Why are there no War Crimes Trials ?
Fr. Andrew Greeley asks this question in his column at the Chicago Sun-Times today ( suntimes.com ). Why , he asks, are there no provisions for redress for unnecessary wars ? A substantial deterrent would provide incentive for serious reflection before leaping into such dire committments. Greeley compares the necessities of World War II to the rationale for the current conflict in the Middle East.
Does anyone want to talk about this and reflect upon who is really paying the price for our impulsiveness ?
Would a war crimes trial be
Would a war crimes trial be more trying than a war? What we would hope would be to hold one individual or small group of individuals accountable, but with regard to Iraq, we have already heard all the excuses. In a variation on "just following orders", we would hear endless repetitions of "based on the best intelligence available at the time". In short, try to prove they had anything but the best of intentions.
In another thread you
In another thread you mentioned the responsible relationship between the elected and their electors. The larger effect of such proceedings would reshape our collective attitudes in the face of such challenges and force us to think of and implement different courses of action. This is not an act of revenge but an attempt to keep us on the vector of justice for everybody's sake. The impassioned rhetoric that leads down the road to a trial of conflicting ideas and their attendant actions is the way some get the attention of those they see as distracted or obsessed. The punitive after effects are imposed in light of volitional aptitude, or just how culpable are the actors in the contravention of accepted standards of civil behaviour.
For two weeks, in his column at the Chicago Sun-Times, Fr. Andrew Greeley reviewed a book about the current Administration of the U. S. entitled ' Dead Certain ' . The author is sympathethic to the policies of the White House but is very insistent upon asking how they can always be so sure about their decisions. Greeley goes so far as to shade the President's behaviour as abnormal. We owe ourselves an opportunity to be more certain about what is really happening.
I have no interest in lending a hand in resurfacing Interstate 666. We are ultimately accountable for the actions of our Representatives. Let's get the issue straight first, then we can deal with the executors. These guys are heavily into being a law unto themselves let us remind them who has the ultimate veto power, especially when so many people are paying dearly for our choices.
Beauty is not opposed to truth. It is simply truth in its most attractive form.
Since impeachment didn't
Since impeachment didn't happen, I certainly would like to see a war crimes trial. I think you give valid reasons for pursuing such a course. I agree that the President's behavior is abnormal. It goes beyond him also. I think the current administration offers lots of opportunity for historical analysis with an emphasis on psychological influences.
Productive or not, I think
Productive or not, I think it's inevitable.
My gravest fear is that
My gravest fear is that since the Democrats are not talking about impeachment, reinstatement of the FISA courts, reinstatement of habeus corpus, and a challenge to the Unitary Executive that they are simply salivating over their turn to exercise control over these toxic tools.
I've joined a small group of people who, when a politcal person calls asking for donations, I tell them I will not be donating until I hear my issues addressed and then I tell them what my issues are. It's a small thing since I'm a nickel and dime donor. But I figure if enough of us do it, they might get the message. My teen son knows when I've received one these calls because I deliver my message and I hang up. Then he says, "Someone wanted money, huh?"