Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

> 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?

Kissinger was picking out targets in Cambodia. In what way was he not deeply involved?

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.

I think I hate this website.

The effort of these apologists makes my stomach sick

> 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

[2] https://pnas.scienceconnect.io/api/oauth/authorize?ui_locale...

[3] https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/80/S1/351/2223236?login...

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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com