The President Cannot Be a Murderer
United States foreign policy being what it is, the Commander-in-Chief cannot but be complicit in the deaths of innocent people, some of which resulted not from accidents, but from “the cost of doing business.” Despite this fact, the populace generally doesn’t think of the president as a murder, as someone who has unjustly and intentionally killed (or had killed) innocent people.
One reason for this stands out: the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. It can legitimately kill—even kill innocent people—where you and I cannot. When state violence results in what for you or me would constitute mass murder, the deaths are called mistakes but not crimes, unfortunate but not negligent, collateral damage but not murder. Case in point: the president has at his disposal weapons of mass destruction, but not weapons of mass murder.
While the state’s monopoly on the use of violence pretty well explains why we don’t consider the Commander-in-Chief a murderer, there may be another reason: we hold officials of the state to a different moral standard, at least when they’re conducting official state business like killing people. After all, having a monopoly on the use of violence doesn’t mean all one’s violence is legitimate and justified. No, some other mode of thought is at work here.
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter.
Like this:
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
I’ve read this twice, Kyle. And I’m pretty certain that it makes no sense. What is your point?
Presidents literally get away with murderer and being murderers. Why? Because we don’t think of the murders in which they are complicit as murders.
I think another layer here is that, if the president is a murderer, what about the people who put him or her in office? Are we willing to identify ourselves as complicit in murder?
Good point, Brett.
No.
Agellius, just out of curiosity, is your “no” a response to the final question in my comment or to something else?
As this article shows, even Locke is not nearly as important to the history of political action as Hobbes.
@ Kyle — Thanks for the clarification. That’s what I thought you were saying, but I wanted to be certain. I’ve gotten myself into so much trouble calling the deliberated killing of civilians as a routine aspect of warfare “murder” that I didn’t want to do so again unless I was agreeing with a proposition already posited.
To address Brett’s question, I guess the answer would depend on why you voted for the candidate, and what the candidate promised to do if elected. I don’t believe that we’ve ever been offered a pacificist as a presidential candidate. That said, I don’t agree that “we don’t think of the murders in which they are complicit as murders.” Some of do. Some of us have been saying so throughout our adult lives. We know that we are a tiny minority and that we will be shunned by many of our countrymen for sticking to our guns (if you’ll excuse the irony of the pharse), but we refuse to put nationalism above morality and supposed “American exceptionalism” above objective reality. When warfare is the topic of discussion, the main thing that sets this country apart from all others is that “we” are the only nation ever to use atomic weapons. And we used them against cities full of noncombatants. That, of course, was done before most of us were born. I will soon be 65 years old and my country has been at war much of the time, throughout my life. I don’t think any of those wars has been formally declared by the peoples’ elected representatives, so it is hard to say how much blame is to be assigned to the average citizen for the murders committed in those undeclared wars. I would say that every man must decide for himself where he had stood with respect to those deaths.
Kyle R. Cupp: “Presidents literally get away with murderer and being murderers.”
The element missing from your argument is demonstration of a particular occasion on which this has occurred, and why it was definitely murder. (And since it is good to make sure of what words mean, I’m referring to “murder” as defined by Catholic teaching. I might end up agreeing with you, or I might not — I just have no way of knowing yet.)
Would dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of noncombattants constitute a “particular occasion” (or, rather, two of them) in your mind, Paul? How does it stand up against the definition you have in mind?
Kodak: “Would dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of noncombattants constitute a ‘particular occasion’”
In my mind, yes, that would constitute murder. (Because the use of nuclear weapons in such a manner is inherently and totally incapable of being used in some way that discriminates between legitimate and illegitimate targets.)
You seem to have much more than that in mind, though. I still have no idea what that is.
Rodak,
I recommend Paul Fussel’s very heartfelt chapter in the book Thank God for the Atom Bomb on this point, in all seriousness. He details how his own life and those of his friends would likely have been ended except for what transpired. Worth thinking about.
I define murder, in this context, as the unjust, premeditated or intentional killing of one human being by another. I image that accompanied the post–the atomic bombings–qualifies, as do, say, drone attacks that kill civilians not accidentally.
Kyle R, Cupp: “I define murder, in this context, as the unjust, premeditated or intentional killing of one human being by another.”
I much prefer the Catholic definition: the intentional killing of the innocent. Your proposed definition is very murky. “Unjust” — anything unjust is wrong, so referring to unjust killings doesn’t help explain which killings are the ones that are unjust. “Premeditated” — doesn’t clearly distinguish between the actively planned and the merely foreseen. “Intentional” — is not sufficient to define a murder (since a policeman may thoroughly intend to kill a terrorist in the midst of attempting to kill others, but that isn’t sufficient to make it a murder of the terrorist.)
I don’t determine the justice or injustice of a killing based on the label. Anyhow, I wouldn’t limit the definition of murder to the intentional killing of the innocent. A vigilante who intentionally kills a suspected criminal (who is truly guilty) can be said to have committed murder.
Kyle R. Cupp: “Anyhow, I wouldn’t limit the definition of murder to the intentional killing of the innocent. A vigilante who intentionally kills a suspected criminal (who is truly guilty) can be said to have committed murder.”
But that is assigning ‘innocent’ a different meaning than the one that Catholic teaching assigns it. If a victim has no guilt towards the killer sufficient to warrant the killing, then the victim is (in that respect) innocent.
Legitimate killing can occur in personal self-defense, or as authorized by society as the only means of protecting itself.
In the case of a vigilante, they haven’t been personally attacked, so the victim has no guilt in that respect. And a vigilante has, by definition, not been duly authorized by society. Hence it is a murder.
So I’ll stick with the Catholic definition — it’s easier to figure out what it means.
Rodak has helpfully given a concrete example of what I would agree was an objective example of murder by a president. Do you have some other specific examples? It would help explain what you meant.
The Dora Farms strike.
Kyle R. Cupp: “The Dora Farms strike.”
But why do you choose that occasion? In what way was murder committed there?
It qualifies under your definition. The innocent person whose life was taken was killed not accidentally or through carelessness, (nor, I hasten to add, as the military objective), but as an intentionally chosen cost to hitting the military targets.
Kyle R. Cupp: “It qualifies under your definition.”
Certainly not. The civilian killed in the strike was not an intended target. (As you agree, by saying he was not the military objective). There is a radical difference between what is foreseen and what is intended. This comes from the use of double effect, which has been an essential part of Catholic teaching since at least the time of Aquinas.
Looking around google, I see that you are familiar with the concept of double effect, so it is not clear why you are (apparently) denying that double effect applies to the Dora Farms strike.
Yes, I deny that double effect applies in this situation or others like it: there is only one effect: dead people within the targeted area. In the Dora Farms attack, the dead civilian wasn’t the reason for the attack in the first place, but he was among those intentionally targeted in an effort to kill Hussein.
Kyle R. Cupp: “Yes, I deny that double effect applies in this situation or others like it: there is only one effect: dead people within the targeted area.”
The morality of a particular choice of action is not decided by what happens to take place after the choice is made, but by the range of anticipatable outcomes that had to be taken into account before the choice was made.
So firstly, if the only anticipatable outcome of the Dora Farms strike was the death of a civilian (i.e. there truly was only one possible effect), then indeed it would be murder. But a range of outcomes was possible. And hence one reason why double effect had to be used.
Secondly, even if the outcome of the Dora Farms strike was anticipated to include (amongst other effects) the death of a civilian, that is still insufficient to conclude that it was murder. (Imagine the case where a doctor has invented a vaccine that will save the lives of a million people, but at the sure cost of a thousand people who will die as a result of an individually unpredictable allergy to the vaccine. Any moral analysis that would describe the death of the thousand as “intentional murder” would be ridiculous.)
Kyle R. Cupp: “[the dead civilian] was among those intentionally targeted in an effort to kill Hussein”
Intentionally? Did the people who were planning the Dora Farms strike jump up and down and say “Yes, yes, a dead civilian, that’s what we want”? No. Would the planners have been disappointed if the civilian had unexpectedly left the target area? No. Did the planners have a alternative plan that would have had an identical likelihood of achieving their military objective, while reducing civilian casualties? No.
Those are the kind of questions that have to be asked before deciding something is intentional. As I said, merely foreseeing an outcome doesn’t make it intentional.
You’re splitting hairs, Paul C. You are correct that foreseeing an outcome doesn’t make something intentional, but you still need two different effects for double effect to apply. In your vaccine example, you have them: 1) people are cured and 2) people die from an allergic reaction. The Dora strike example only has one effect (that’s morally relevant in this context): the deaths of those targeted. Intent is not the same thing as desire: the desire may be to kill the “bad guys” and not any others, but desiring the deaths of some targeted but not others doesn’t translate into a limited intent.
Kyle R. Cupp: “The Dora strike example only has one effect (that’s morally relevant in this context): the deaths of those targeted.”
First you say “one effect” (singular) and then you admit “deaths” (plural).
The targets aimed at were Saddam, Uday and Qusay (and perhaps other top Iraqi officials who might happen to be there) — their deaths were the first effect, the one that was desired goal of the plan. It was fully expected that others would be there, and killed — their deaths would be the second effect, the outcome that was not intended, even though fully expected and foreseen.
So, more than one effect, hence double effect comes in to play.
Kyle R. Cupp: “desiring the deaths of some targeted but not others doesn’t translate into a limited intent.”
I agree that it doesn’t automatically translate into a limited intent. That’s why I gave examples (for the case of the Dora Farms Strike) of how we decide if there really is a limited intent or not.
The considerations I’ve been giving have been routinely applied to similar cases for a long time.
It was fully expected that others would be there, and killed — their deaths would be the second effect, the outcome that was not intended, even though fully expected and foreseen.
I call this splitting hairs. The deaths of those targeted are all part of the same singular outcome.
The considerations I’ve been giving have been routinely applied to similar cases for a long time.
True, and the reason I have a problem with the principle of double effect, if not in theory, certainly in application.
Kyle R. Cupp: “The Dora strike example only has one effect (that’s morally relevant in this context): the deaths of those targeted.”
I’m really, really not understanding. If a bomb explosion does multiple things then it only counts as one effect? Or somehow the Dora Farms strike only counts as one “morally relevant” effect because …. ??? Feel free to explain.
An easy case: suppose a terrorist is about to explode a remote-controlled bomb that would kill a thousand innocents, and my sole opportunity to prevent it would be to drop a bomb on him. I see nothing wrong with doing that. Make the case harder: the terrorist is standing next to an innocent bystander, and dropping the bomb on the terrorist to prevent the remotely-controlled bomb going off will surely kill the bystander as well. I can still see nothing morally wrong with dropping the bomb in that case. (And that would be the conclusion of double effect as well.)
But following your claim (as far as can be told), you would condemn dropping that bomb, and call it murder. I flatly disagree. In fact, I would call the refusal to drop the bomb a murderous act.
In the case you mention, I would call the killing of the innocent bystander murder, but let me give a case in which it might not be: say you intend to bomb a military target that you have reasonable certainty contains no innocent civilians, but that target is in somewhat close proximity to a town with lots of innocent civilians. You do everything you can to hit only the military target and have reasonable certainty that you can succeed in doing so. However, in releasing the bombs, one goes astray and destroys a civilian house, killing the people inside. I would not call that an intentional killing or murder because the killing was an accident that couldn’t be helped. It wasn’t deliberate.
Going back to the farm case, I simply don’t see how one can intend to destroy a whole target while not intending the destruction of everything that’s in the target. It strikes me as ethical BS to say, “Yes, I intended to obliterate the house, but I didn’t intend to kill those people who were inside!”
Kyle R. Cupp: “In the case you mention, I would call the killing of the innocent bystander murder”
But what would you call the choice not to bomb the terrorist (thus leading to the death of a thousand innocents)? Actions and inactions are both moral choices. In the case I described, if you do kill the terrorist one innocent dies. And if you don’t kill the terrorist a thousand innocents die. On what basis does your line of reasoning end up distinguishing between action and inaction?
Kyle R. Cupp: “However, in releasing the bombs, one goes astray and destroys a civilian house, killing the people inside. I would not call that an intentional killing or murder because the killing was an accident that couldn’t be helped.”
But why shouldn’t someone say (following your line of argument) that of course you knew that bombs go astray. They regularly do — so the killing of a civilian wasn’t something unexpected, and thus wasn’t an accident. (I also don’t see why you think your line of argument allows you to say: “It couldn’t be helped”, while rejecting essentially the same thing in a double effect argument.)
Kyle R. Cupp: “Going back to the farm case, I simply don’t see how one can intend to destroy a whole target while not intending the destruction of everything that’s in the target.”
If all one knows about an action is its physical description, it’s impossible to decide if it’s morally good or bad. So, simply “destroying the whole target” is never going to be enough information for us to decide if it’s morally good or bad. Inevitably, one has to ask someone who is aiming at “destroying the whole target” what morally good effects or bad effects are going to follow from their action.
Think of double effect from a simpler point of view: It’s a commonplace of life that things often don’t come as purely good or purely bad. Sometimes they come in package deals: some good irretrievably mixed in with bad. I can’t figure out from your line of argument on what principle you would decide whether such a package deal was to be accepted or not. But that’s exactly what double effect offers to help with, as it relates to moral goods and bads.
“Kill one man, and you’re a murderer. Kill a thousand, and you’re a conqueror. Kill them all, and you’re a god.” – Dave Mustaine.
@ Kyle –
Then perhaps you would agree with me that, based on what we’ve been told, Osama bin Laden was murdered?
I hesitate to comment on situations about which I’m in the dark.
I would classify assassination under the category of murder.
Anyways, this is a wonderfully idealistic argument that has no basis in reality. if you have a problem with the way things work, propose a realistic alternative that doesn’t result in self-annihilation.
@ Dan — It is, theoretically, possible to fight and win a war without resorting to deliberate mass-annihilation of civilian populations. Rather than bombing, you go door-to-door to flush combatants out of buildings. You risk the lives of your combatants, rather than destroying the lives of non-combatants. Especially since, as an American, your combatants are in harm’s way only because you shipped them off, thousands of miles from their homeland to fight, if the cost of this seems too high, you simply decide the fight is not worth the cost. And you come home. American has never been in any danger of “self-annihilation.” American has never had to defend herself against an invasion. That is the “reality” forming the “basis” of my argument on this subject.
I’m not making an argument so much as an observation. Where’s the idealism?
@Rodak – murder isn’t defined by the numbers. One innocent casualty is murder. At least that’s what the post is claiming. If you claim that the leader is accountable at the individual level, then any decision they make which would involve collateral damage (i.e. any war) makes them murderers. But then why stop there? Are we thieves if we purchase toilet paper that was made from trees on land seized from aboriginals?
@Kyle – Fair enough. I thought there was a subtle argument in there, but perhaps it was just an observation, in which case I have no disagreement.
“American has never had to defend herself against an invasion.” – Pearl Harbor?
@ Dan —
Where would you like to draw the line at the killing of innocent civilians? Have you got an acceptable number in mind? Should that number be based on the killing of civilians as a percentage of total population, for instance? I’m not certain that I see your point here.
Btw: Pearl Harbor was not an “invasion.” Pearl Harbor was an airstrike against a military target (battleships), designed for the preemptive purpose of crippling the U.S. fleet in the pacific. Every act of war is not an “invasion.”
@ Kyle —
Then, would you say that if–as what we know seems to indicate–Osama bin Laden was killed even though he was unarmed and offered no resistance (we are told both that he attempted to hide behind a woman’s body and that he resisted, which I can’t process together), then having killed him would constitute “murder,” even if we hold him personally responsible for 9/11?
If he could have been captured and posed no threat of violence or escape, and he was killed anyway, then, yes, that I would call murder. But, again, there are too many unknowns about the incident for me to make any kind of concrete statement.
Is the notion of involuntary man slaughter relevant here? Are all murders equivalent? When anti-abortion advocates equivocate, I call them out. I suspect that you are equivocating here too.
Sam
No. While some state killings qualify as involuntary manslaughter, the type to which I refer are not involuntary.
What do mean by the word ‘involuntary’?
SR
Done but not consciously willed.
Kyle, you have put the light on a really hot topic here. Now in the beginning of the Twenty First Century, it is certainly high time that civilized people everywhere probe and re-evaluate the historic practice of war & every form of state sponsored violence that goes with it.
To begin with, I wonder where you get the idea that:
“the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. It can legitimately kill—even kill innocent people—where you and I cannot. When state violence results in what for you or me would constitute mass murder, the deaths are called mistakes but not crimes, unfortunate but not negligent, collateral damage but not murder. Case in point: the president has at his disposal weapons of mass destruction, but not weapons of mass murder.”???
Where does that statement come from? And the underlying assumption of authority to kill people – where does that come from? Who said that it is ever all right to kill people? What kind of human society or civilization would accept or even insist on this bloodshed as a fundamental right?
Mass killing of other human beings, particularly innocent civilians must be understood as mass murder, without qualification or reservation.
Having permitted and even blessed this thing called war, with religious trappings, rituals & chaplains for untold centuries has got to stop right now. Because it is the entire planet and all living creatures that are now at risk, given the weapons now at our disposal. We are now on the verge of what is called “Geocide”. It is already well past the stage of homicide. Ignore the widows and orphans long enough and this is where you end up…at the end of the world as we know it.
When you get right down to it, this concept of justifying murder or killing or giving orders to others who must obey and kill people, flies in the face of human dignity, regardless of religion or social tradition.
Deep in our human psyche is a natural aversion to kill. We are born as social beings, with a natural affinity for relationship with other living persons, indeed with a sense of wonder and respect for all living beings, for once we are aware of being in the world, we sense that life, all of life itself is sacred.
The life of another living person is not ever to be taken lightly, as simply an accident of the universe. This is basic humanity 101. It is a universal ethic in every society on the planet.
However, unfortunately, It is our social conditioning and endless authoritarian mind games as well as the tradition of centuries of military boot camps that has worked on and even frequently succeeded in desensitizing individuals to this basic natural human ethos not to kill.
You indicate that “the Commander and Chief” (sic) has a monopoly on the use of state violence. Well, here in Canada, our Parliament voted to abolish capital punishment back about forty years ago. Some here and elsewhere today wish to bring back the death penalty. Most of those who argue for reinstatement exhibit a distinctly conservative point of view on just about any topic imaginable. I consider this a reactionary mode of thinking and living; a throw back to more primitive mindless atavistic patterns & practices. And nowhere is this more evident than in the entire sector of society which we call the military armed forces.
It is time to reform all of this. No time like the present, as the signs and sounds of sabre- rattling for war are rising once again. Problem is, sabres are mainly just decorative military regalia these days – although I noticed the Prince William of Britain was wearing one for his recent Royal wedding in Westminster Abbey. Enough said. Monarchy & hierarchy feed on this odious fascination with weapons & killing, for God’s sake (when warranted with all due respect to the outdated tradition of just war theory – just sayin’ you know, eh? ;-).
I believe Max Weber made the point about the state having a monopoly on violence, but the idea itself goes back to the origin of the state. We entrust the state to do certain tasks involving violence that we don’t permit the citizen to perform.
“Who said that it is ever all right to kill people?”
I believe it was someone who once said (about his OWN totally unjust State execution mind you): “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.”
Leo Tolstoy, a pacifist, saw no moral distinction between the chief executive’s battle orders and the individual citizen’s role as taxpayer and soldier. He wrote:
Now, I don’t agree with Tolstoy becuse I don’t accept the implied premise that war equals murder. Still, I take Tolstoy’s point to be a pure and honest distillation of the pacifist position. And from that perspective, his moral linkage of commander-in-chief and citizen is inescapable.
I mention this because in private correspondence, my son and I have been accused by a participant in this thread, a person who presents himself as a pacifist, of personally being “murderers” because we both served in the United States Army. (I served during peacetime. My son is an Iraq War veteran). In the same dialogue, however, that person let himself off the hook for voting for warmakers and paying taxes to the US Government because, you know, life is tough and he’s just a working class guy trying to get by.
But if war equals murder – without qualification and without specific reference to particular deliberate acts – then the only honest position is the one Tolstoy adopts. Because of my interlocutor’s fundamental dishonesty – because of his desperate attempt to point the finger of accusation anywhere but at himself – he and I are no longer in dialogue on any subject.
You fail to mention that your interlocutor was also a conscientious objector, classified 1-O by his draft board, and served two full year alternate service during the war in Vietnam, rather than comply with the draft. Your interlocutor also assured you that had his appeal to the draft board failed, he would have gone to prison (having already returned from Canada after spending less than a week there, deciding that flight was not a strong enough expression of his convictions.)
Your humble interlocutor has never paid a nickle in taxes in time of war that was not deducted from his pay before he had a chance to withhold it. Had he been able to, he surely would have, as his other actions, taken where he did excercise full control, surely attest.
Finely, your interlocutor voted for third-party peace candidates, rather than the candidates put up by the GOP and the Democrats, all the way through the Vietnam era, beginning in 1968, his first year of eligibility to vote.
None of this do you mention, which calls in question just where the “dishonesty” begins and where the honor ends. But, it don’t mean a thing. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.
What a fraud. Anyone who’s ever filled out a W-4 knows you can take up to nine exemptions and then either pay or, if you really are a conscientious objector, not pay the bulk your federal income taxes later. You’ve greased the operation of Mario Savio’s machine for forty years with your money and your votes. You just won’t admit it because that would mean surrendering the most invaluable thing you gained from your draft refusal: a lifetime of self-righteous moral preening. No fundamentalist on the planet is more smug and judgmental.
But as you say in that faux hipster patois, it don’t mean a thing.
I think it is legitimate to ask whether a Christian should occupy an elective office in which he or she is expected to use violence (or, to take a more neutral term) “force” in order to keep other people in line. It seems to me that if the degree of force is such that it could kill people–not just the innocent but wrongdoers as well–then the answer ought to be NO. But we have about 1,700 years of Christian history–and Christian teaching, some of which we consider dogmatic–that offers a different answer.
By the way, Kyle, it is “Commander-in-Chief,” not “Commander and Chief.”
Ack! Serves me right for blogging before my coffee has taken effect.
Brett writes, “… is your “no” a response to the final question in my comment …?”
Yes.
@ Paul C. –
What could possibly be “much more” than dropping atom bombs on hundreds of thousands of noncombattants? Those acts were ordered by an American president. I think that alone makes Kyle’s case (and mine.) Everything else that follows is on a smaller scale, and is therefore harder to see. But, although what follows Hiroshima and Nagasaki may lack similar quantity, deliberately caused civilian deaths in subsequent wars are of the same quality: they are mass murder.
I think distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants is the real nonsense here; human beings are human beings.
The State’s right to (defensive) war is analogized to self defense of one human being against another.
If someone is punching me in the stomach…I am allowed to punch him in the face if that’s what it takes to disable him and stop the attack. It doesn’t matter that my fist was not being directly threatened by his face (otherwise I’d only be allowed to attack his fist with my stomach, and the whole point is that my stomach isn’t strong enough to disable the fist!)
When it comes to States, all citizens are equally human and equally part of the same organism and (in that sense) equally fair or unfair targets for action IF that’s what it takes to adequately disable the enemy State as a whole and defend your own (and that’s a HUGE “if,” of course).
The combatant/non-combatant distinction is just a way to sanitize and compartmentalize the horror of war.
I rest my case.
Rodak: “What could possibly be “much more” than dropping atom bombs on hundreds of thousands of noncombattants?”
By “much more” I was referring to the number of events, rather than the scale. Kyle’s original post makes some very wide-ranging conclusions, which seems as though they must refer to many events, but he omits any explanation of which events he is referring to.
Rodak: “deliberately caused civilian deaths in subsequent wars are of the same quality: they are mass murder”
I agree that any intentional killing of a civilian is murder. But which events are you referring to? Why do you see them as murder? Are you aware of Catholic teaching in this area? That teaching amounts to a coherent way of examining these events. I’ve looked at other non-Catholic ways of trying to deal these things, and they have never held up under close examination. I want to try and see if you or Kyle have some coherent way of addressing this, but there is a great shortage of detail forthcoming.
@ Mark Gordan –
Yes, I take my deductions and I still receive a refund. I don’t pay more than has been deducted, and in fact, get some of that back. I don’t know what world you live in, sir, but you remind me of George H. W. Bush being amazed at the barcode reader in the supermarket a few years back.
Btw–what you call “faux hipster patois” above, is, in fact, Vietnam-era G.I. slang that was often heard from the guys whom we were welcoming back home in the 1970s. And the myth of hippies spitting on returning Vietnam vets is exactly that–a myth. Can you really imagine some love bead-sporting flower child spitting on a hardened Vietnam vet and living to draw his next breath? I don’t think so. Nobody I knew felt that way about the returning vets, anyway. They were viewed as victims of an evil system. A kid in my high school homeroom died over there. As did the younger brother of one of my college roommates, whose military funeral I attended. It was very real. Not like now.
I’m sorry for the guilt that you so obviously harbor inside. It has made you very defensive, and therefore, very quick to anger. Forgive yourself, you’ll be a happier man.
My father was spat upon. It is not a myth. It happened. Yes, not everyone in the anti-war movement did it — however, there were all kinds of problems within the movement, so much so that Thich Nhat Hanh was known to talk about it.
@ Henry Karlson –
Well, that’s a fine broth of unsubstantiated anecdote and vague generalizations, isn’t it? Just exactly what was Thich Nhat Hanh “known” to talk about? Exactly what “problems within the movement” do you refer to? Who spat on your father? And when and where and why? Were there arrests involved? I can anecdotally report that I was very much involved in those days and never saw any such thing, either in Bill Ayers’ Ann Arbor, or in New York City. But so what? That proves nothing. I did see verbal abuse at times heaped on cops and national guard troops who were brought in to disrupt peaceful demonstrations and marches. But that’s not quite the same thing, is it?
http://books.google.com/books?id=ITBJd3UaYJIC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=thich+nhat+hanh+anti-war+violence&source=bl&ots=3G1p1Qu4ld&sig=4e86HWog-hNYTsYooMIZVBHECGs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9W8ET5eKNM_TgQfp17GcAg&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=thich%20nhat%20hanh%20anti-war%20violence&f=false
A brief discussion on Hanh.
As for who spat on my father, I don’t know. Did there have to be arrests for it to happen? Does there have to be names? Seriously. It happened. It is not a myth. If your argument is people weren’t arrested for it, so it didn’t happen, that is like no one was arrested for the Jack the Ripper killings, so no one died. Please.
Henry,
Well there’s name I haven’t heard for years, and I remember was spoken of all the time when I was in the seminary at CUA Thich Nhat Hahn. Show you how times have changed. Now they talk about Chesterton. Anyways, I cannot exactly recommend a trip to Vietnam, which we made a years and half ago. But I can say that it is revelatory for those of us who grew up with that war on. The HO Chi Minh Mausoleum in Hanoi is the grimmest monument in the world I have ever seen with my own two eyes. It is the color of a deathly sickness, and terrible reminder of a terrible era. I have nothing but compassion for everyone who lived through it.
This getting rather personal!
And so I will remind everyone: “anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder”
It sounds like many of the pacifists here have ended up becoming Warriors of their own sort, and just as hardened.
@PPF —
My father was in the pacific theater and is also convinced that had the bombs not been dropped, a land invasion of Japan, with resulting horrendous casualties on all sides would have been inevitable. I don’t buy it, though. Japan was already thoroughly defeated and virtually defenseless. It is an island nation and could have been easily embargoed by sea, and bombed conventionally at will from carriers until they gave up.
In truth, those bombs were dropped to send a signal to the Russians that they should forget about advancing any further south into Asia and taking control of the Sea of Japan, as they had failed to do earlier in the century. The first bomb was to show them that we really had the devastating weapon. The second one was to show them that we had the capacity to produce more than one. The Japanese non-combattants who died under those bombs–or subsequently from radiation sickness–were the first large-scale victims of the Cold War.
Rodak,
As an historian there is nothing I hate to read about more than how many ships and troops and guns a side had, etc. etc. Not my gig. I do cultural history, and by that light every the Japanese at the time uttered was consistent with fight -to- the last -man, ethos. But since I am not a defense historian I can’t really argue really.
But consider if you are wrong Rodak. That would mean that would mean, by your father’s logic, that only thanks to the Atom Bomb you are here.
“That would mean that would mean, by your father’s logic, that only thanks to the Atom Bomb you are here.”
Even if I thought myself to be some great gift to mankind, that wouldn’t make it morally right. What you are saying is, in effect, that it is prudent to commit mass murder in lieu of *possibly* putting yourself at risk. Well, I guess it IS prudent. But, again, that doesn’t make it morally right.
Rodak,
Lest ye forgetteth the butterfly effect, or sparrow effect:
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows”
@ Henry —
No, I was just curious. I’m sure that you’re aware that whole books have been written on the topic, with lexus-nexus searches done looking for press coverage and following up on the reports, etc., without substantiating much of anything. It would be interesting to hear the details of an actual event.
I’ll try to check out the links later. Thanks for those.
Well, my father didn’t stop to confront the spitter — and I think most soldiers didn’t. This is why the names of those who did the spitting are not known. The soldiers knew they had something else to do. However, I also know it made my father angry/saddened/etc.
Yes, I would imagine so. It is a mistake, of course, to think that “the movement” was monolithic in its beliefs, aims, and tactics. There was little or no connection between the activism of, say, Joan Baez, and that of the SDS. Some just wanted the war to end and the kiling to stop. Others wanted a leftist revolution and actively supported the NLF. The latter type, I suppose, might have been doing some spitting; the former probably not. It worked both ways, of course, and there were returning vets who reacted violently toward peaceniks. There was a pub that I could not go into in my Bronx neighborhood, because one the regulars there threatened me every time he saw me. I was protected from this guy (who could have eaten me for lunch) ironically, by my own circle of friends, the two closest of whom had both served in Nam.
Their’s is a high and lonely destiny -C.S. Lewis. We must not hold them to the same standards as a commoner. What is wrong for a commoner may be done by a statesman. The same rules obviously do not apply. Theirs is a high and lonely destiny.
Squirrel Turtle,
The Romans had this matter nailed long ago in the famous aphorism:
“Quod licet Jovi,
Non licet bovi.”
What behooves Jupiter, does not behoove the bull.”
@ PPF –
I’m afraid that I do not understand the application of the sparrow saying to our discussion of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…
…Unless you are quoting those verses to indicate that you’ve turned around to agree with me that fear of the need to possibly invade Japan by land, and inevitably lose many lives in that campaign, should not have prompted “us” to lose our collective soul by incinerating hundreds of thousands of helpless non-combattants with our atomic weapons.
Was this your purport?
Rodak,
I am just quoting vaguely relevant scripture in line with the hallowed tradition of using a Bible quote to wiggle out of a situation one can’t really answer very well. It has worked for preachers for millennia, so it must be given some obeisance, eh?
Actually, I was just referring to your comment that about not being God’s gift to the world, and using the hairs on the head meme to suggest everyone is precious subs specie aeternitatis.
@PPF –
I see. I suppose that, in a sense, each of us is God’s gift to the world, which is why none of us should take it upon himself to return any of those God-given-gifts to Sender simply in order to preserve the pretty wrapping on one’s own precious package.
Rodak,
I have seen film footage of Vietnam war protesters spitting at returning veterans, and at ROTC students.
When I was in ROTC a modern day “hippie” made derogatory comments at my unit when it was assembled on campus and spit in our direction, though the “hippie” was not close enough for the gesture to be anything but symbolic.
Your assertion that no anti-war protester has ever spit upon a US soldier is absurd, and I have to wonder what motivates it.
@ R. Rockcliff –
Have you? Why don’t you go on YouTube, then, get the clips and post the links here to prove your point? I can find clips for you of the National Guard gunning hippies (or maybe they were just college students?) down; so the spitting clips must be there, too.
But I don’t claim it never happened. I do claim that first-hand evidence of such occurences is very difficult to find, and that I personally never saw anything like that happen, or experienced people in the peace movement with that kind of attitude towards returning soldiers, many of whom joined our ranks when they got home, btw.
I guess maybe I spoke too soon. I can’t find film of the Kent State shootings–only stills. But there are plenty of those on YouTube.
@Rodak,
Consider the lilies of the valley…..not even Solomon was clothed as one of these…..
Kyle,
Do you see merit in the notions of just/unjust war? Your little debate with Paul C. made me wonder whether a consideration of just/unjust war principles was relevant.
I think that I agree with you in your main post: Unfortunately, in the past, presidents and/or military advisors and/or generals and soldiers on the battlefield have been complicit in the deaths of innocent people. Unfortunately, in the past, presidents have unjustly and intentionally killed innocent people. Such actions are immoral, and are similar in moral status to murder. Similarly, if we think about it in terms of just/unjust war, instances of unjust war are immoral, and are similar in moral status to murder.
We, citizens, should never accept the idea that the state can intentionally kill innocent people, or engage in unjust war. We, citizens, should never think that it is moral for our political leaders to intentionally kill people or engage in unjust war. We, citizens, should always seek to elect political leaders who share this view.
Isn’t this a non-controversial point that everyone here on this thread agrees with?
(Now, I recognize that the sticking point will be whether particular action X is an instance of unjust warfare, or an intentional killing of an innocent person. But don’t we all agree on the general principle?)
Sorry, I left out “innocent”: “We, citizens, should never think that it is moral for our political leaders to intentionally kill **innocent** people…..”
@ PPF –
Yeah, but that Solerman feller had hissef ’bout a million wives (the poor bastard!). He wuz no better’n one o’ them Mormons! Burnin’ in hell, he is. Burnin’ in hell!
@ Thales –
Yes, speaking for myself, I am in agreement with what you said. My reservation would be that, using the tactics and weaponry of contemporary warfare, the “just war” is an impossibility, since it is always known, in advance, that innocent people WILL BE KILLED.
And, in point of fact, knowing this to be the case, the killing of civilians becomes a strategic tactic. How long will the enemy keep on fighting, when he knows that his continued fight will result in the deaths of his wife, his mother, sister, his grandparents, his children…?
Rodak,
Yes, you spoke too soon, and too much, and without integrity.
You said: “The myth of hippies spitting on returning Vietnam vets is exactly that–a myth.”
Then you said: “I don’t claim it never happened.”
How do you reconcile these two assertions?
I have seen peaceniks spit at military personnel with my own eyes. You can assert that I am dishonest, but there is no evidence that I am dishonest, while the evidence of your own dishonesty is sufficiently demonstrated by the two statements of yours I juxtaposed above.
I was wondering what Mark Gordon was talking about, but now I know. Please do not bother reconciling the assertions on my account.
I think there is some equivocation going on here about the difference between spitting “at” and spitting “on.” I have been careful to say “at” and not to say “on.” I have never seen, in real life or on film, spitting “on,” i.e. the spit finding its target. The spitting I have seen has always been a gesture, and not an assault. That was the nature of the spitting I witnessed as a student many years ago. I believe that some people are deliberately confusing the two kinds of spitting in order to make political statements. Spitting “on” is beyond insult; it is assault. Spitting “at” is an insult, like shouting “baby killer” in someone’s face, and I suppose some people will deny that this too ever happened.
@ R. Rockliff–
You are correct. It was Henry Karlson who said “spat upon” in this thread, prior to your arrival, and I continued to go with that thought.
I don’t claim that it never happened because it is impossible to prove a negative. As I said, I have seen that kind of thing directed at troops sent in to confront demonstrators. But that is a much different thing than spitting “upon” or “at” a soldier returning from the war. Being of that era, I personally knew quite a few Vietnam veterans and none of them ever expressed to me any mistreatment upon their return from the war. That, of course, is merely anecdotal. But so are claims to the contrary. And please don’t think that the peaceniks were not subjected to verbal insult and worse. I was hit right on the side of the head by a football thrown from the second-floor balcony of a frat house in Ann Arbor while participating in a peaceful march. That hurt, quite a lot, and broke my glasses, as well. I was called every kind of filthy name under the sun, “faggot” being one of the more frequently deployed ones. And, as I previously mentioned, there was that vet in the Bronx pub who threatened to kick my ass every time he saw me, once I had told him, upon inquiry, that I was a Conscientious Objector.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I guess — unless one of the two birds is able to put love above politics.
Please, give my regards to Mark G. He and I are not on speaking terms, unfortunately.
Btw, R. — I just now decided to look, and–lo and behold–you used “spit UPON,” right here:
“Your assertion that no anti-war protester has ever spit upon a US soldier is absurd, and I have to wonder what motivates it.”
Now, isn’t that ironic?
Rodak,
(1) My use of the word “upon” was referential to an assertion that you had made. Please note that my sentence begins with the words “your assertion that.” The word never occurs in any assertions that I made, because, as I said, I carefully distinguish the difference between spitting “at” and spitting “on.”
(2) I observe that you devote a lot of effort to describing all the bad things that people have done to you because you are a pacifist. Perhaps this explains your apparent inability to discuss this in a mature manner.
(3) My final observation is that true pacifists (e.g. Mennonites, Quakers, etc.) refrain from both physical and verbal hostility, whereas it is evident that you are a very angry person, and that, I think, is the real irony — an angry hostile “pacifist.”
I want to make it clear that, despite Rodak’s unjust insinuations, I do not condone the violence that he says was directed against him because he was a peace activist. Apparently, he cannot believe that it is possible for someone to be against hostile conduct directed against servicemen and at the same time be against hostile conduct directed against peace activists. This is a peculiarly adversarial mentality. He even suggests that he and I must have different “politics,” though I never made any political statements.
Because incidents of activists spitting “on” servicemen were probably infrequent, and because he has no personal experience of such an incident, he dismisses the notion that such incidents ever occurred at all as “myth.” In order for that to be so, he must assert that every serviceman that has ever reported such an incident is bearing false witness against the peace activist he says spit on him. That is a serious charge. Why make it?
I note that he has not conceded that peace activists have, at least, spit “at” servicemen, unless the concession appears in the vague comment about troops sent in to confront demonstrators. I consider throwing a football at someone’s head to be a hostile act, but I also consider spitting “at” someone to be a hostile act. Why do it?
I also note that he has not commented on my statement that I have witnessed a peace activist spit “at” ROTC cadets. I do not bear any collective grudge against all peace activists on account of this isolated incident, but it did as a matter of fact occur. At least some peace activists do such things. In his black-and-white world, if I am not a fellow pacifist, then I must have no morality at all, and therefore everything I say must be a lie.
@ R. Rockhill –
It is interesting, and perhaps informative about these kinds of confrontations, that M. Gordon has twice insinuated that I am a liar herein. I have been directly accused of lying about my tax history, and it has been further insinuated that I may be lying about having been a conscientious objector at all. Both of these accusations were made without basis, and frankly surprised me, since M. Gordon seems to be quite an intelligent man when he’s not angry.
I’m not sure where Mr. Rockliff thinks I accused him of condoning violence against peace activists (I didn’t). Spitting-incidents-as-myth has been widely written on for many years, after having been thoroughly researched, using such tools as lexus-nexus, so the idea is hardly new with me. But, in the end, I can only relate my own experiences–which I have finished doing as of now.
@ R. Rockcliff –
You said my “assertion that..blah-blah-blah…” was “absurd,” clearly meaning that there was no doubt in your mind that returning vets HAD been spat UPON by protesters. You could have replaced the preposition with one more to your liking, since you weren’t quoting me directly, but you did not. That’s okay. The whole thing is there for anybody who cares to see.
But, I’m curious. What have I said on this thread that you found to be “angry” and “hostile?”
Rodak,
I have had the courtesy to spell your name correctly. You have spelled mine several different incorrect ways now. I can only conclude that in this matter, as in others, accuracy is of no concern to you.
If there is anyone else still reading this, long after it has ceased to be edifying, I will let them step forward to contradict my observation that you seem to be resentful about events that happened decades ago.
Neither I, nor Mark Gordon, threw that football at your head.
@ R. Rockliff–
I’m sorry about spelling your name wrong. That was inexcusably careless on my part.
As for the football, at least it was an honest expression of simple loathing; it hurt, but I understood it. However, I don’t understand why I’ve been called a liar in this discussion. All-in-all, I prefer the football.
Btw– Since you’re such a stickler for accuracy, I only see two ways that I spelled your name wrong: “Rockcliff” and strangely “Rockhill.” In my lexicon “several” means “more than two.” I spelled it correctly many times and incorrectly “several” times. But even once is too many, and my apology is sincere.