Firing weapons which cannot be precisely aimed at legitimate military targets are war crimes. That is what the Nazis did with similar weapons during World War Two. Carl Sagan lamented that Wernher von Braun, the Nazi rocket scientist, was allowed to have a new career in the U.S. space program instead of being tried for his involvement in that and other war crimes.
The Palestinians have often been described as their own worst enemies. Islamic extremist Palestinians firing terror weapons does not win sympathy of many who would otherwise support a just settlement.
The New York Times reports that the Israelis have recorded over 10,000 firings from Gaza since 2001. Most miss. When they occasionally hit, they usually cause little damage or minor injuries. Fatalities have been rare.
In firings after the end of the cease fire, one weapon hit an apartment building in Gaza killing several members of a Palestinian family.
The rockets fired after Israel's offensive have resulted in only four Israeli fatalities, compared with 400 Palestinians fatalities.
Israel's response is out of proportion to the violence coming from the Palestinians, exceeds legitimate self defense, and appears to have other goals, such as the defeat and overthrow of Hamas.
The tragedy is that in the absence of a comprehensive settlement Israel probably achieved as much security as was possible under the just expired cease fire with Hamas in Gaza. About the only way Israel could achieve a further reduction of violence is with an overall settlement.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Rod Blagovich: Innocent until proven guilty?
I've heard from various sources that Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois deserves his Constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I've am uncomfortable when that right is used by perpetrators and predators to shield themselves from the consequences of their behavior.
It is not unusual for someone to begin to suffer various non-criminal sanctions while the criminal charges are pending.
College athletes are often suspended after an arrest but before the criminal charges are resolved.
Health care staff are suspended with pay during investigations of abuse.
Even if no charges are brought or the the person is acquitted, the perpetrator is still liable for non-criminal consequences. While the evidence may have been insufficient for criminal conviction, the evidence might be sufficient for an athlete to suffer further non-criminal sanctions, including expulsion, or for a health care worker to be fired for the act of abuse of which he or she was acquitted.
The presumption of innocence only refers to the accused's relationship to the criminal justice system and not to the other non-criminal consequences of their behavior. Nor does it need to refer to the "court of public opinion."
Enough precedents exists to justify the suspension of Blagovich's gubernatorial authority while the criminal and non-criminal complaints are resolved.
My bottom line is don't let Blagojevich's invocation of "innocent until proven guilty" intimidate anyone for calling for his resignation now.
I've am uncomfortable when that right is used by perpetrators and predators to shield themselves from the consequences of their behavior.
It is not unusual for someone to begin to suffer various non-criminal sanctions while the criminal charges are pending.
College athletes are often suspended after an arrest but before the criminal charges are resolved.
Health care staff are suspended with pay during investigations of abuse.
Even if no charges are brought or the the person is acquitted, the perpetrator is still liable for non-criminal consequences. While the evidence may have been insufficient for criminal conviction, the evidence might be sufficient for an athlete to suffer further non-criminal sanctions, including expulsion, or for a health care worker to be fired for the act of abuse of which he or she was acquitted.
The presumption of innocence only refers to the accused's relationship to the criminal justice system and not to the other non-criminal consequences of their behavior. Nor does it need to refer to the "court of public opinion."
Enough precedents exists to justify the suspension of Blagovich's gubernatorial authority while the criminal and non-criminal complaints are resolved.
My bottom line is don't let Blagojevich's invocation of "innocent until proven guilty" intimidate anyone for calling for his resignation now.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Corruption in Chicago
As I am native to Chicago, I am very aware of the corruption that has again dominated the national news and most tragically embarrassed Barack Obama.
One of the first political acts of my life was to serve as a poll watcher for a liberal opponent of the current mayor's father.
I am outraged by Gov. Blagojevich's crude and blatant behavior.
But I am disturbed by articles like the recent one in the NYT's :
In Illinois, a Virtual Expectation of Corruption
I don't think decent people ever accept corruption or other inappropriate behaviors. Rather, decent people are more likely intimidated into silence, either by retaliation or harassment they themselves suffered or what they observed happened to others who spoke out. The consequences of dissent can be high. While I hope the time has passed when one's physical safety is threatened, other very severe repercussions still occur such as permanent damage to one's career, personal or political.
Some who have opposed this corruption have found safe shelter, such Professor Dick Simpson at the University of Illinois, from whom I took a course when I was an undergraduate in the 1970s. Others have not been so lucky.
In a context where the consequences of standing up to corruption is retaliation and harassment with lifelong consequences and the perpetrators mostly get away, is it really acceptance or just a community battered into passivity and self preservation?
One of the first political acts of my life was to serve as a poll watcher for a liberal opponent of the current mayor's father.
I am outraged by Gov. Blagojevich's crude and blatant behavior.
But I am disturbed by articles like the recent one in the NYT's :
In Illinois, a Virtual Expectation of Corruption
I don't think decent people ever accept corruption or other inappropriate behaviors. Rather, decent people are more likely intimidated into silence, either by retaliation or harassment they themselves suffered or what they observed happened to others who spoke out. The consequences of dissent can be high. While I hope the time has passed when one's physical safety is threatened, other very severe repercussions still occur such as permanent damage to one's career, personal or political.
Some who have opposed this corruption have found safe shelter, such Professor Dick Simpson at the University of Illinois, from whom I took a course when I was an undergraduate in the 1970s. Others have not been so lucky.
In a context where the consequences of standing up to corruption is retaliation and harassment with lifelong consequences and the perpetrators mostly get away, is it really acceptance or just a community battered into passivity and self preservation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
