4 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoTo 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 agoThis 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 agoKissinger was picking out targets in Cambodia. In what way was he not deeply involved?
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoNobody 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.