Army Specialist Leslie H. Sabo Jr., an American hero.
Here’s what we have at this hour:
- Greeks withdraw €3bn in 10 days since election (The Guardian) — And the rest of us watch in fascination, hoping Europe doesn’t go down the tubes and take us with it.
- House unanimously passes “born alive” bill (?????) — Note the question marks, and the lack of a link. I haven’t seen an MSM story on this. Will Folks is running a press release saying this happened (and as he notes, “The above communication is an email from a politically active organization”), and I received a release from Senate Republicans congratulating the House. No independent news coverage yet. But it seemed like something that would generate controversy, and I didn’t want to ignore it.
- Voters to decide if governor, lt. governor should run jointly (thestate.com) — How about that? Voters in SC will actually get to vote on a governmental reform. Columbia City Council, please take note.
- Ratko Mladic trial finally begins (BBC) — And the world takes another halting step toward civilization.
- Decades Later, Soldier Gets Medal Of Honor (NPR) — It took us far too long, but thank you, Spec. Sabo.
- They Moved a Robot With Their Minds (NYT) — “Scientists said a tiny brain implant allowed two people who are virtually paralyzed below the neck to maneuver a robotic arm.” Wow.
I just thought I’d add some elaboration on the Medal of Honor presentation. From the AP story:
Obama presented the Medal of Honor to Sabo’s widow, Rose Mary, and said doing so helps right the wrongs done to a generation that served freedom’s cause but came home to a brooding and resentful nation.
“Instead of being celebrated, our Vietnam veterans were often shunned,” Obama said in a hushed East Room. “They were called many things when there was only one thing that they deserved to be called and that was American patriots.”
Spec. Leslie H. Sabo Jr. of Elwood City, Pa., was serving with U.S. forces near the village of Se San in eastern Cambodia in May of 1970 when his unit was ambushed and nearly overrun by North Vietnamese forces.
Comrades testified that the rifleman charged up from the rear, grabbed an enemy grenade and tossed it away, using his body to shield a fellow soldier. And shrugging off his own injuries, Sabo advanced on an enemy bunker that had poured fire onto the U.S. troops — and then, pulled the pin on his own grenade.
“It’s said he held that grenade and didn’t throw it until the last possible moment, knowing it would take his own life but knowing he could silence that bunker,” Obama recounted. “And he did. He saved his comrades, who meant more to him than life.”
Sabo was 22 years old when he gave his life for his comrades.
Related Posts
Maybe Greece can get China to bail them out.
Spec Sabo also was newly married. He was at home with his bride for a month then went off to serve his country.
The sheer courage is impressive. I can’t imagine someone that unselfish.
Re #4: I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of this as the world taking “another halting step towards civilization.”
What constitutes this step is the ability of nations to supersede arbitrary nationalistic divisions, to acknowledge the common humanity of all on the planet, and thus to unite to pursue and punish those who commit atrocities counter to global standards of humanity. The tribunal where Mladic stands trial is an ad hoc one constituted by the United Nations. The permanent court established for such situations globally is the International Criminal Court, established by international treaty, ratified by 121 nations, signed but not ratified by another 32, and not signed by another 41 UN states, including China (big surprise).
The US signed the treaty to join the ICC in 2000; guess who withdrew US acceptance/recognition of the ICC? You got it, of course! In 2006. And guess who wrote the letter to Kofi Annan announcing the decision? John Bolton, who’s a key part of the Romney foreign policy team now.
So if, as Americans, we supposedly believe that bringing monsters like Mladic to justice in an international court is a step towards global civilization, how can we support such a system of global justice if we insist on being exempted from its jurisdiction? On what grounds can we then applaud the trial of people like Mladic?
It comes down to whether or not one believes in the Boltonian version of American “exceptionalism”: that is, the community of the world’s nations must be bound by international codes of conduct, but an “exception” must be made for us, as we are bound to no standards of global conduct except those we enumerate ourselves on our own terms. Why should China, for example, act any differently?
Phillip’s correct. And folks like Dick Cheney shouldn’t be exempt from war crimes prosecution.
If the ICC turns out anything like the UN Human Rights Council (Angola, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, Cuba, etc.), we’ve got no business being involved with it.
I think the aversion was not so much them going after Dick Cheney, but them going after regular US military personnel, specifically the ones who weren’t actually doing anything wrong.
We do a pretty good job of punishing our own, those that need punishing. We don’t need Syria or Venezuela or Belarus telling us how to do it.
Phillip, you highlight one of the reasons why pursuing justice in this way is a difficult and complex road.
For instance… your words, and the ideas they express, are nearly identical to the ones Tony Blair used to explain why we needed to go after Saddam Hussein, particularly the part about “the ability of nations to supersede arbitrary nationalistic divisions, to acknowledge the common humanity of all on the planet, and thus to unite to pursue and punish those who commit atrocities counter to global standards of humanity.”
Tony had a far better articulated explanation than did the neocons in this country. It had to do with a sort of global communitarianism, in which we can’t use national borders as an excuse not to take some responsibility for the sufferings of our neighbors, and for injustice wherever it occurs.
Blair was also the more aggressive partner in the Balkans. If not for the actions that NATO nations took there, we’d never have brought Mladic to trial.
One of the problems, of course, with implementing any sorts of global norms is that we are very, very far from any sort of unanimity in values internationally. China, and sometimes Russia, have quite different notions about what “universal” standards should apply. And every nation, the U.S. included, tends to vote in the Security Council and elsewhere in keeping with that nation’s particular interests. That makes for fits and starts, both in bringing malefactors to justice (and that’s the REALLY hairy part, since it generally takes military or paramilitary action at some point) and in establishing a judicial system for trying them.
The United States’ position is particularly delicate in all of this. It’s got the muscle that such a system needs, which both makes it essential to any sort of international justice, but also makes it a target for folks wanting to contain it — sometimes for noble international motives, sometimes not.
Bud, without meaning to, presents one of the clearest reasons why the United States would be wary of being subjected to a system of “justice” that might be manipulated — as the UN, and often the Security Council itself — by nations whose own parochial interests contrast sharply with our own.
You say “international justice” to Bud, and he wants to prosecute Dick Cheney. And therein lies our problem.
As long as we can even entertain such a thought — equating Bush’s vice president with a Mladic, and seeing them as equally strong arguments for international justice — we illustrate the problems with such a system.
If we could achieve international consensus on the profound difference between the true criminals of this world and powerful people with whom we simply disagree, then it would be simple to set up a court that all of civilization would submit to. But when even well-meaning citizens of this country — much less out-and-out enemies of this nation and its interests and values — can say something like “prosecute Dick Cheney” — then we would be unwise to submit ourselves completely to such a system. We need to outgrow false moral equivalence first.
I say this as someone who wants a New World Order, to use Bush pere’s term. We stood on the threshold of something important and promising back in 1991. I’m not one of these people who reject international arrangements on ideological or emotional grounds. I want such arrangement, for the same reasons that I support our incursions (of varying sorts) in the Balkans, Iraq and Libya (and, too briefly, Somalia).
But I recognize problems with any sort of formalized, permanent arrangement, given the world as it still is today. I don’t think we’re grown-up enough for that yet.
In the meantime, we do take halting steps, using pragmatic, ad hoc arrangements to achieve worthwhile goals — sometimes unilaterally, sometimes truly internationally, but most often in coalitions of the willing that are specific to the situation at hand.
This is grossly imperfect, of course. More like an international government of men and not of laws. But in most of the world, mankind is still struggling with the concept of rule of law, which makes it hard to construct a global system dedicated to that principal, since the constituent parts have a way to go in embodying such.
But we have to keep striving. It will never be satisfactory for people to sit fat, dumb and happy in the U.S. and the U.K. while people elsewhere are subjected to tyranny and even genocide.
Genocide can take many different forms. If it’s done by thugs on the ground then it’s considered criminal. If done by a drone under someones control 5000 miles away it’s considered an unfortunate accident.
Ah, I was afraid that Bud’s comment about Cheney would trigger comments about “false moral equivalence.”
First: I would never dream of equating the scope of Cheney’s possible misdeeds with Mladic, nor was Bud suggesting that, if I may take the liberty of answering for him.
Secondly: About “manipulation” of the system…the treaty stipulates that the ICC is a court of last resort, only activated when the “host” country of the accused “is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution.” There are also a variety of mechanisms (Security Council, etc.) that would allow the US at many steps along the way to halt or impede the turning-over of American citizens to the ICC. If we prefer our American system of justice to a global tribunal, then we should let it do its work, and allow the accused the full benefit of mounting a vigorous defense, in the eyes of the world (this is the path that would be most logical in my opinion for an investigation/trial of Cheney and associates regarding violations of international law. The fact that the scope of these accusations is of course nothing like the genocide practiced by Mladic is not germane to the discussion…that would be like saying the world should ignore all violations of international law completely, short of massive genocide).
So our participation in the ICC would be largely symbolic. Still, what symbolism! Conversely, what does it say for us to be so paranoid about international justice to fear it so much that we refuse to take part? Surely taking our marbles and going home is not going to help pressure and nudge Russia and China CLOSER to full cooperation on this and other multilateral matters.
If the world is not “grown-up” for these sorts of arrangements yet, the refusal of the US to subject itself to the same standards as the rest of world GUARANTEES that it will never grow up. Our hypocrisy costs us heavily in terms of our ability to influence world events, short of at the point of a gun.
…and re Silence’s comment “We do a pretty good job of punishing our own, those that need punishing. We don’t need Syria or Venezuela or Belarus telling us how to do it.”…again, since presumably we usually DO actually mount those trials, then the ICC does not have jurisdiction. So, again mostly symbolic. But it’s not just Venezuela or Belarus telling us…it’s most of Europe, South America, democracies worldwide. And your statement could be turned around by ANY country to shield any potential war criminal “We don’t need the US to tell us how to conduct trials.” So, again, what basis are we standing on in terms of calling for international justice?
If Cheney is innocent, wouldn’t a trial confirm that? Allow those making the claims to present the evidence and let a jury decide. If they have no evidence, it damages the reputation of the accuser.
I think it’s pretty naive to think the Dick Cheney hasn’t made or influenced any decisions that skirted the lines of ethical/moral/criminal behavior.
@Phillip – I guess I don’t understand the question you are asking…
@ Doug – first it should go to a grand jury.
Phillip, you make good points, particularly about the court-of-last-resort part.
Have to disagree with you, though, when you say: “The fact that the scope of these accusations is of course nothing like the genocide practiced by Mladic is not germane to the discussion…that would be like saying the world should ignore all violations of international law completely, short of massive genocide).”
Not at all. I think we START with genocide. If we can really strengthen an international consensus on the most heinous actions by people who are truly outside the lowest-common-denominator bounds of humanity, and we ACTED on that consistently enough that it actually acted as a deterrent, we’d have made great strides as a species. If we, on the other hand, go all Barney Fife and start busting people all over the world, from all sorts of countries, for parking infractions, we’d quickly undermine support for that system of international justice.
Finally… if I were president, I think I’d look for away to get us into that system. I say “think” because I wouldn’t make a final decision until I had consulted with an extensive brain trust charged with making me a lot smarter about the ramifications than I am now.
But getting us into that system is what I’d WANT to do, if I could still justify it at the end of an extensive discernment process.
What I’ve been trying to say to you is that there ARE reasons to pause and think hard in pursuing such a goal, and they are not all about being xenophobic or triumphalist or jingoistic or whatever. Pragmatic considerations.
@Brad: I understand and agree with your point about pragmatism. All the more reason to join the ICC, but take care of our own laundry so to speak or whatever metaphor you want to use.
@Silence, let me express this another way. Rather than thinking of ICC as “Venezuela and Belarus telling us” how to punish those that need punishing, I’d encourage you to think of it as all the signatories of the treaty agreeing with each other on how crimes against humanity are to be treated. In other words, we’re all telling each other. Do we view the Geneva Conventions as other nations “telling us how to behave.”? No, it’s all of us (that is, all nations willing to walk the walk and not just talk the talk) agreeing to a code of internationally-agreed-upon values.
By the way, item 2 was eventually confirmed by the MSM. From the Associated Press story:
“COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina House has unanimously approved a bill ensuring that a fetus which survives an abortion attempt is not treated as medical waste.
“Abortion opponents applauded the measure’s swift passage after years of failed efforts, praising the Senate where it usually stalls. The 107-0 vote Wednesday followed the Senate’s 27-3 approval last month. Another perfunctory vote sends it to the governor.
“The proposal defines a person as anyone who is breathing and has a beating heart after birth, whether by labor, cesarean section, or abortion. A fetus which survives an abortion attempt would be entitled to treatment. Both abortion rights activists and foes concede such an event is rare.”
Cheney is no Mladic but his brand of foreign policy implementation based on torture is arguably a war crime. Let’s not get hung up on the severity of the crime when we discuss this issue. Rather lets focus on whether the activity is in conformance with international human rights protocols. Seems like the Bush administration, and especially Cheney, crossed that line.