Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Twisted Logic (?) or Death Wish (?)

From this article in the northern press comes the startling POV that unintended collateral damages (such as death, injury, etc.) to civilians from a state acting in self-defense, if such casualties were somehow and someway "foreseeable", constitute a "war-crime". Louise Arbour, former justice of the Canadian Supreme Court and currently the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, has apparently so opined.

What a crock! Her position is exactly contrary to reasoned common sense. If her screed were to become settled "law", this point would give extreme comfort to those who now conduct conflict and violence whilst hiding deep within the folds of a civilian populace, thus placing innocents at risk. An exactly opposite result of what a civilized society should intend.

Nothing said here is gloating - or glossing over - innocent casualties. That they occur at all is tragic. But if a state is forbidden to defend itself, such as happened recently vis-a-vis Israel and Lebanon, simply because of the possibility of unknown bad side effects, civilization is doomed and anarchy shall eventually rule the world.

Logical and reasoned? No, IMO this view is simply cultural self-hatred taken to a sicker level.

Cheers

powered by performancing firefox

3 comments:

Bill said...

The entire situation is problematic. If something is foreseeable it is by definition not unintentional. It would leave the door open for shooting through a hostage to kill the person holding him hostage to protect future victims.

Because the enemy is abandoning the rules of war that would have only militaries fight a war, does this mean we should lower ourselves to such actions that we once considered criminal?

IMHO Anarchy begins when civilians are used as pawns in the game of war Hezbollah is to blame for the deaths, but this does not excuse Israel from a percentage of guilt in the deaths of innocents. Protecting innocents by not firing on them even when they are being used as a shield, may lengthen a conflict but is IMHO the right thing to do. The task is difficult to protect the innocent while stopping the guilty but it is not impossible. The saying "Kill them all and let God sort them out" may be expedient but it is far from right.

However 49erdweet as you know I’m an extreme pacifist, so I am not overly fond of Military killing military let alone killing civilians, intentionally or not.

Bill said...

Just to be clear though I would not charge Israel with a war crime. 99 percent of the time they issued warnings before any attack. That said IMHO war is a crime.

49erDweet said...

Bill, I'm addressing some of your points this way:

"If something is foreseeable it is by definition not unintentional." Not necessarily. The word is more closely related to predictable than intentional. From my law school days it seems the word is usually used "after-the-fact" to assess damages or excuse a bad result of someone's (or something's) action or reaction.

"It would leave the door open for shooting through a hostage to kill the person holding him hostage to protect future victims." No, that would be intentional. "Foreseeable" is more akin to attempting to shoot close to the hostage at only a slight view of the bad person, and then also hitting the hostage.

"Because the enemy is abandoning the rules of war that would have only militaries fight a war, does this mean we should lower ourselves to such actions that we once considered criminal?" Bill, are you intermixing your pacifist POV with the legal definition of "the right of self defense"?

"IMHO Anarchy begins when civilians are used as pawns in the game of war Hezbollah is to blame for the deaths, but this does not excuse Israel from a percentage of guilt in the deaths of innocents."
This might be a valid point IF one could but know the precise Israeli mindset at the moment they initiated their response to the perceived threat from these particular rocket source sites. But do we know this? Also, Bill, how do you suggest one be able to determine the precise degree of a responder's guilt in order to determine percentages?

"Protecting innocents by not firing on them even when they are being used as a shield, may lengthen a conflict but is IMHO the right thing to do. The task is difficult to protect the innocent while stopping the guilty but it is not impossible." I generally agree.

"The saying "Kill them all and let God sort them out" may be expedient but it is far from right."
Absolutely.

"However 49erdweet as you know I'm an extreme pacifist, so I am not overly fond of Military killing military let alone killing civilians, intentionally or not." And I'm not a pacifist, but am also not fond of "military killing military". I'd rather that didn't occur.

Nor do I wish everybody in the world practiced the same form of governance as do I. But I will not willingly give up that freedom - or my life - to any bully who wants to take it. Even if that means I must eventually sacrifice myself for my loved ones, or that I unintentionally cause an injury or death to another whilst responding to the provocations of a miscreant. The causative fault is still theirs.

Also, thanks for your clarification. I agree it is likely a crime when one "goes to war". We just don't always agree on who the criminal might be. Common law holds to the principle of "intent". Which, as a reasonable person well knows, is a highly subjective consideration. Which I'll now leave for another time.

Cheers.