3 ms·

If he didn't deliver that speech, they would have found someone else to do it (and he would have been fired). The responsibility lies with Bush and Cheney, not

If he didn't deliver that speech, they would have found someone else to do it (and he would have been fired). The responsibility lies with Bush and Cheney, not with the messenger.

jes 5y ago
I am reminded of the “To Be or To Do” [1] story about the late Colonel John Boyd. Powell had a hard choice, yet life often puts us in such situations. He should have resigned, in my view. If he did not, he shares in the responsibility for what was done. [1] https://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/to-be-or-to-do/ https://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/to-be-or-to-do/
elliekelly 5y ago
Just because your boss will find someone else to do it doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for participating in their bad actions.
smt88 5y ago
"They would have found someone else to do it" is not and never has been a defense for evil, especially at this magnitude. Someone else could have been the messenger, and Powell could have also resigned in protest and become a whistleblower. Instead he lied, deceived the public, and unequivocally supported the wars.
mkr-hn 5y ago
That argument didn't fly for people at a similar level of authority at Nuremberg.
- bluedevil2k 5y ago
  Not even remotely the same situation. Nuremberg was about officers delivering and obeying direct orders to kill civilians and commit war crimes. Powell simply delivered a speech to get international support for a war the US was going to fight no matter what. He had nothing to do with the war crimes.
  - LennyWhiteJr 5y ago
    cope
  - drcongo 5y ago
    He was just following orders.
  - geofft 5y ago
    The US wasn't going to fight it "no matter what." The US was going to fight it if the US government was reasonably capable of doing so, which depended on political support at home, the ability to find allies, and functioning internal logistics. All of these things he had a hand in. Suppose he fled the US for some neutral country, resigned his position, and made a public announcement that he knew that the case for war was fraudulent and that the international community had an obligation to stop the US. What would have happened? Suppose he simply resigned to spend more time with his family the night before his speech to the UN. Suppose he did not decide (as he did in real life) that he was going to support the president in waging war without the support of the UN, and he told the world as much. Suppose he insisted on having more time to review the material himself before making the speech to the UN. There were a number of times where he could have changed the course of history. Yes, it would have come at significant personal cost to himself and perhaps significant embarrassment of America on the world stage. If you're unwilling to do that for a raise, sure, that seems reasonable; if you're unwilling to do that to prevent tens of thousands of deaths, you are absolutely morally culpable for those deaths. The invasion of Iraq on false premises was itself a war crime, and the killings of Iraqi soldiers was just as immoral as killing civilians. Quoting one of the rulings at Nuremberg: "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
salawat 5y ago
The point is, after a while of getting told "No, I'm not going down in history as that guy. You set up optics that disincentivize doubling down on the poor behavior, whereas capitulation only reinforces it.
iSnow 5y ago
I know it's a stretch and I don't want to Godwin the discussion too much, but that is really not an excuse. The Nuremberg trials clearly rejected this "Nuremberg defense", but of course it was the beaten party standing before the court back then. But in principle, since 1945, no one can evade personal responsibility for a clearly unlawful act by pointing to superior orders.
- slightwinder 5y ago
  Yet, USA is doing similar for decades and goes through with it because they can. Just look at their bouts with ICC, as also the case of Guantanamo Bay. Whether a Soldier can evade personal responsibility is still just a matter on which side they serve.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    I hope we get to day when we can extend responsibility to even the voters. Vote for mass murder, get the ultimate penalty... Would make world much better place.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  "They did it too" was an acceptable defense at Nuremberg; Donitz was not sentenced for the specific crime of unrestricted submarine warfare because the Allies had done the same thing (the US in the Pacific). Iraq also lied to the UN many times. Really though, this is a stupid comparison. People generally remember the Nuremberg trials in the context of the Holocaust -- genocide, slave labor, and all the horror that accompanied it. Colin Powell did nothing remotely close to any of that, and while there is plenty of criticism to throw at the US for the invasion of Iraq there was no genocide, no ethnic cleansing, no slave labor camps, and a dozen US soldiers were thrown in prison by the US for having tortured and humiliated prisoners under their command.
  - iSnow 5y ago
    No, Dönitz got away with his unrestricted sub warfare order because the allied powers committed a war crime and hushed it up: > Operating partly under the dictates of the old prize rules, the U-boat commander, Korvettenkapitän Werner Hartenstein, immediately commenced rescue operations. U-156 broadcast her position on open radio channels to all Allied powers nearby, and were joined by the crews of several other U-boats in the vicinity. >[...] En route, the U-boat was spotted by a B-24 Liberator bomber of the US Army Air Forces. The aircrew, having reported the U-boat's location, intentions and the presence of survivors, were then ordered to attack the sub. >[...] The commanders of the Kriegsmarine were quickly issued the Laconia Order by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, which specifically forbade any such attempt and ushered in unrestricted submarine warfare for the remainder of the war. >[...] During the later Nuremberg trials, a prosecutor attempted to cite the Laconia Order as proof of war crimes by Dönitz and his submariners. The ploy backfired and caused much embarrassment to the United States after the incident's full report had emerged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident It's also specifically not about genocide vs non-genocide but about legal vs. illegal orders. Just because you represent the US of A you cannot lie to the whole world to start a war. I mean, you can as evidenced by Powell, but a lot of people will spit on your grave for that.

If he didn't deliver that speech, they would have found someone else to do it (and he would have been fired). The responsibility lies with Bush and Cheney, not with the messenger.

jes 5y ago

I am reminded of the “To Be or To Do” [1] story about the late Colonel John Boyd. Powell had a hard choice, yet life often puts us in such situations. He should have resigned, in my view. If he did not, he shares in the responsibility for what was done. [1] https://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/to-be-or-to-do/ https://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/to-be-or-to-do/

elliekelly 5y ago

Just because your boss will find someone else to do it doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for participating in their bad actions.

smt88 5y ago

"They would have found someone else to do it" is not and never has been a defense for evil, especially at this magnitude. Someone else could have been the messenger, and Powell could have also resigned in protest and become a whistleblower. Instead he lied, deceived the public, and unequivocally supported the wars.

mkr-hn 5y ago

That argument didn't fly for people at a similar level of authority at Nuremberg.

bluedevil2k 5y ago
Not even remotely the same situation. Nuremberg was about officers delivering and obeying direct orders to kill civilians and commit war crimes. Powell simply delivered a speech to get international support for a war the US was going to fight no matter what. He had nothing to do with the war crimes.
- LennyWhiteJr 5y ago
  cope
- drcongo 5y ago
  He was just following orders.
- geofft 5y ago
  The US wasn't going to fight it "no matter what." The US was going to fight it if the US government was reasonably capable of doing so, which depended on political support at home, the ability to find allies, and functioning internal logistics. All of these things he had a hand in. Suppose he fled the US for some neutral country, resigned his position, and made a public announcement that he knew that the case for war was fraudulent and that the international community had an obligation to stop the US. What would have happened? Suppose he simply resigned to spend more time with his family the night before his speech to the UN. Suppose he did not decide (as he did in real life) that he was going to support the president in waging war without the support of the UN, and he told the world as much. Suppose he insisted on having more time to review the material himself before making the speech to the UN. There were a number of times where he could have changed the course of history. Yes, it would have come at significant personal cost to himself and perhaps significant embarrassment of America on the world stage. If you're unwilling to do that for a raise, sure, that seems reasonable; if you're unwilling to do that to prevent tens of thousands of deaths, you are absolutely morally culpable for those deaths. The invasion of Iraq on false premises was itself a war crime, and the killings of Iraqi soldiers was just as immoral as killing civilians. Quoting one of the rulings at Nuremberg: "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

salawat 5y ago

The point is, after a while of getting told "No, I'm not going down in history as that guy. You set up optics that disincentivize doubling down on the poor behavior, whereas capitulation only reinforces it.

iSnow 5y ago

I know it's a stretch and I don't want to Godwin the discussion too much, but that is really not an excuse. The Nuremberg trials clearly rejected this "Nuremberg defense", but of course it was the beaten party standing before the court back then. But in principle, since 1945, no one can evade personal responsibility for a clearly unlawful act by pointing to superior orders.

slightwinder 5y ago
Yet, USA is doing similar for decades and goes through with it because they can. Just look at their bouts with ICC, as also the case of Guantanamo Bay. Whether a Soldier can evade personal responsibility is still just a matter on which side they serve.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I hope we get to day when we can extend responsibility to even the voters. Vote for mass murder, get the ultimate penalty... Would make world much better place.
betterunix2 5y ago
"They did it too" was an acceptable defense at Nuremberg; Donitz was not sentenced for the specific crime of unrestricted submarine warfare because the Allies had done the same thing (the US in the Pacific). Iraq also lied to the UN many times. Really though, this is a stupid comparison. People generally remember the Nuremberg trials in the context of the Holocaust -- genocide, slave labor, and all the horror that accompanied it. Colin Powell did nothing remotely close to any of that, and while there is plenty of criticism to throw at the US for the invasion of Iraq there was no genocide, no ethnic cleansing, no slave labor camps, and a dozen US soldiers were thrown in prison by the US for having tortured and humiliated prisoners under their command.
- iSnow 5y ago
  No, Dönitz got away with his unrestricted sub warfare order because the allied powers committed a war crime and hushed it up: > Operating partly under the dictates of the old prize rules, the U-boat commander, Korvettenkapitän Werner Hartenstein, immediately commenced rescue operations. U-156 broadcast her position on open radio channels to all Allied powers nearby, and were joined by the crews of several other U-boats in the vicinity. >[...] En route, the U-boat was spotted by a B-24 Liberator bomber of the US Army Air Forces. The aircrew, having reported the U-boat's location, intentions and the presence of survivors, were then ordered to attack the sub. >[...] The commanders of the Kriegsmarine were quickly issued the Laconia Order by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, which specifically forbade any such attempt and ushered in unrestricted submarine warfare for the remainder of the war. >[...] During the later Nuremberg trials, a prosecutor attempted to cite the Laconia Order as proof of war crimes by Dönitz and his submariners. The ploy backfired and caused much embarrassment to the United States after the incident's full report had emerged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident It's also specifically not about genocide vs non-genocide but about legal vs. illegal orders. Just because you represent the US of A you cannot lie to the whole world to start a war. I mean, you can as evidenced by Powell, but a lot of people will spit on your grave for that.