But can we really assume that none of those killed -- excepting the small children -- had been involved in planting the bomb? If the Marines reacted to the most plausible source of the threat, don't we owe them the benefit of the doubt that those killed were involved or complicit in the murder of their fellow Marine?
While disturbing, this reasoning is useful to understand how far we as a society have come from the idea of the rule of law and due process. I'm not really aware of how possible involvement (apparently because they lived in the area?) leads to conviction and execution under our system's ideals, but certainly it's the very practice for which Iraq's former leader Saddam Hussein is on trial. It's simply stunning to have someone argue that entire families -- children included, even if the letter writer seems to discount their involvement -- inside their homes needed to be exterminated as the "most plausible source of the threat."
J.W. Smith continues in this "willing executioners" style, finishing with this tidbit:
Must we continue to expect Marines to treat all people as noncombatants?
While this does not justify killing unarmed civilians, it certainly mitigates the accusation of "cold blood," which evokes the idea of emotionless action.
The answer to the question is "no," since it's obvious that even the insurgents and the marines themselves are "people," so that's nothing more than a red herring, and a really clumsy one at that. Furthermore, J.W. Smith's conclusion goes the further distance of attempting to do exactly what it claims not to do: it is an attempt to justify killing unarmed civilians by painting them as complicit with -- or perhaps active participants in -- the killing of 1 marine.
So long as we have apologists for state-sponsored murder like J.W. Smith around in significant numbers, our democracy will always be at risk, and our international moral standing will be driven deeper into the ground.
3 comments:
If you keep getting so upset about the news, you're headed for a short life, man. I'm serious.
I know, I know. I am always drawn to the letters to the editor and especially ones written by jackasses. I don't know what it is.
The accepted practice is to have women and children stay with insurgents while fellow insurgents keep their family members under quard with a threat to kill if they don't stay. This didn't happen this time, the marines returned fire on all when they came under fire. This was all for killing just One (1) Marine? Would it had been better or more right/wrong if 20/30/40 Marines were (killed)? War is not a game of numbers or words; It's about killing, which our Armed Forces are trained to do.
Post a Comment