4 ms·

The level at which Henry Kissinger micromanaged the bombing of innocent civilians can not be overlooked. Even by fairly stringent definitions he is a war crimi

The level at which Henry Kissinger micromanaged the bombing of innocent civilians can not be overlooked. Even by fairly stringent definitions he is a war criminal.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> level at which Henry Kissinger micromanaged the bombing of innocent civilians can not be overlooked Sure. But legally irrelevant. He didn’t command them. The person receiving the order could—and in many cases, should—have refused. That’s different if e.g. Nixon ordered it directly, because in that case it’s a military command. Again, these terms had meaning. But they’re practically unenforceable even in public opinion, now, because they’re bandied about loosely. That gives cover for actual war criminals.
- jandrese 3y ago
  That's the point. He was giving direct targeting data to bomber pilots that bypassed the chain of command. You can't say someone can't be a war criminal if they had underlings, supervisors, or peers who should have known better and stopped them. There would never be war criminals in that case.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > can't say someone can't be a war criminal if they had underlings, supervisors, or peers who should have known better and stopped them This isn’t true. The persons who carry out the order are liable. As is the commander.
    - jandrese 3y ago
      > The person receiving the order could—and in many cases, should—have refused.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        To execute it. Kissinger didn’t execute. He relayed. It’s a subtle, frustrating but—I think—necessary distinction to preserve the sanctity of the term required to prosecute heads of state, a novel concept in its own right.
        __loam 3y ago
        This is like arguing Eichmann had no part in the holocaust because he just organized the trains. I imagine the Cambodians would make the same distinction the Israelis did, in that both men were clearly evil people.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Eichmann had no part in the holocaust because he just organized the trains Eichman was an SS officer! In what way did he lack command authority?
        __loam 3y ago
        Kissinger was picking out targets in Cambodia. In what way was he not deeply involved?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Nobody asked if he was “deeply involved.” Nobody is even contesting that he acted illegally. Solely that he was a war criminal, which has a specific legal meaning. War criminal is the new RICO. Except the latter doesn’t lose legitimacy when the public mis-uses it.
- __loam 3y ago
  I think I hate this website.
  - david927 3y ago
    The effort of these apologists makes my stomach sick
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > I hate this This is a natural response to divergent opinions [1]. It’s the mechanism through which social media polarises populations [2][3]. Our brains simply didn’t evolve to deal with multiple hypotheses and different opinions, and most of us never get the training to do so calmly and effectively. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sorting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sorting [2] https://pnas.scienceconnect.io/api/oauth/authorize?ui_locales=en&scope=affiliations+login_method+merged_users+openid+settings&response_type=code&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Faction%2FoidcCallback%3FidpCode%3Dconnect&state=8VwNbqS2zxoP44lOglYsyUkTL_gn7zqoudUIWpyudF0&prompt=none&nonce=1KhtQAy%2FPTNj%2F%2FrJ0%2FZ0NlIE0n2INYYo7In8ABpMLkE%3D&client_id=pnas https://pnas.scienceconnect.io/api/oauth/authorize?ui_locale... [3] https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/80/S1/351/2223236?login=false https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/80/S1/351/2223236?login...
    - __loam 3y ago
      Yeah I watched that kurzgesagt video yesterday too. You're still a ghoul if you defend a man who was personally involved in bombing 150,000 civilians.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > still a ghoul if you defend a man who was personally involved in bombing 150,000 civilians If you can't see the difference between defending a person and defending the meaning of a statute, sure. It makes life simpler when we turn up the contrast to absolutes.
- framapotari 3y ago
  If your argument starts with "Sure, he micromanaged the bombing of innocent civilians but", then I think you've gotten lost in the technicalities of being right on the Internet.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > then I think you've gotten lost in the technicalities of being right on the Internet Legality is entirely technical. When we lose sight of that, and turn legal terms like war criminal into colloquial ones, we sap the terminology of strength. If everyone horrific is a war criminal, then it’s all just banal evil. Nuremberg attempted to draw a line. This type of rhetoric loses its clarity.
    - framapotari 3y ago
      No one said that everyone horrific is a war criminal, this is a straw man argument. The claim is that someone who personally "approved each of the 3,875 Cambodia bombing raids" that killed 150,000 civilians can reasonably be called a war criminal. If you think that's diluting the term then I really don't know what to say.

The level at which Henry Kissinger micromanaged the bombing of innocent civilians can not be overlooked. Even by fairly stringent definitions he is a war criminal.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> level at which Henry Kissinger micromanaged the bombing of innocent civilians can not be overlooked Sure. But legally irrelevant. He didn’t command them. The person receiving the order could—and in many cases, should—have refused. That’s different if e.g. Nixon ordered it directly, because in that case it’s a military command. Again, these terms had meaning. But they’re practically unenforceable even in public opinion, now, because they’re bandied about loosely. That gives cover for actual war criminals.

jandrese 3y ago
That's the point. He was giving direct targeting data to bomber pilots that bypassed the chain of command. You can't say someone can't be a war criminal if they had underlings, supervisors, or peers who should have known better and stopped them. There would never be war criminals in that case.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > can't say someone can't be a war criminal if they had underlings, supervisors, or peers who should have known better and stopped them This isn’t true. The persons who carry out the order are liable. As is the commander.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    > The person receiving the order could—and in many cases, should—have refused.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      To execute it. Kissinger didn’t execute. He relayed. It’s a subtle, frustrating but—I think—necessary distinction to preserve the sanctity of the term required to prosecute heads of state, a novel concept in its own right.
      - __loam 3y ago
        This is like arguing Eichmann had no part in the holocaust because he just organized the trains. I imagine the Cambodians would make the same distinction the Israelis did, in that both men were clearly evil people.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Eichmann had no part in the holocaust because he just organized the trains Eichman was an SS officer! In what way did he lack command authority?
        __loam 3y ago
        Kissinger was picking out targets in Cambodia. In what way was he not deeply involved?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Nobody asked if he was “deeply involved.” Nobody is even contesting that he acted illegally. Solely that he was a war criminal, which has a specific legal meaning. War criminal is the new RICO. Except the latter doesn’t lose legitimacy when the public mis-uses it.
__loam 3y ago
I think I hate this website.
- david927 3y ago
  The effort of these apologists makes my stomach sick
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I hate this This is a natural response to divergent opinions [1]. It’s the mechanism through which social media polarises populations [2][3]. Our brains simply didn’t evolve to deal with multiple hypotheses and different opinions, and most of us never get the training to do so calmly and effectively. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sorting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sorting [2] https://pnas.scienceconnect.io/api/oauth/authorize?ui_locales=en&scope=affiliations+login_method+merged_users+openid+settings&response_type=code&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Faction%2FoidcCallback%3FidpCode%3Dconnect&state=8VwNbqS2zxoP44lOglYsyUkTL_gn7zqoudUIWpyudF0&prompt=none&nonce=1KhtQAy%2FPTNj%2F%2FrJ0%2FZ0NlIE0n2INYYo7In8ABpMLkE%3D&client_id=pnas https://pnas.scienceconnect.io/api/oauth/authorize?ui_locale... [3] https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/80/S1/351/2223236?login=false https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/80/S1/351/2223236?login...
  - __loam 3y ago
    Yeah I watched that kurzgesagt video yesterday too. You're still a ghoul if you defend a man who was personally involved in bombing 150,000 civilians.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > still a ghoul if you defend a man who was personally involved in bombing 150,000 civilians If you can't see the difference between defending a person and defending the meaning of a statute, sure. It makes life simpler when we turn up the contrast to absolutes.
framapotari 3y ago
If your argument starts with "Sure, he micromanaged the bombing of innocent civilians but", then I think you've gotten lost in the technicalities of being right on the Internet.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > then I think you've gotten lost in the technicalities of being right on the Internet Legality is entirely technical. When we lose sight of that, and turn legal terms like war criminal into colloquial ones, we sap the terminology of strength. If everyone horrific is a war criminal, then it’s all just banal evil. Nuremberg attempted to draw a line. This type of rhetoric loses its clarity.
  - framapotari 3y ago
    No one said that everyone horrific is a war criminal, this is a straw man argument. The claim is that someone who personally "approved each of the 3,875 Cambodia bombing raids" that killed 150,000 civilians can reasonably be called a war criminal. If you think that's diluting the term then I really don't know what to say.