Thirty-three years ago, Kerry told the world about the American policy of establishing "free-fire zones," where a solider was ordered to shoot anything that moved, combatant and non-combatant alike. Kerry discovered upon his return to the United States that such zones and other inhumane tactics routinely practiced in Vietnam violated the Geneva Conventions regulating the laws of war.
While free-fire zones are not "war crimes" in the classic sense of Nazi death camps, they do raise an important question as to America’s understanding of its moral character. Are there limits to conduct in war? If so, should violations of these limits be reported or covered up? The fury directed at Kerry, both in 1971 and today, is largely fueled by the knowledge of many of these vets that they –- like the Abu Gharib prison guards –- were ordered to act outside international norms of humanity.
Of course the Swift Boat Liars are so consumed with their rage that they don't understand that John Kerry's testimony was aimed at pointing the finger at the higher-ups rather than those just following orders. And he had a point then, just as he does now.
Is anyone really going to sleep better tonight because despite the report issued yesterday about what happened at Abu Ghraib, the reality is that Rumsfeld and his mindless, grinning bulldogs [/Anthony Burgess] are going to get off scot-free, while Lynndie English becomes the poster child for the Brutality of War? I know I'm not. THIS is the kind of travesty that John Kerry's testimony was designed to avoid.
Maybe the Swift Boat liars really enjoyed their work. Maybe they enjoyed killing. I don't know, I wasn't there. But if that's the case, if that's their gripe; that in times of war there's no such things as atrocities, and that the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply, then let them speak to that belief, rather that telling lies about John Kerry's service because he spoke truth to power.
Go read it. Interesting stuff.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire