3 ms·
> The person receiving the order could—and in many cases, should—have refused.
by 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.