do I expect Jim Rockford to chime in that Nicole Simpson is really still alive, that reports of her death are "fake but accurate".
Neither do I remember you complaining about presumption of innocence in the case of my fellow citizen José Padilla, although to be fair there were other conservatives at this site who did so. Yet I am not advocating that the individual Marines who are suspected be incarcerated indefinitely without trial; on the contrary, I think our justice system should work in its usual way and I think that the prosecution in those cases will have to overcome the presumption of innocence. As to whether Haditha happened, however, there is no presumption of innocence. We can take cognizance of the existence of a crime without formally prejudging the suspects.
Nothing could illustrate the hypocritical asymmetry of your position better than your complete silence over Rockford's remark that the suicides at Guantáanamo were "a good start". Why were these men condemned without any showing of guilt? Where was presumption of innocence then?
There's the actual situation unfolding as a result of what happened in Haditha last fall. Here is a hypothetical that might be useful to consider.
Activists of both the right and the left have called for U.S. military intervention to curb Khartoum's ongoing genocide in Darfur. Here is a recent op-ed by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution:
I'm opposed to having the U.S. military enter Darfur against the wishes of the genocidal Sudanese government (for this purpose, my reasons don't matter). Conversely, some who favor this idea were bitterly opposed to the Iraq war.
Assume that O'Hanlon's Darfur plan is implemented, and that--as would be likely--serious charges of murder and war crimes are then leveled in the aftermath of a confrontation between U.S. forces and somebody.
Would I--a declared opponent of this action--be obligated to view these accused soldiers as Joe describes? As fellow citizens... sheepdogs... who deserve to face these charges and present their defenses in an untainted court-martial setting, absent a rush-to-judgement and trial-by-newsweekly-and-Congressperson?
If the answer is yes (I think it is), then how is an answer of no justified for the Marines of Kilo Company?
This is not an argument against fellow-citizens making judgements and drawing conclusions. As Joe wrote, "Extending the presumption of innocence does not stop a reasonable person from making moral judgments. So long as one is not a public official whose statement could prejudice or influence the result, one can even say 'I think they're guilty' and argue why."
So what evidence have you seen that leads you towards their guilt?
It almost seems rude to keep tripping you up over "technical" points of fact, but please note: they were not your fellow citizens. They were Saudi Arabian and Yemenese, and as such are entitled to no presumption of innocence.
But Andrew, saying "as to whether Haditha happened, however, there is no presumption of innocence" misses the mark, because it avoids addressing WHAT happened at Haditha, which is the entire need for forming opinions in the first place, and which has not yet been definitively established.
The facts of the case include media REPORTING of atrocities committed by US forces in Haditha, but conflicting reports are emerging, including questions concerning the reliability of the original sources. When taken with the media's general tendency to skew coverage toward negative events (a tendency manipulated by our enemies) and to get breaking stories spectacularly wrong (see Katrina coverage), I find plenty of room for a reasonable person to reserve judgment. Given this context, my position is that if the alleged atrocities happened, then those responsible should be punished fully.
If they happened.
Naturally, you are entitled to your opinions; it's just that you damage your credibility by referring to alleged and disputed events as indisputable facts, particularly when you have shown an ability to rebut statements you disagree with much more skilfully.
Your charge of hypocrisy over the suicides comment also misses, because the comment as you described it reflects an opinion (of whatever quality) concerning facts not in dispute.
Look, different viewpoints are healthy things, but setting the bar that low for accepting a report as fact is not, and that's the whole point here. We cannot hope to have a civil debate if we aren't willing to set a rigorously impartial standard of evidence by which to measure all our facts, and the standard evidenced by your comment is so low as to be meaningless.
-Piercello
Neither do I remember you complaining about presumption of innocence in the case of my fellow citizen José Padilla, although to be fair there were other conservatives at this site who did so.
Jose Padilla trained with al Qaeda; therefore he's an enemy combatant who should be tried according to military, not civil, rules and laws.
Presumably the residents of Guantanamo are also trained mujahideen, enemy combatants. It's not clear why we're spending the money and effort to keep these prisoners, or what benefits we get from doing this. Under the rules of the Geneva convention, we aren't required to take surrendering non-uniformed enemy combatants as prisoners.
Andrew re: #5: we agree. See:
Of course, there's also my next sentence...
Which is exactly what you did. You treated the subject not as a matter of opinion, but as a conclusion that was undebatable by reasonable people.
You'll forgive the rest of us if we fail to kowtow to your unchallengeable diktat, Mein Emperor.
Of course, Andrew then goes on the dig the hole deeper... I suppose I should add a third way in which the Left consistently screws up both the idea of "presumption of innocence" and citizenship obligations: by treating enemy combatants captured on the battlefield as if they were citizens like trhemselves. As Andrew does.
Obvious snarky comebacks to that idea aside, this completely misses the basic distinction between war and peace, the concept of citizenship as a reciprocal obligation, and indeed the entire concept of citizenship generally.
Enemy combatants captured on the battlefield who DO follow the laws of war will simply be interred for the duration of the conflict. No trial required. Precisely because they are NOT citizens, and indeed are making war upon people who ARE your fellow citizens.
Enemy combatants captured on the battlefield whose conduct is in violation of the basic laws of war, as the people at Guantanamo are, are entitled to very little beyond a speedy trial conducted by competent officers (possibly on the spot), followed by summary execution. There is ample wartime precedent for this. Anything else is a bonus, and must be justified by some value they could render in return.
Personally, I'm with Rockford. Better the jihadis should commit suicide in prison by themselves, than in a public environment where they will pursue their stated objectives to take my fellow citizens (or whomever else is handy) with them as they go.
But your deep concern for people who want to kill your fellow citizens does serve as an instructive counterpoint to your willingness to lynch your fellow citizens and US Marines, and suppress any views that believe they may be innocent. All before any trial has presented the facts.
But go on, pull my finger and tell us that some of your best friends are Marines. Or how much you support the troops.
simply be interred for the duration of the conflict
I dunno, Joe, burying them alive seems awfully harsh.
AJL,
I'm curious how you know for certain what happened at Haditha. I'm watching Time climb down a little bit, and I'm also watching the Duke rape case self-destruct. I've been following the (internet only) demolition of the Katrina coverage. (Which apparently continues: CNN complained yesterday that millions of dollars of breathing apparatus--useful for firefighters entering burning buildings, as I understood it--was simply left in warehouses rather than shipped to rescue workers in the flooded areas, in another failure of the Bush Administration. Huh?)
I certainly don't claim that this was a "hoax," as some have suggested, but it may well be quite different than it has been presented. How do you know otherwise?
Mary,
Padilla is a US citizen, and so should be dealt with per past case law on US citizens who have attached themselves to the enemy cause in wartime (the Quinn case being the most often-cited example, and indeed the courts have made their rulings on Padilla and said that he can be held).
Any approach other than one based on past law arguably presents a danger to all citizens, and fails the primary obligation of citizenship which is protection of each other.
If you're looking for extraordinary remedies, there's always formal stripping of someone's citizenship as a first step. Yet the history of ancient Greece drives home the point that the required measures should be rather extraordinary, in order to ensure that this power is not lightly used.
Basically, my take is that if it's not a power you'd willingly hand to your political opponents, it shouldn't be one you want.
Andrew --
See my comments re yours in the original thread.
Having been burned by phony allegations of atrocities in Iraq (made by Al Qaeda or Iraqis on the make, including proved-phony allegations against US and British troops) ... I am inclined to believe the Marines side of things as recounted in the WaPo:
*They took fire after the IED explosion, pursued Al Qaeda into the house.
*Heard movement in another room, threw a frag grenade and fired into the room.
*Killed the civilians thus by accident, pursued the Al Qaeda into another area.
*Civilians pointed out the Al Qaeda and they killed them.
Given the penchant for Iraqis, Palestinians, Al Qaeda, the anti-War movement (count is IIRC three phony anti-War veterans alleging atrocities they could not have seen because they never served) the burden of proof is on the MSM and the allegations; and it is high burden of proof because they flat out lied knowingly before (example: Koran flushed down the toilet).
Fake but Accurate is not good enough. The Marines side of things is consistent with their training (attack attackers, be aggressive but focused, etc). That Iraqi Al Qaeda people are alleging three different kinds of "beatings" of the dying Zarqawi or that he was "dissected" on the Autopsy table while still alive speaks to the massive credibility problems.
Having seen lie after lie after lie after lie exposed, I am disinclined to believe much of anything in the nature of "abuses" by US troops. I note with interest that Kos and the like could not even bring themselves to applaud Warner's happiness with Zarqawi's demise.
Essentially the Left picked a side: Al Qaeda's.
I'll note Lazarus has not been able to express his satisifaction that a man (Zarqawi) who "needed killing" did in fact get what he needed.
Left: horror over non-existent Koran flushing and support for "Behead those who Insult Islam" ... what more need be said? Billionaire President-for-Life Castro is appalled at Zarq's death and calls it a war crime.
Andrew, if you have a health plan that pays for head examinations, get your forms in now. Because the lights may be on, but Elvis has left the building.
Does someone really need to explain to you that a suicide is not an execution?
As for sentimentality over dead jihadists, I find myself all tapped out. It is my profound wish that all such persons who wish to shuffle off the mortal coil (without taking innocent people with them) do so with the utmost dispatch, and (to paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge)reduce the surplus asshole population.
I apologize for any collateral damage to your tender sensibilities.
"Pretty soon Haditha-deniers like Rockford will be the new Holocaust-deniers from Stormfront..."
Actually, the neo-nazis at Stormfront and the majority left like Andrew are singing from the same sheet in more than a few areas these days.
This is a variant of the Argument By Authority fallacy.
The standard form goes, "Consider this Authority that we all must agree is always right. He agrees with me. Therefore I'm right."
The variant form goes, "Consider this evil stupid person that we all must agree is always wrong. he agrees with my opponent. Therefore my opponent is wrong."
Basicly the same fallacy.
I don't remember quite what Andrew said but it sounded more complex than this. He was arguing that Jim Rockford has prejudged the issue, and will continue to post-judge the issue even after the truth is established (which looks like Andrew also prejudging the issue), and calling Rockford a holocaust-denier was probably intended as an insult. But what if he was making the same fallacy you made. It's still wrong for you to make it.
This sort of fallacy is effective because so many unthinking people accept it. But do you want those people to post more on your blog? Wouldn't it be better to expose the fallacy, and educate whichever of them can learn to reason?
I can see even reversing the same fallacy at people who make it, and then explaining how it's stupid in both directions. It's both ethical and practical to discourage bad thinking. Especially in people who agree with you. Stupid people who agree with you are likely to cause you as much trouble as stupid people who agree with your opponent cause him.
In the long run it's even practical to work toward getting your opponents to think clearly. While that encourages them to come up with ideas that are more of a challenge, the flip side is that no matter how stupid their ideas are, at some point they're likely to win and get the chance to implement them....
Of course it was an insult, and indicative of the Left.
Lazarus is unable to deny that allegations in the past of US and British and Israeli atrocities were shown to be either flat out false, or greatly exaggerated.
I have good empirical evidence to be highly doubtful of the claims (past lying by Iraqis and Al Qaeda on similar matters of phony atrocities).
Lazarus has only his hatred of the US military and the West and thus has to resort to insults when logic fails him. As it has.
These comments are useful in allowing people to unclothe themselves, metaphorically speaking, should they, like Andrew, wish to do so. If the audience by and large exclaims "yuck!" or "eewwww!" or some equivalent well thought out ejaculate, that is only the chance one takes in standing naked before a crowd. Should I perhaps say, Andrew would be standing if he had a leg to stand on?
Any approach other than one based on past law arguably presents a danger to all citizens, and fails the primary obligation of citizenship which is protection of each other.
Joe - One argument based on past law would declare that Padilla is a member of a group that is at war with all nation-states. Therefore he is a stateless "enemy of the human race" and he is without the protection of citizenship.
That worked in the past.
Joe,
While I agree with your comments, you have treated AJL's comment with far more seriousness than it deserves.
Katzman's construction is not as you posit at all. He states that Andrew is "singing from the same sheet" or, to put it another way, making the same arguments as the Nazis did. IOW, Katzman, rather than claiming that, because the actions/statements of the left are quite similar to those of the Nazis, they must be the same as the Nazis (thus an Argument From Authority) is pointing out the similarity of the arguments, thus calling attention to the fact that Andrew's argument stems from the same sort of biased thinking.
Which I believe is precisely the point Katzman wants the reader to understand — not that Andrew is a Nazi but that Andrew's reasoning is flawed in the same way a Nazi's reasoning is flawed.
I can say that I find some level of solace with this thought - If those tyrants whom a significant number of people on the Left defend and cheer-on were to seize power in the US (or in the UK), the first people these tyrants would kill would likely be those same people who are supporting them now. By supporting, I mean questioning every step that their own country makes. Sure, it's all nice to say that you are exercising your rights - cute way to use the Constitution for self gratification. The people that the Marines are providing the MOST protection to are the LEFT and their factions. The people that the Islamists fear and hate most are YOU! Think about it. The Islamists generally dislike the Right because we have supported invading the Holy Land and the fact that we are generally a Christian leaning nation. That's a small ticket, Babycakes. Think of the reasons explained for the Islamists fearing and hating us (notice, that's "us" and not "US", because like it or not, Bubba, we are all grouped in the same gas-chamber when it comes to them). It isn't the Christiam lifestyle... They fear and hate the lifestyles that you embrace and defend daily in this country. Basically, they dislike the same behaviors that your 'enemies' in the Christian Right dislike. The big difference is that the Christian Right in this country isn't happy with you, but we put up with you (just as you put up with us). In the case of the Islamists, they would like nothing more than to exterminate you. One blade from ear-to-ear, under the chin and all for their fanatical version of their religion.
Maybe some of you should think of that. Yeah, those of you that just cringe when you see a Marine in uniform. I want you to imagine laying on a rock-hard dirt floor in a cell waiting for that nice man for whom you so silently cheer (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi... Oh! That's right, he's dead... sorry) to walk in with a knife and hack your head off (as he did proudly and boastfully with Nick Berg). I can hear you praying to yourself that same the Marines you loathe and want to spit on will come to your rescue. Unfortunately, they will do it. They always have. They always will. That is what makes some of you such pathetic hypocrites.
Again, it is ironic (and sad) that the people who are often most benefited by our servicemen are those who seem to resent them the most. Oh well.
Antimedia is not wrong in #21; for instance, I do spend time on the inherent creepiness of treating the potential innocence of one's fellow citizens as undiscussable pre-trial, a sort of reasoning that is indeed flawed in the same way that a fascist's is.
Yet there was also an element in my writing that is not in his description, and so he is not exactly right in describing my response and its intent. This riposte:
....was primarily phrased as a sharp reminder that those who live by certain rhetorical swords may well die on them. Deterrence is also a logical construct, and far more useful than formal logic if one wishes to prevent bad behaviour. I therefore chose it deliberately as my opening in this case.
I'll add that teaching people to think is for those with a potential interest in instruction, which is never your enemy in a polemical debate. This is why Robin's comment in #20 and Gabriel's in #1 about this being a waste of time are also off-base...
I did not write this post for Andrew, nor do I have the slightest hope that it will change the deep-seating antipathies toward the West or the US military which drive his views. I wrote it for people who approach the subject with an unformed/neutral stance and an open mind and may be convinced, which is usually the majority of one's audience. I also wrote it for those who viscerally feel that something is with Andrew's approach, but find it helpful to have the underlying problem picked apart clearly in a way that makes the problems clearer, and emphasizes/reaffirms the important underlying standards of behaviour and civics which were violated.
Joe,
That is often the most arduous yet revealing process. And given the quote with its loaded connotations, it was necessary to 'pick it apart'. Well done!
Walter's Ridge (#2) follows up with yet another, no longer general just a stereotype: The Left knows how to dish out but can't ever take it. Time and time again it is shown, that in a nutshell, the vast majority of the Left's base is driven in their personal lives by destructive emotions such as envy, resentment, bitterness and most of all, pure and gut-wrenching hatred which, like any pressure cooker under too much heat, needs to release its steam through the emergency valve. But, just as with steam, a retort in kind is never part of the equation. After all, the underlying perception is a righteous condemnation of the outside world; for it has caused the misery, it is to blame for all hardship and wrongs brought upon the individual. How dare the collective 'they' then have the audacity to add salt to injury.
The Right is not free of such unfortunate supporters, but the overwhelming majority are people who are driven by an urge to achieve, to improve, to advance, to build; not to tare down, to destroy and to systematically debase the key ingredient of success: excellence.
I did not say that your post was a waste of time, Joe. What you've written is valuable and I agree with it. And yet, one thing remains unchanged - Andrew's comment was still just a cheap insult.
As to whether Haditha happened, however, there is no presumption of innocence. We can take cognizance of the existence of a crime without formally prejudging the suspects.
Of course there is. The first step here is determining that a crime has occurred. Those investigations are still ongoing to the best of my knowledge. The press has been backpedaling and the “facts” seem less clear rather than more clear as this thing drags on. The death of civilians in this conflict where terrorists hide among the civilian population is a given. The assumption that the existence of dead civilians in a town that has been particularly dangerous for our troops, even if they turn out to be full of 5.56mm holes, represents an atrocity and a war crime is simply premature.
When there is a body obviously killed by gunfire in a house on Main Street USA you can assume a crime has been committed. Same body in a house in a war zone - No. If you assume there is a crime you assume there is a criminal. How can you accept at face value that a crime has been committed, yet claim that you maintain presumption of innocence for those who would obviously have committed said crime?
The sad part of course is that if there are no indictments it has to be a cover up. If there is a courts martial but they are acquitted well that is to be expected right? I mean how would other soldiers and officers vote to convict – they would protect their own right?
Nothing could be further from the truth, but of course much of the left and 95% of the MSM do not understand that, having scant familiarity with all things military. The UCMJ is in many ways harsher than our civilian courts. Put these soldiers on trial in a civilian court with a civilian jury and even with compelling evidence I submit that they would walk. In a courts martial with a jury of their peers (made up of both enlisted and officers) they will be convicted if the evidence is there. No one is faster to cull the sheepdog gone bad than the other sheepdog.
"How can you accept at face value that a crime has been committed, yet claim that you maintain presumption of innocence for those who would obviously have committed said crime?
The sad part of course is that if there are no indictments it has to be a cover up."
I think this is a very important point, and it is hard to argue against. As the saying goes, a lie gets half way around the world before the truth has his shoes laced up. If you are going to report only the hyped up story without access to all the facts, you had better be very careful about how you frame it. The media (and some politicians of whom we all know of) have not been careful at all. Now the name Haditha is synonimous with massacre, and that is unfair at this point.
Its pretty similar to the Duke rape case. The allegations came out long before the exculpatory evidence possibly could- which of course compelled the defense to rush out or leak the counter-evidence, which leads to the accusations of stone-walling, jury pool poisoning, or (in the military case) coverup. But what are the alternatives?
I'm certainly not saying a serious event like this shouldnt be covered. But if the media can manage to interject every single story of good news in Iraq with cautious and grim reminders of all the problems that still exist (Good luck finding a Zarqawi story that doesnt mention the continued existance of AQ in Iraq, and like as not the fact OBL is still out there), one would think they would take at least equal care in defending the integrity of our troops in the field, at least until enough evidence is brought force to make a fair evaluation.
As it is, OCSteve is exactly right. The atmosphere is that something terrible happened, and now even if completely compelling counter-evidence comes forth there will be immediate assumption of a coverup. That is supremely unfair to our troops. The media (much less the politicians and talking heads!) should give at least as much caution to their reporting of bad news as they do to good.
"When there is a body obviously killed by gunfire in a house on Main Street USA you can assume a crime has been committed. Same body in a house in a war zone - No."
Heck, even on "Main Street USA" you can't really assume that a crime was commited. It might be the conclusion most likely to be correct, but it's certainly not the ONLY conclusion possible. It could have been an accident. It could have been a suicide. It could have been a case of self-defence. Or an arrest gone bad. No matter what the actual circumstances, it'd be massively premature to make speculations based on just the fact that a body was found with a bullet-hole in it. When such an event occurs in a warzone, it's even more foolish to presume the guilt of any group of individuals because there are even more possible explanations, and way more circumstances in which these deaths may not have constituted a crime. As foolish as such an assumption would be under most circumstances, it becomes something more along the lines of rabbid bias and idiocy when one realizes that the individuals making these assumptions are basing them on nothing more than highly unreliable witnesses (as in much more unreliable than usual), and the reporting of a media which has constantly jumped at every opportunity to slander US soldiers. That's rather like beleiving (to use a hypothetical example) that the Mossad brought down the WTC, just because Ernest Zundel said so and Stormfront wrote articles based on his testimony.
a quibble re the detainees at Gitmo.
Side 1 says that we're abusing freedoms, cause we're holding them without trial or charge.
Side 2 says that they were caught on the field of battle, and have no more rights to trial then enemy POWs. But since they were NOT lawful combatants, they dont even have those rights - we could detain them forever if we wanted, hell we could shoot them if we wanted.
Side 1 responds (as Joe neglects to mention) catching them on the field of battle is a stretch for many of them. Many were pulled out of Madrassahs, etc, and were NOT caught on the literal field of battle, weapons in hand. They are therefore entitled to at least a fair trial on whether they were unlawful combatants, or innocents swept up.
LH chimes in - AFAICT there was little good reason for a Saudi or Yemeni muslim to be in Afghanistan AT ALL in fall 2001 if they werent Taliban/AQ militants/trainees. So IMHO its VERY LIKELY prima facie, that most Gitmo detainees were unlawful combatants, and so, given the security concerns with trials, I can sympathize with the desire to have DOD controlled special tribunals as their only legal forum. OTOH I wouldnt be surprised if we made some mistakes, and I sympathize with the arguments made by side 2, recognizing that not all share my judgement about what someone might have been doing in Afghanistan in fall 2001. That is the basis for my A. NOT agreeing that the existence of Gitmo is legally or morally wrong and B. at the same time not beleiving that everyone who wants Gitmo closed is a fool or traitor.
"It could have been a suicide. "
smaller quibble
Suicide is still a crime in most states.
Rob Lyman asks a real question: why do I believe "for certain" the stories of the Haditha massacre? That deserves an answer. All the gibberish about terrorist-loving really doesn't, although I have some observations at the end of the comment.
A good summary of why I believe the story, at least in broad outline, may be found at Mark Kleiman's site. Entitled "Warbloggers in Denial", he begins by saying I couldn't have put it better myself. Read the whole thing. My own reasoning runs on what I believe is a parallel but not indentical course—Kleiman's argument on "presumption of innocence" is in fact the same as mine, down to the OJ example. However, I would defend my own beliefs a little differently.- The statements of ex-Marine Rep. Murtha and Republican ex-Marine Rep. Kline, who was conveniently forgotten are almost certainly from their sources in the Marine officer corps, and as such are admissions against interest. As such, I'd say they have considerable weight.
- What's more, these admissions come on the timetable of an unraveling coverup. What I mean by this is that the first story was that the civilians were killed by a bomb, and that story was abandoned only in the face of physical evidence. Then a whitewash investigation was performed, likewise reaching positions that are now being evacuated in the face of witnesses and physical evidence. The leaks are getting us ready for (most likely) the inconvenient truth. Disinformation and lies like Tawana Brawley, the Jenin "massacre", and even, to make a provisional assumption, the Gaza family that stepped on a Hamas mine, and the Duke Lacrosse case run on the reverse schedule. Liars get the maximally shocking story out immediately, sometimes even getting a non-committal "It might be possible" from (for example) the IDF, which launched an investigation into the Gaza incident immediately, and whose conclusions of a Palestinian own-goal are now left to catch up to the deceptions.
Frankly, I'm relatively confident that the news will soon make the Haditha massacre incontrovertible. If it doesn't, I will indeed look like I succumbed to anti-Bush bias. But if it does, don't worry, I won't be looking for an apology from all of you. I realize that I should be condemned as "true but inaccurate", as opposed to your noble continued self-deception in the cause of the War on Truth and Terror.Minor notes: The Supreme Court most certainly did not authorize continued indefinite detention for José Padilla. Knowing that they would lose this case (probably 8-1), the Bush Administration removed Padilla to a civilian court where he will eventually get a trial with presumption of innocence, right to counsel, and all those other frivolities you are so willing to surrender.
Also, I think it would be reasonable to deal with terrorist as pirates. The problem with #19 is that pirates, too, had rights when captured. What was extraordinary about pirates was they were subject to universal jurisdiction. They weren't taken to Guantanamo (which I imagine was more of a pirate hideout than prison back then) and left to rot.
And last (for now), I understand we have charged all of ten Gitmo prisoners with actual crimes. The others are all left without either POW rights or even trials for war crimes, just in some permanent limbo that will have to be resolved by a subsequent, more ethical, government, doubtless to the catcalls of the warbloggers.
Wasn’t Mark Kleiman’s last big scoop about how Karl Rove had already been indicted?
I seem to recall reading something in the news about that . . .It should be noted that the only “statements” from Congressman John Kline about the marines are from the same Time magazine which just got busted for claiming that there was a (nonexistent) photograph. And even then Kline (unlike Murtha) conspicuously uses the word “allegedly” in the article while making no statement suggesting that the shootings were intentional.
So far your sources are 0 for 2.
"are almost certainly from their sources in the Marine officer corps, and as such are admissions against interest."
I've heard of unnamed sources... but unclaimed sources, that's new.
"Also, I think it would be reasonable to deal with terrorist as pirates. The problem with #19 is that pirates, too, had rights when captured. What was extraordinary about pirates was they were subject to universal jurisdiction. They weren't taken to Guantanamo (which I imagine was more of a pirate hideout than prison back then) and left to rot."
No, they were summarilly hung in many jurisdictions. I fail to see the justice in this. Moreover there is a certain 'protest too much' to this cry for legal status. Somehow i doubt those calling the terrorists status into question as the great moral quagmire of our time would be placated were they tried and executed via military tribunal (or civilian court for that matter). Honestly Andrew, would that make you feel any better?
"And last (for now), I understand we have charged all of ten Gitmo prisoners with actual crimes."
We could always take Churchill's suggestion:
"Just prior to the Teheran Conference, Churchill proposed a radical plan of summary executions of high-ranking Nazis accused of war crimes that were not limited to a particular geographic location. Churchill’s plan was that the nearest officer of major general rank would convene a court of inquiry not for the determination of guilt but solely to establish identity. Once identified the officer would order his execution within six hours"
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/betrayalp3.htm
at least their status would be clear. I doubt Andrew would be much happier.
Andrew,
What we have here is not a cover-up, but the opposite - and the very article you cite is evidence. What an interesting replay of AL's recent post, from the very Kleinman post you link:
In other words, when presented with new information the DoD investigated, came to a conclusion, but kept pursuing the investigation because it saw some discrepancies. That is the opposite of a cover up, and your lack of basic truthfulness in describing it certainly leads one to question... well, everything else you say, actually.
I'll add that a preliminary investigation is just that - a preliminary investigation. There's a reason we don't sentence people on that basis, but take these things to trial. There's also a reason that the say-so of a Congressman can't put people in jail.
Having said that, I can see how you could reasonably believe that the Marines involved may be guilty. The truth is that you know very little on a personal level because little has been divulged, and the same is true for your opoonents. You have reasons for thinking something may have happened. They see some notable holes in the story being presented. We'll all see. That's why the system is in place.
The thing is, your reiteration of why you believe in the Marines' guilt is irrelevant to the issues that made your conduct inexcusable - and so is whether or not you turn out to be right.
What you said was NOT that you believed the Marines to be guilty. What you said was that it was illegitimate for others to doubt that belief, all before any trial had presented full evidence and made a determination.
And right there, you crossed a number of very big red lines. But then, such formalities as trials or waiting to hear solid evidence re: one's fellow citizens beyond "so-and-so says" are only inconveniences when one is possessed of THE ONE TRUTH. Indeed, being so gifted, one must wonder why we should have a trial at all?
Which is precisely where your logic leads.
If you wish to retract that despicable statement, and agree that it's possible for reasonable people to doubt your conclusions or remain agnostic pending more solid evidence, the floor is open to you to do so.
Me, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that much decency from you. But I'm open to being surprised.
Katzman's construction is not as you posit at all. He states that Andrew is "singing from the same sheet" or, to put it another way, making the same arguments as the Nazis did. IOW, Katzman, rather than claiming that, because the actions/statements of the left are quite similar to those of the Nazis, they must be the same as the Nazis (thus an Argument From Authority) is pointing out the similarity of the arguments, thus calling attention to the fact that Andrew's argument stems from the same sort of biased thinking.
Antimedia he did not at any point show what flaw he's claiming in nazi thinking. He merely claimed they were similar.
If not argument by authority, what's left? Argument by Bad Company? "He thinks like a nazi. Everybody knows that nazis are wrong and evil and illogical. Therefore he's wrong too."
If you want people to learn how to argue logically (an admirable goal) and to understand argumentive fallacies, you would do well to learn them yourself first.
Yes, agreed.
And last (for now), I understand we have charged all of ten Gitmo prisoners with actual crimes. The others are all left without either POW rights or even trials for war crimes, just in some permanent limbo that will have to be resolved by a subsequent, more ethical, government, doubtless to the catcalls of the warbloggers.
The gitmo detainees are being detained, not punished. It wouldn't bother me if they were all released tommorow if the President had made a determination that they no longer constituted a threat to U.S. military operations.
It also wouldn't bother me if the 2008 Presidential candidates were asked how long they should be detained or the circumstances for their release. If a candidate wants to declare his intent to release everyone in Gitmo on the day he or she is sworn in, then both Andrew and I will know who to vote for.
Jim, you say you believe the following.
*They took fire after the IED explosion, pursued Al Qaeda into the house.
*Heard movement in another room, threw a frag grenade and fired into the room.
*Killed the civilians thus by accident, pursued the Al Qaeda into another area.
*Civilians pointed out the Al Qaeda and they killed them.
Then why did they lie about it the first time around claiming that all were killed by the IED?
The fact is, the Marines lied about what happened at Haditha. A reasonable person would be suspicious when the accused begin drastically changing their story.
The BIG problem in all of this is that the Marine Corps itself had no problem with them changing their story.
I would repeat, I do not believe people should be jailed on the say-so of the President (cue Padilla reference), and therefore a fortiori the say-so of two members of Congress. It remains my opinion, however, that the leaks and the rollback of the totally-false initial response (complete with "This is AQ propoganda") make the existence of unjustified homicides in Haditha very, very likely.
These are not academic points; in many ways, they go to the heart of whether one has a common citizenship, or just a power arena in which various factions compete.
" ... for without this end [of virtue] the community becomes a mere alliance which differs only in place from alliances of which the members live apart; and law is only a convention, 'a surety to one another of justice,' as the sophist Lycophron says, and has no real power to make the citizens."
Aristotle, 'Politics', book 3, chapter 9.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html
This riposte:
"Actually, the neo-nazis at Stormfront and the majority left like Andrew are singing from the same sheet in more than a few areas these days...."
....was primarily phrased as a sharp reminder that those who live by certain rhetorical swords may well die on them. Deterrence is also a logical construct, and far more useful than formal logic if one wishes to prevent bad behaviour. I therefore chose it deliberately as my opening in this case.
Tit for tat can be a useful approach, sometimes. Be careful with it. Arguing on the other guy's level might not be what you want. "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
I'll add that teaching people to think is for those with a potential interest in instruction, which is never your enemy in a polemical debate.
Sure. But the readers you want to stay around ... Stupid people who agree with you cause a whole lot more trouble than stupid people who argue against you. Keep it clean and they might learn or they might go away. Either way you win.
You know, the biggest thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that it's 100% clear that all the outrage is 100% politicaly motivated. I'll give you some examples.
About a year ago two members of a local unit allegedly beat to death a homeless man outside of the armories. The investigation is ongoing, however, at the time of their arrest there were a few articles in the newspapers and the whole thing was promptly forgotten. It seems people were willing to accept that these individuals, even though they're part of the military, were not carrying out any official anti-homeless policy.
Just recently, in the Canadian anti-terror sweep, one of the arrested suspects turned out to have been a member of a local regiment for a year or two before converting to Islaam, leaving the military, and then (allegedly) planning to blow up various buildings and kill the prime minister. And once again, the fact that he was once a soldier received very little attention.
Now, contrast that to the media circus surrounding the alleged conduct of these Marines in Haditha. Even if we knew 100% for certain that they were guilty, why is this such a big deal? They're certainly not enacting a US policy of slaughtering innocent Iraqis. In fact, their actions would have taken place not BECAUSE of their trainig or policy, but IN SPITE of extensive training meant to prevent exactly that sort of behaviour. So when a soldier commits murder on western soil, it's understood that the military or government isn't the cause of that act. Yet when the same thing happens overseas, it's a massive scandal and clear evidence that many other attrocities must be happening. Meanwhile, terrorists, who make it their policy to target civilians, are treated with kid-gloves by the media, and we're constantly urged to try and understand "why they hate us".
Now you try and tell me that politics has nothing to do with those conclusions.
Alex, is there some small possibility that there is so much more attention to the Haditha incident because, if true (added to sharpen argument), it would greatly damage our campaign for Iraqi hearts and minds? Killing a homeless man, reprehensible as it might be, does not.
Andrew,
I see your response in #38 utterly failed to respond to central point of my comment in #34, or indeed one of the central points of the article. One more time:
I don't really give a damn why you think as you do, or even what you choose to believe. It's not relevant to the issue of your egregious breach of conduct, and you keep coming back to it in order to avoid facing the issues of your conduct by attempting to derail discussion of it.
One might even call it a cover-up... and until you begin to face it instead of weaseling, you are not a fit discussion partner regarding this issue.
J Thomas (#40)... I welcome this discussion, because part of what Winds is about is improving our readers' skills in dialogue and debate.
In debate, it is entirely legitimate argumentation to warn someone that a rhetorical point he is using could easily be turned against him. Regardless of the nature of that point. Disputation of the form of that point may follow, if one wishes, but that depends on the point's centrality to discussion.
Regarding the potential legitimacy of that point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. While noting parallels with Stormfront et. al. can be a form of Reverse Argument From Authority, it is not always so. It can also be a valid warning that one may be venturing where angels fear to tread. Of course, the parallel must be a valid one for starters (as Andrew's is not - the Holocaust is a documented historical fact with lots of credible public material from multiple sources, what happened at Haditha remains only conjecture with little public material). It also becomes more convincing the more one presents evidence or chains of reasoning that map the parallels specifically.
As another example, consider a recent post at Harry's Place, which showed a number of caricatures from current left-wing outlets alongside some caricatures from the Nazi era and neo-nazi sources. Not only was there a common theme re: Jews controlling the world, the images used were very similar. Your disputations suggest that this is not a compelling argument, merely Reverse Argument from Authority. With respect, that response would be overly academic and wrong. The similarity is a very valid issue, and a very compelling argument for many people, and it is not a mistake to think so but a valid application of inductive common sense.
Per my earlier note about "depends on the point's centrality to discussion" - the reason I did not go deeper into the brown/red/green confluence (though we have a whole topic archive with a good deal of source material here on Winds) is that it was NOT the main point of the discussion, and should not become so because that would obscure an set of issues that I believed to be more important. That, too, is not only a valid approach to discussion, but often a necessary one.
Hope this clarifies.
Andrew, there's a problem that the damage it does us in iraq is the same whether it's true or not.
Iraqis who only get rumors will hear really bad rumors.
Iraqis who look into it a bit deeper will see our guys changing their story. Even if it's true they killed a bunch of insurgents along with some accidental innocents, they claimed it was an IED killing those people. It makes iraqis less likely to believe it the next time our guys say an IED or suicide bomb kills civilians. They'll be that much more likely to believe the rumors instead.
Say it turns out they were truly following the ROE. Imagine you're an iraqi hearing that. You imagine your wife is home taking care of the children, an insurgent breaks into your house and shoots at the americans. The americans throw a grenade in the room where she is and then jump in themselves and shoot everybody. Standard practice. Do you feel safer knowing the americans are protecting your family from insurgents?
Now say it turns out the ruling is that the evidence doesn't show they did anything wrong. That's not going to play very well among iraqis who're going to believe it was a massacre and this is the ultimate coverup. Americans naturally believe the Marines don't do anything wrong, iraqis naturally believe they do. Never mind who's right, if these Marines get off it will not play well there.
Now how about if it's determined they get punished, but not severely. A lot of iraqis will be outraged. We admitted they were guilty, and we still didn't do much? That's probably one of the worst outcomes, it eliminates the uncertainty and focuses in crystal clear.
OK, suppose they get called guilty and get really tough sentencing. Nothing but capital punishment would satisfy the iraqis who care, but here's another angle -- we show them what it takes to get justice from us. It takes first ironclad evidence. And it takes photos and video. The photos and video have to get to the western media, and the media have to choose to publicise them. Then you can get a trial. No chance for anything less. Now, this isn't really accurate. We were investigating Abu Ghraib before the media heard about it and there's no evidence the investigation would have been classified and covered up. And there are lots of examples where after some bad action we quickly accept the evidence, discipline the bad actors, and give money to the victims. But those examples don't get much publicity. The ones everybody hears about come only after the media makes a big fuss over them with photos or video. And in most of those cases our military PR guys deny everything at first.
Any way it gets handled, we come out looking bad in iraq. Might as well just let the military justice system work however it works. I don't see that any political pressure or secret orders from the high brass could be worth doing, when all the outcomes are bad for the war effort.
"I would repeat, I do not believe people should be jailed on the say-so of the President (cue Padilla reference), and therefore a fortiori the say-so of two members of Congress. "
Does that apply to prisoners of war in general? What do you do when you capture 100,000 enemy troops? Let them go? Try them all? And how do we know they are each and every one an actual enemy soldier? Assumedly the numbers themselves indicate at least a small number are likely unlikely civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time. Can we live with ourselves if the chef from the enemy barracks gets swept up into the POW camp?
In debate, it is entirely legitimate argumentation to warn someone that a rhetorical point he is using could easily be turned against him.
I see. It wasn't clear to me that you weren't making the same mistake. But your explanation makes sense. The way I read your original statement wasn't what you intended to say. Perhaps the feedback that I found it easy to misread will be of some use to you. But maybe it's just me. No harm done, and thank you for taking it so graciously.
I guess I'll respond to the original point now.
First off, "innocent until proven guilty" is a sort of emotional shorthand, it doesn't describe what we do or what we ought to do. If the legal system gave presumption of innocence they wouldn't hold anybody without bail. But they presume that given the choice some people might not show up for trial.
As you point out, citizens have no obligation to presume innocence. They can talk about it and say who they think is guilty. If somebody else disagrees, do they have an obligation to admit either side might be right? I think politeness requires that, but nothing more.
Speaking for myself, if I find myself on a jury or by some unexplainable longshot a judge, I will do my best to choose only on the evidence presented, and not assume guilt. I see that as an ethical choice that our society requires, which many citizens may fail at. Anything about "presumption of innocence" beyond that, is a privilege I may routinely grant at my own unconstrained choice.
If I'm hiring an accountant and the candidate who looks best in every other way was fired from his last job for embezzlement and is awaiting trial, I feel no obligation to presume innocence. There's a cloud over him. If I hire him anyway I'm extending trust that might be repaid in loyalty -- at his choice. If he later starts working for a competitor while he takes my pay and pretends to work for me, that means I misjudged him and it's my own responsibility.
I see no particular reason to limit presumption of innocence to my fellow citizens. If a foreigner gets wrongly accused of some crime, and I go along with it, then we get two bad results. We get an innocent foreigner clogging our punishment system, and we get an unaccused criminal free to do more crime. Oh, and there's another bad result -- I have been fooled. I believe something that is not so, and that can hit me from behind any time.
On the other hand, try this logic. Suppose you're getting some petty theft and vandalism and such. And some homeless people are living nearby. You have no evidence to convict them of a crime, but there's nothing to keep you from persuading them to move on. That's what it means to be homeless, they have no rights that way. So if the problems continue after they're gone then probably it wasn't them and you have inconvenienced them for nothing. Ssd for them. You had the right.
Same with foreigners, or fellow citizens. You shouldn't judge them without firm evidence. But whatever you are legally allowed to do at will, for your own reasons, is your choice. If you do something that might clear up your problem, and it's bad for them, but it's your right, then presumption of innocence doesn't have anything to do with it.
Andrew was being rude. There's no law againsxt that. You can ban him or delete his posts or tell him he's acting like a nazi or otherwise insult him back. No law against that either.
To #48 J Thomas,
It's not about it being legal, it's about it being civilized. Remember the title of Huntington's book? Physical might makes right up to a point, but inner might must also be considered, or you'll just give up the fight, some time in the future.
See from #39:
" ... for without this end [of virtue] the community becomes a mere alliance which differs only in place from alliances of which the members live apart; and law is only a convention, 'a surety to one another of justice,' as the sophist Lycophron says, and has no real power to make the citizens."
Aristotle, 'Politics', book 3, chapter 9.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html
Mark Buehner asks "Does that apply to prisoners of war in general?"
No. We haven't granted Geneva Convention POW rights to the Gitmo prisoners, nor do we charge them as illegal combatants. We hold them in limbo. But even that doesn't apply here in the least. Padilla is not a battlefield detainee; he was picked up at O'Hare Airport. He is a test of the doctrine that the President of the United States is (or is not) permitted to issue lettres de cachet. On this English law was crystal clear, even before the American Revolution.Joe states in #43 that I believe it is immoral not to hold the Marines guilty. That is an overstatement of my position. Guilt is a legal concept. Perhaps the perpetrators are not guilty, by reason of insanity. I don't think that can hold, as a matter of law, here; I am simply trying to distinguish the question of guilt from the question of what happened. What I have said, and say again, is that it is delusional to believe that there was no unwarranted killing of civilians in Haditha and that it is tinfoil territory to see this as some very slow-moving AQ propaganda fabrication.
AJL,
Thank you for a serious answer. I think your timeline argument points strongly to a coverup (which is a crime in and of itself), but I do not think that a coverup requires an underlying crime. It requires only that those covering up fear that they may have committed a crime (Hello there, Mr. Libby). As it is unlikely that this squad had a judge advocate next to them in action, they may have erroneously concluded they broke the law and covered up unnecessarily.
As for the testimony of two congressmen, I hardly think it qualifies as an admission against interest; their direct interest is in being reelected and hiring well-endowed young interns, neither of which has anything to do with Haiditha. Even supposing they are correctly quoting their sources, we know nothing of those sources probity or relationship to the investigation.
Even were an NICS investigtor or Marine colonel to come forward and (highly improperly) disclose what he had uncovered on the record, that is still only one side of the story. Nifong did that, and where are we?
If the President can't throw an alleged terrorist in jail without a greater showing of guilt than "I say so," (and on that I must agree with you), then I see no justificaiton for concluding that Marines are guilty based on the "I say so" of anonymous sources speaking through politicians.
What difference does it make whether we think they were probably guilty or not, really? If they get discharged and I meet one of them in a bar, I probably won't remember his name. If I do I'm not going to punch him in the nose even if I think he did the wrong thing.
If there's an issue here it's about the general course of the war. What this says to iraqis, and what it says to US voters.
I doubt it means all that much to iraqis. They already believe that we shoot people on whim and there's nothing they can do about it. They can't believe we do it all that often or they wouldn't dare go out on the streets. And every time an iraqi does go out on the street and a US patrol goes by and somebody points a gun at him but doesn't shoot, he can figure that it was only that one foreigner's choice to let him live that kept him from getting shot right then. A tiny massacre months ago in an insurgent-controlled area, a cover-up, a whitewash, and probably a second whitewash and wrong acquittal after the media notice? Nothing new, nothing important, nothing to change an opinion for. They tend to already believe the worst of us and they'll tend to keep believing the worst of us no matter how it comes out.
And for US voters it's a kind of litmus test. Without knowing the facts, what are you ready to assume? You can assume that our boys would never do anything wrong. You can treat it as a partisan political issue. You can be a partisan for or against the military, and take whatever stand looks like it would help or hurt the Marine Corps. You can treat it like a gambler at the races, look over the evidence and decide which way to bet. I tend toward the last of those, I'd try to guess what happened just to be right without considering who wins or loses from my decision and without letting my guess depend on whose side I'm on.
But all that aside, it looks to me like it shows up a bankrupt military tactic. The claim is that they were going into an insurgent-controlled area mostly to stir things up and keep the insurgents off balance. They weren't going in to stay or to leave ISF guys staying there. They were just stirring up trouble. And what kind of trouble was more likely than an IED attack on their clay-pigeon vehicles? Then the ROE lets them go after somebody who looks like he set it off, and if somebody shoots at them they can go after the shooters. Maybe that isn't really the ROE but people talk like it is.
So, their orders are to parade around in the enemy's back yard until they trigger an ambush, and then fight their way out? This is what passes for tactics in this war? If they got an IED attack and nothing else, nobody to shoot back at, it's no wonder they'd be real upset. What's on the schedule for tomorrow? Maybe it's get another vehicle to replace the one that's lost and the survivors go out and do it again?
There's got to be a better way. If I have time I'll propose an alternative tomorrow. Anybody else who's interested -- does it seem like this is actually the tactic used? Can there be a better tactic?