I think the distance travelled between your two points is rather substantial. Why do you think those two positions are so close to each other? You take offense at Churchills remark and do not dismiss criticism of US crimes as do I. Why assume significant portions of the population are incapable of this?
> The third point that Churchill makes, which is independent of the
> "little Eichmann" labeling, the idea that the "technocrats" of the
> American Empire are legitimate military targets. That is certainly a
> legally indefensible point. He acknowledges that they are indeed
> civilians. Since they are civilians, they are not legitimate
> military targets according to laws of war, humanitarian war, and the
> Geneva Conventions. Law and morality, however, can be at odds with
> each other. Working-class soldiers are legitimate military targets,
> while the civilian rich who benefit from their sacrifice are not
> legitimate targets. Once again, if we wish to argue against
> Churchill, we might clarify ourselves on this point.
Is this the position he holds or is this the position he says is consistent with the actions the US takes in regards to such matters when it is convenient? I think it is more the latter but I haven't spoken with Churchill on this matter and his essay and follow-ups do not clarify the matter to my mind.
> Churchill's fourth point is that those who are not "innocent" of the
> crimes of the Empire -- such as the "technocrats" of the Empire --
> "deserve" punishment and the "penalty befitting their participation"
> in them is the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The philosophy that the
> guilty deserve punishment is especially worth arguing against, but
> that's easier said than done. As a matter of fact, the majority of
> Americans who would be offended by Churchill's idea that the
> "technocrats" of the Empire "deserve" to be killed by terrorists as
> punishment for their crimes -- workers in the World Trade Center and
> airline passengers made invisible as "collateral damage" -- if they
> heard it probably believe in the same philosophy as Churchill's --
> the guilty "deserve" punishment. It is a difficult idea to dislodge
> from the minds of people.
> --
> Yoshie
Again I am uncertain he actually holds this position himself or merely states that this belief is consistent with US actions elsewhere. Where is the outrage directed at individuals who have expressed the idea that Afghanistan got what it deserves? That Iraq is getting what it deserves? I think Churchill was highlighting the difference between the US standard for itself vs. its standard elsewhere rather than esposing the idea that it should be applied universally. If it disgusting to speak of lives lost in the WTC as if they deserved to die for their role in US hegemony and that such a position demands punishment and censure why is this standard reserved for us and so quickly ignored when the loss concerns "others"?
John Thornton