Politicians in Israel, in the United States, in Britain and in other countries are wanted in many places for war crimes. Although most politicians are the ones who initiate force, it is the people who choose them for that purpose. Most Americans were in favor of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority of Israelis were in favor of operation cast lead. Yet it is the prime minsters and the army generals that are being sought for war crimes. Why is that? How are the voters less innocent? The American public chose a president who is willing to attack nations abroad. If it wasn't Bush it would have been someone else. It is the public that had the intent, the motive and the opportunity. The politician was just the hit man. Why are the people then considered innocent civilians, and the politicians, whom these same people sent and payed for, are considered the villains?
Democrats (proponents of democracy that is) want to have their cake and eat it too. They believe the people are the state, but don't want the responsibility of answering for the crimes of the state. But the people AREN'T the state and aren't guilty of crimes that they didn't commit. Voting for, giving money to, or worshipping a murderer are not the same things as being a murderer; they are actually innocent of war crimes.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, actually killers invoke the nuremburg defense for everything: "Just following orders SIR!"
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
There is an inherent conflict of interest within the current legal system and until that conflict of interest is addressed there will never be any real justice. Sure we have departments of justice, but naming a department that of justice does not mean that real justice will exist. War is an industry and that is why it has lobbyist of its own, not only lobbyist but a real influence over the political infrastructure. If we agree that the politicians are only puppets or actors, then they are victims of the military manipulation of the system.
50% of Americans supported the 2003 Iraq War and only after being lied to and manipulated at length. Having an opinion, even an abhorent one, is not a crime. It is not the support of the public that causes wars, but the other way around.
It is not the support of the public that causes war? You must be kidding. Do you think ANY president after 9/11 would survive a month without attacking some country? Of course not, he would be impeached, assasinated, whatever. The public wanted revenge, and they made it happen through George Bush in that particular case.
Technically 95% of the people still support the Iraq War since they won't vote for Dr. Paul.
I have to agree with Eugene on this one.
He could have easily attacked Al-Quada and stoped there. It was Bushes choice to attack the nation of Afghanistan. EDIT: Besides, I said having an opinion. Having an opinion on policy is one thing. Lobbying for your opinion to become policy is another.
Technically 95% of the people still support the Iraq War since they won't vote for Dr. Paul. I have to agree with Eugene on this one.
50% of people do not vote. Are you saying they should start?
Good point, but 50% of the people don't vote because they'd rather not have Dr. Paul nor anarchy.
The other 50% aren't voluntaryists, so you're right, I don't want them voting.
So let me get this right, you are saying the people are guilty of causing this situation of war? However this is only because they held an opinion of anger, rather than the actual tool's to commit the act in the first place. Yet, the person that has the actual tool's is absolved of this responsibility because of the perceived threat by those that hold the opinion of anger that he should commit such an act?
You don't see the fallacy in that?
This is why morality should never be the basis of any argument, it's too structural to be applied to irrational creatures such as humans.
Gee, I thought they elected presidents of the U.S. solely on the basis of their stance on abortion. I think you give the voting public way too much credit.
A little over 50 million people voted for George W Bush in 2000. That's less than 50% of the people who voted (105 million people), and those who voted were less than half the population.
Of the 50 million people who voted for Bush, it's doubtful that the majority voted on the basis of invading Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, one of Bush's promises was to end what he called "nation building". That's a promise he apparently abandoned. I'm sure there was a healthy number of voters who voted for Bush as the lesser or two evils when compared with Al Gore.
If you've bought into Lincoln's old line "of the people, by the people, for the people" then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Votes in the U.S. are made in secret, and aren't traceble to an individual. So even if you were to declare the 50 million people who voted for Bush to be guilty of war crimes, then you really have no way of identifying the criminals.
Polling data are even less reliable. Most are just statistical projections based on a sample size.
The U.S. does have a political elite consisting of those who serve in the light of day (politicians) and those who operate behind the scenes. The voting public often have little say in which representatives they'll get to vote for. Political interests are typically served first, with a rare exception coming from the public.
The way to go about prosecuting criminals is to provide evidence against the individual that he or she has committed a crime within the appropriate jurisdiction. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the common U.S. person who does not have any power in the matter they have several positions of strong defense. First, that they did not commit the criminal act - i.e., pull the trigger. Second, that they did not provide consent to the crime. Third, that they were coerced by the U.S. to provide money in the form of taxes. Fourth, that they had no control over the money stolen from them. Fifth, that the U.S. government, being a respresentative government, means that individuals concede their power (involuntarily) to representatives along with the responsibility for their representative's decisions.
Using the logic that those who vote for a regime must be treated as criminals means that most of the people in Nazi Germany should have been hung or shot with their leaders. Obviously, this didn't happen.
War is the fuel of the state. The U.S. is not immune by this fact, and despite who gets voted into office the same policies continue. It's not because it's the will of the people, it's just the nature of the state.
At the same time, the state will play sides to instigate and prolong conflict. The U.S., Israel, Great Britain, etc. desire the occassional terrorist bombing, protest or riot in order to prop up the spectre of the enemy which only they can protect the people from. Even just the potential threat of it serves their purpose. They've rigged the game so that the harder people try to fight back, the more powerful the state becomes. It's like a tick bloted with blood. The way to counter the state is to starve it.
This is one of the things that really grinds my gears. You have judges in countries like Spain or Belgium starting persecution against people in Israel or Britain for crimes committed... in a third country like Iraq or the West Banks. I take that as a sign Spain and Belgium have so low crime rates as to have judges with enough free time to initiate such Quixotic crusades.
that's a great thread actually and I am, to be honest, undecided, who must be prosecuted for "war crimes", politicians, voters or soldiers? Or all of them? Or only initiators, soldiers? Or only commanders, generols or policy makers politicians? Statism is chaos...
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Collective guilt means collective punishment which means collectivism.
The public wanted revenge, and they made it happen through George Bush in that particular case.
How? He wasn't up for reelection for three years, and he was not threatened with anything by anyone.
Attributing 'guilt' to the (uninformed and individually powerless) masses is problematic since, in every case, the executive office and the legislature were pushing for war. It is not as if Bush or the 107th and 108th Congresses were reluctant to send troops overseas, and were pleading the American people to be patient and forgiving. I imagine that many of those who supported invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq did so largely or entirely because of the rhetoric and scare tactics used by government officials.
If I had anarchy tomorrow, and if it depended on me, I wouldn’t even touch any politician or general or police chief for their past actions. All the predations of the state have been committed by soldiers, police officers, guards and so on. So the Nuremberg trials where bs, it’s the camp guard who should have been shot to the last man, not a few orators who had their way with the people.
By the same token, the people themselves are also not guilty. Who gives a damn what they want if they themselves lack the testicular fortitude to go and get it?
Morally, of course, its an other story…
The way you destroy a mafia syndicate is not to kill the boss, but to kill every ‘soldier’ to the point where no one will be willing to work there. The state is no different.
I haven't read it yet, but Peter Boettke recently blogged about a paper he and Chris Coyne wrote in 2007 about "the trade-offs associated with addressing past imperfects during transition periods," in their paper, "The Political Economy of Forgiveness." And Richard Ebeling shared an interesting anecdote in the comments:
It does depend upon the historical circumstances. For example, when I was traveling in the former Soviet Union doing consulting work on privatization and market reform in Lithuania, I often asked what might be done with those who had worked for the Soviet regime when the country was, again, independent? There were many who wanted to hold the "collaborators" and "informers" accountable for their actions. But many told me that at least 25 percent of the population of Lithuania had been "compromised" as active participants with the masters in Moscow, or as paid or blackmailed informers, many of whom had gained various perks and benefits as a result. But the general consensus was that the Soviet period, in general, had to be put aside as a closed chapter in the history of the country. Otherwise, it would tear the society apart in any post-Soviet era of independence and democracy. Thus, virtually all those who had used, gained, or benefited from the Soviet form of "plunder" were left alone. The cost of "justice" would have been too high a price in terms of society reconstruction and stability.
For example, when I was traveling in the former Soviet Union doing consulting work on privatization and market reform in Lithuania, I often asked what might be done with those who had worked for the Soviet regime when the country was, again, independent?
There were many who wanted to hold the "collaborators" and "informers" accountable for their actions. But many told me that at least 25 percent of the population of Lithuania had been "compromised" as active participants with the masters in Moscow, or as paid or blackmailed informers, many of whom had gained various perks and benefits as a result.
But the general consensus was that the Soviet period, in general, had to be put aside as a closed chapter in the history of the country. Otherwise, it would tear the society apart in any post-Soviet era of independence and democracy.
Thus, virtually all those who had used, gained, or benefited from the Soviet form of "plunder" were left alone.
The cost of "justice" would have been too high a price in terms of society reconstruction and stability.
If I had anarchy tomorrow, and if it depended on me, I wouldn’t even touch any politician or general or police chief for their past actions. All the predations of the state have been committed by soldiers, police officers, guards and so on. So the Nuremberg trials where bs, it’s the camp guard who should have been shot to the last man, not a few orators who had their way with the people. By the same token, the people themselves are also not guilty. Who gives a damn what they want if they themselves lack the testicular fortitude to go and get it? Morally, of course, its an other story… The way you destroy a mafia syndicate is not to kill the boss, but to kill every ‘soldier’ to the point where no one will be willing to work there. The state is no different.
So you advocate mass murder then?
It's not mass murder, when you punish only guilty people. Though, personally, I am disgusted by death penalty, even if it was done to the great dictator.
It also depends how one is defining the crime. Guilty of what? Committing the physical act? Supporting the act financially? Voting for those who directed the act? Existing within the nation of the offending party?
The more widely defined the crime, the more it can go from justice to mass murder.
NidStyles: So you advocate mass murder then?
First of all, not all police officers have done murder hence I would not kill every police officer.
Second, the number of those who have been directly involved in statist depredations is so elevated that their full prosecution would indeed cause a societal breakdown. It’s just not worth it.
Finally, one could be willing to let bygones be bygones if the state crumbled tomorrow. What I would not be willing to do, is protect former police officers form rightful retaliation by their former victims, or indeed hold such victims responsible for retaliation.
But if the imperative at hand would be to bring to a quick halt the depredations of some state now, for example, Nazi Germany, full retaliation on state agents would be the only way to do this. The mafia knows as much very well and they use such tactics when they feel threatened to much effect.
K.C. Farmer: It also depends how one is defining the crime. Guilty of what? Committing the physical act? Supporting the act financially? Voting for those who directed the act? Existing within the nation of the offending party? The more widely defined the crime, the more it can go from justice to mass murder.
I agree, that’s why I hold only those who actually committed the aggression responsible, not anyone who might have paid them to act so. Michael Corleone goes free
The problem with that is how do you establish guilt? Do you just blanket every Police Officer that worked for the idea of better good for society? This is the problem with this line of thinking, it's irrational, and does nothing to change the situation. In fact if anything the same action's you are suggesting is a continuation of the idea of the State, by punishing those for the crimes against the concept of the collective.
I would be one of those people you just suggested to kill in revenge. I can tell you, that you would nothing but strengthen the argument to unity these people into another state like entity in order to defend ourselves. You are thinking like a statist.
First of all, not all police officers have done murder hence I would not kill every police officer. Second, the number of those who have been directly involved in statist depredations is so elevated that their full prosecution would indeed cause a societal breakdown. It’s just not worth it. Finally, one could be willing to let bygones be bygones if the state crumbled tomorrow. What I would not be willing to do, is protect former police officers form rightful retaliation by their former victims, or indeed hold such victims responsible for retaliation. But if the imperative at hand would be to bring to a quick halt the depredations of some state now, for example, Nazi Germany, full retaliation on state agents would be the only way to do this. The mafia knows as much very well and they use such tactics when they feel threatened to much effect.
The fault's in this logic are glaringly obvious. See my above post for clarification on this.
Being a Veteran that was involved in statist action's in Iraq and Afghanistan for a total of 7 year's, I can tell you what the effect of such a policy would be, as I did above.
This would occur because as Individual's I have more in common with the Police and Veteran's like myself, than I do with you or the other's that advocate this message. I do not hold guilt about my action's, and I accept responsibility for only my own action's. However the entire basis of my responsibility is centered around my acceptance of the consequences of my choices. I will pay for the rest of my life in my own way for my action's, and I have already accepted this.
The mafia is hardly an example to follow, as their own action's are quite statist in reality.
The message you guy's are promoting here is nothing but more of the same statist crap that participated in the unethical war's in the first place. I would suggest you check your premises here again. If you are considering your thought's to be truly in line with AC, or whatever you are labelling yourself as, you are in error here.
The idea of prosecuting bureaucrats is a wrong application of law. If I offer you money to shoot someone and you do it, you are guilty of that, not me. I'm only involved in harmless conspiracy.
Caley McKibbin: The idea of prosecuting bureaucrats is a wrong application of law. If I offer you money to shoot someone and you do it, you are guilty of that, not me. I'm only involved in harmless conspiracy.
False. You're both equally guilty of murder. Two people can be guilty for one murder, and while you did not pull the trigger, your action was not merely free speech/trade/association.
People’s responsibility is only determined by what they did, not what their intentions where. I have little doubt that many nazi soldiers had the best intentions, and just thought that what they where doing was painful but necessary. And this absolves them how?
So, I must stick with my idea: if I have been a direct statist enforcer and I have wronged people due to my job, I must be ready to defend myself now, for no one else will stand by me if the brother on a guy I shot for drugs comes to claim my life. If that brother is punished for killing you who killed his brother than I really do not see what state would we have gotten rid of in the first place.
I would prefer not to have anarchy at all than to start killing ex police officers. In fact I would have no compassion towards those who will attempt to harm ex politicians, police officers or soldiers. But that's just me.
Now I favor Kinsella's definition. If you reasonably thought that your action will lead to murder, then you are guilty of murder. This will include for example the person who payed money to hire a hit man. Intent is important, because if you killed someone with malicious intent you should receive tougher punishment than if you killed someone accidently.
The problem with Kinsellla's definition is that if a single person payed a hitman, he will be liable for murder, but if 1000 different people payed the hit man, they will not. That's because each one of the 1000 people did not have a reasonable belief that HIS ACTION will lead to the murder. It was only his action combined with the other of others.
Eugene:I would prefer not to have anarchy at all than to start killing ex police officers. In fact I would have no compassion towards those who will attempt to harm ex politicians, police officers or soldiers. But that's just me.
I really don't get you Eugene. You have no problem advocating the torture of innocent people who hide the locations of terrorist, but you are appalled by the idea of hurting politicians, police officers or soldiers. What if it was a palestinian cop or a palestinian soldier? Then it would ok to kill them, right?
mikachusetts: Eugene:I would prefer not to have anarchy at all than to start killing ex police officers. In fact I would have no compassion towards those who will attempt to harm ex politicians, police officers or soldiers. But that's just me. I really don't get you Eugene. You have no problem advocating the torture of innocent people who hide the locations of terrorist, but you are appalled by the idea of hurting politicians, police officers or soldiers. What if it was a palestinian cop or a palestinian soldier? Then it would ok to kill them, right?
Zing! Although we all suffer from Stockholm’s Syndrome to some extent.
Revenge is the most natural desire in man, and I myself would be burning to break some police legs if my brother had been treated heavy—handedly by them for being at the wrong club at the wrong moment. Children as young as 16 have ‘committed suicide’ while under custody, suspected for petty theft (he would not even have faced any jailtime, even if found guilty). Now let anyone tell me that his parents wouldn’t pay someone to square a few account if they did not fear retaliation in turn. And I’m not even mentioning the sadism of prison guards.
Which brings me to my point: I suspect that right now there’s an immense amount of repressed hate towards state enforcers which will be vented as soon as given a chance. When anarchy comes, arbitrators, PDAs and insurers will have to choose: let it go though or forcefully keep the offended form acting, as the state does right now. Again, I doubt I’ll ever find a libertarian who’d punish the father of the child above to save some Neanderthal police officer (who, anyway, is supposed to be capable of defending himself, else how could he defend his 10’00 citizens?).
That's a very statist appraoch, and that's how we end up with run-away prison population's for simply being at the scene of a robbery and happening to know the robber on a personal level.
I'm slightly drunk right now, so any further critiquing of that rational is not possible with clarity at this moment. I can state though, that your logic is circular and quite vacuous on this point. Off to drink more Landshark now.
@OP: Watch this (all the way to the end).
Public choice theory 101 tells us that no individual voter chooses the political leaders. The whole idea of 'choosing' via popular ballot box is a gigantic charade. Political leaders are not guilty of "war crimes", they're guilty of being accessory to murder, usually through a long chain of command. The voters are not accessory to anything except stupidity and mass delusion. Don't hold your breath for ordinary legal theory to be applied to political leaders any time soon.
Clayton -
How are the voters less innocent?
Because no matter how right "hard nosed realistic conservatives" think their hair brained metaphysics are it is simply silly in this day and age to try and control a mass amount of people and think you can accuse them openly. Conservatives will always and inevitably lose because they are boring and almost gleeful in being controversialy reactionary. Hate to break it to the rather boring self professed articocratic lovers of "beauty, truth, and order" but the world has gone "native and vulgar" and thank Cthulu for that, it supplies more stuff at a cheaper cost rather than ghosts of ideals.
The American public chose a president who is willing to attack nations abroad. If it wasn't Bush it would have been someone else. It is the public that had the intent, the motive and the opportunity.
If you can get away with something you will (whatever the hell "the public" means anyway). If you are dumb enough to believe that you can sit in a very publicized position of high authority, not take the brunt of the blame for whatever gets spouted at you, and than try to spread it around to a bunch of people you grouped together that you are supposed to lead and call them guilty, you deserve to fail.
No one gives a fig about intent if the levels of power are that unequal. Outside of said situation it is a meaningless and near useless word. All that matters is what has the power to make authority happen and produce a relatively homeostatic environment.
This conservative approach is no good. If you want millions of people to suffer under the yoke of elitist opression try something else like selling them a feel good self empowering idea, like the lefties do. This is why lefties are smarter, better, more cosmopolitan, correct, and realistic than "hard nosed conservatives". They get the games and the language of real power.
The action of sitting on my chair is not merely sitting on my chair.
^^ Chair dancing?
Sitting on my chair could somehow have a "butterfly effect" that leads to a serial killer going on a spree or some such.
That's an impressive trick. I'm going to try doing a head stand in mine, and maybe someone will drop off a few hundred ounces of gold at my doorstep while I'm in the position.
Can anyone name me any british Politician indicted for war crimes and by which country?