Different Name, Same Game

If anything is game on the battlefield, why do the rules change the moment you step off the field?

Who gets to draw that arbitrary line in the sand and why does anyone listen to him?

The world is amoral. If we value life, we value life, and not just for our own purposes. If we allow for the disregard of life as determined by the majority (and not the entirety) of the population, then our morals are inconsistent and, therefore, not morals but conveniences.

In an ungoverned society (Abu Ghraib prison during these incidents), convenience is the operative excuse. Soldiers enact their revenge on prisoners, doctors and nurses conveniently forget their oaths, superiors conveniently look the other way. A battlefield by a different name.

What's the difference between what the guards did to the prisoners and what the freedom defenders did to the freedom fighters (and vice-versa)? Why are "killed in action" soldiers different from "killed in death camps" victims? None of them were strong enough to survive. This is how the natural world works.

On a side note, Times columnist, Jonathan D. Tepperman, penned this in Thursday's edition. I think it ties in quite nicely to my point.

Administration officials have argued that they themselves are not liable, since the incidents were the work of a few bad actors.

This may or may not be true. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, officials can be held accountable for war crimes committed by their subordinates even if they did not order them — so long as they had control over the perpetrators, had reason to know about the crimes, and did not stop them or punish the criminals.

This doctrine is the product of an American initiative. Devised by Allied judges and prosecutors at the Nuremberg tribunals, it was a means to impute responsibility for wartime atrocities to Nazi leaders, who often communicated indirectly and avoided leaving a paper trail.

We all know high-ranking Coalition Force officials will never feel the heat for this.* I mean, if I were a high-ranking official, would I let myself get caught? Hell, no. That would ruin my chances of re-election which would seriously hamper my financial prospects. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there and I'm not about to lose. A battlefield by a different name.

Now the opposition is gunning for the government so they can control, no, liberate the world their way. Oh, look- a different name.

Peace, ya'll.


*but did anybody happen to notice that CIA Director George Tenet stepped down last week, taking responsibility for the faulty information and a scandal about an undercover CIA agent's name released to the public in a scandal about nuclear weapons information? Interesting how nobody (around here, leastways) took note of that.