Why We Must Remember, part 2

Consider the following: Andrew VORKINK Former World Bank Country Manager for Turkey Professor of International Law at the Bogaziçi University andrew.vorkink@boun.edu.tr RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IS NOT PERMITTED Under international law, retroactive application of criminal laws is not permitted as a general principle. Thus the Genocide Convention applies from when it came into force and not for past acts. Accordingly the Convention cannot be used to bring cases which occurred during World War II, let alone earlier. Further, as the first major case involving a claim that a state committed genocide shows – the case brought by Bosnia against Serbia in the International Court of Justice and decided in February 2007, the burden of proof that there were both killings and intent to destroy a group as a group, is very high. Even with enormous amounts of evidence and testimony in the Bosnia case, the International Court of Justice did not find that the government of Serbia was responsible for genocide in planning or carrying out killings in Bosnia in the 1990's, although the court found it should have done more to stop the killings taking place. The international legal situation is thus clear – genocide as a crime exists from 1948 onwards, both intent to destroy a group and actual killings must be proven and that proof is hard to establish when a state is accused. Switching from the legal to the moral issue, is there a case to be made that genocide can be applied to historical acts even if it cannot be legally applied retroactively? In my view, the answer to this is no, not unless the historical situation is so clear and so close to when genocide became a crime that there is no mistaking the acts as qualifying as genocide from a moral view. The Holocaust against the Jews in World War II, which gave rise to the concept of genocide, meets these criteria. But once we start going further back in history, where does it end? This is where double standards become very obvious. Countries which are willing to classify historical acts in other countries as genocide yet are not willing to recognize acts within their own borders as even crimes - let alone genocide - from a moral and not legal view, are using double standards which undercut their own credibility. Once we start going backwards from the Holocaust, … shall we include the atrocities at Nanking by the Japanese against the Chinese as genocide? … Shall we declare that the killings and starvation of Africans in the Belgian Congo under King Leopold were genocide? … Shall the United States declare that slavery of blacks and treatment of Native Americans in the United States in the 1800's were genocide? And who should make such determinations? Unlike today where there are impartial courts to hear charges of genocide by individuals – such as in the tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rwanda or in the International Criminal Court, or by states in the International Court of Justice, who look at the evidence to decide cases from the past? Surely political bodies cannot be expected to be impartial and decide, nor can they sit as judges of evidence, let alone history. Should Parliaments of other countries decide what happened in another country? If the French Parliament passed a resolution declaring that the treatment of Native Americans in the United States was genocide, would such a resolution be acceptable to the U.S. Congress and American people? Absolutely not – the reaction would be outrage and rightfully so. So when we look back at what happened in 1915, we should not make a judgment because one side lobbies hard in favor of a label and the other lobbies against it or because a declaration would be inconvenient due to current events. Instead we should decide whether it makes sense to use such a politically explosive term as genocide at all for events in history before genocide came into existence. We cannot do it legally and we should not do it morally. Please respond to Andrew Vorkink by Friday, May 3

Comrade Duch

Please go Cambodia: A Quest For Justice and view the video (26 minutes). Comment on an appropriate punishment for Duch. Consider how sincere his apology was for his crimes. He even felt what his defense attorney asked for was not enough. He believes he deserves punishments for his terrible crimes. He has already served 11 years and at his first penalty trial, he was given 35 years with 19 years to serve (last year the U.N. tribunal lengthened his sentence to life in prison). He is a 69 year-old man. He will not commit crimes of this nature again. He poses no threat to humanity. Was he also a victim of the Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia and its maniacal leader, Pol Pot? He and his family was threatened by the extremism of the regime. Should we have some sympathy for his predicament? On the other hand, someone must be held accountable for these awful murders - 2,000,000!! Explain why life in prison is appropriate or too harsh. Please post by Wednesday, May 1.

Why we must remember

We have viewed Grandma's Tattoo, read the iWitness testimonies of survivors of the Armenian Genocide, heard and seen the accounts of victims of the Holocaust. We have also discussed the reasons for commemorating these tragic and horrific deeds. Three years ago, Peter Kougasian said, "...we see that genocide recognition is not an issue of merely academic interest, one that might nicely be delegated to distinguished panels of historians. Recognition of the Armenian genocide is a vital, front-burner issue of human rights affecting the liberties and even survival of real people in the world today." Explain why you believe or do not believe recognition of genocide is a "human rights" issue. Please respond by Monday, April 29.

Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bush Doctrine

WMDs! WMDs! WMDs! And English Prime Minister Tony Blair tells us, "The document discloses that his (Saddam Hussein) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." President Bush tells the nation at West Point in June, 2002 that "...Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants who solemnly sign nonproliferation treaties and then systematically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long... Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge." As we go through the Bush Administration's rationale for the war in Iraq, consider the main elements of the argument. Iraq and Saddam had WMDs and the capability to use them quickly to strike the west. Additionally, we have the right due to the Bush Doctrine's idea that pre-emptive warfare is just. Post a comment on both issues. Did Iraq pose a threat to the U.S. and the world? Is the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare and the creation of friendly democratic government around the world a "just cause" for war? Please post by Tuesday, March 19.

Lifeline

Read the story of Brendan O'Byrne and author Sebastian Junger. Junger said he wanted to answer the question, "What gives men the courage to fight and die for each other?" At the end, he says, "Courage is love. It’s a result of your affection for another person...It allows men to overcome their fear and inherent revulsion to kill another person." So after reading Junger's thoughts in the book and this article, answer the question on what gives men courage to fight and die for each other! What do you think about the courage of O'Byrne both in war and civilian life? Also comment about the courage of Junger himself. Give this thought and respond by Monday, March 11, 2013.

The Story of Pat Tillman

By Wednesday (Thursday at the latest), we will discussed the story of Pat Tillman. Here was a man who voluntarily gave up a lucrative football career to join the army because of a profound sense of duty and patriotism. He and his family understood the inherent risk of any war and accepted that death was a real possibility. However, it may be difficult to accept his death was the result of "friendly fire." The government publicly declared Tillman a hero and made it appear he was killed by enemy action. Should the U.S. government and military have kept the details of his death a secret to his family? Is this a violation of the rules of war? Or is this simply a violation of ethics? Please post a response by Friday, March 1 FOR BONUS POINTS.

War, part 3

Okay, there are still several things to consider. Comment on one of the following 2 ideas - either discuss your thoughts on the so-called "piss-tube moments" that Brendan O'Byrne talked about with Money or the humor soldiers use as a defense mechanism. Do these moments help the soldiers while in dangerous situations? Does the humor help give them better perspective on their predicaments? Finally, everyone should comment on the thought about what these soldiers do when they get home. What type of challenges do they face? How will they deal with those who did not make it back home alive? How will they deal without the constant adrenaline rushes? Let's make this one due on Wednesday, March 6.