question about Milosevic (was RE: Bin Laden: The Story That Needs To Be Told)

[Ken Hanly]

Of course not.It doesnt follow that if you do not hold X wholly responsible
that you hold only others wholly responsible.
Milosevic may very well be held responsible for war crimes even though he
did not kill 200,000 people.
To parody your logic. If we hold Milosevic responsible then every one else
involved should get off scot free including those who actually did the
killing.
No doubt they were just carrying out Milosevic's orders. The real culprit is
Milosevic.

Of course when there are punishments within an organisation it is of course
the lower ranks and immediate agents that get punished. The power of the
higher rank culprits and leaders shields them from any punishment. This
seems to me the significance of your point about My Lai, etc. When an
organisation is  punished by outside powers however it is the leaders who
are likely to be punished first and a few commanders clearly involved in
atrocities.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis <dperrin13 at mediaone.net>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: question about Milosevic (was RE: Bin Laden: The Story That
Needs To Be Told)


> > It is interesting to note the phraseology. It is Milosevic that is
alleged
> > to have killed 200,000 in Bosnia. A power to kill is attributed to
> Milosevic
> > that would be the envy of Rambo or James Bond. In order to create a
focus
> of
> > attention and personalise the killing it is attributed to Milosevic not
> the
> > actual killers. True the general policy may have been approved or
> > promulgated directly by Milosevic but this still does not mean he is any
> > kind of direct agent in the deaths.
> >     In the same way bin Laden might be regarded as the killer of the
5,000
> > plus innocent people in New York and Washington. He may certainly have a
> > considerable degree of responsbility, but  he was not on any of the
> suiicide
> > planes. He was not a direct agent. But it is convenient to put a face on
> the
> > terror. Bin Laden probably is involved but as an "inspiration" and
> > entrepreneur of terrorist enterprises.
> >
> > Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> Does this now mean that we don't charge Kissinger, Reagan, Clinton,
> Pinochet, Suharto, et al., with war crimes because "they" didn't
personally
> pull triggers or drop bombs? Are we back to blaming only Calley for My
Lai,
> and not the president who oversaw the policy?
>
> DP
>
>