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!”
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.
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…
Collective guilt means collective punishment which means collectivism.
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 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:
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.