Guest Post: Responsibility in Rwanda
Searching for justice after a genocide
On August 9th this year Rwandans will take to the polls to elect their president. This election will be the second since the horrifying events of 1994, when the death of President Juvénal Habyarimana triggered a frenzy of mass murder commonly referred to nowadays as the Rwandan Genocide. It is believed that 800,000 people, three quarters of Rwanda’s Tutsi minority were killed by members of the Hutu majority, most of the atrocities taking place in as short a period as three weeks. Read more
Controlling the uncontrollable
Righting wrongs during wartime
War is difficult to execute, and its costs are inevitable. Good people die, the innocent are hurt or killed, and the destructin – physical and otherwise – persists long after the fighting has stopped.
But that hasn’t prevented us from trying to limit the extent of war’s evil. New facts have surfaced with regard to a disturbing incident in Afghanistan that raise – again – the question of whether such attempts are simply a fool’s errand.
In February, three women were killed in an American Special Operations gaffe, although U.S. soldiers denied it at the time. Now an Afghani investigation has not only confirmed that American forces were responsible for the deaths, but that they attempted to actively hide their involvement. A chilling account in the New York Times reports evidence that Special Operations soldiers dug bullets out of the women in order to disguise the cause of death. Read more
Shame and Viagra
In the wake of the passage of the health care bill, it’s worth talking a bit about shame. Senate Republicans are introducing a host of amendments, all which will eventually no doubt be rejected, in an effort to slow the passage of the bill or, ideally for them, to have the bill sent back to the House. The one making the news, of course, is the amendment to forbid the supply of Viagra to sex offenders. I haven’t seen any commentary suggesting that this is a serious provision; it’s aimed at creating some low-budget “Democrat X wants sex offenders to have Viagra” commercials, with a video of children playing in the background.
This is distasteful on a number of levels. Leaving aside the standard obstructionism and general poor sportsmanship, setting up opponents to make these distasteful ads seems, well, shameful. (This is not to mention that the issue of repeat sex offenders is a serious one to be dealt with in a serious manner, though this is not a serious proposal). This seems categorically different from other tactics to me. One can compare this tactic to complaints that the bill is “too long,” making it somehow suspect. The length complaint is transparently false and made in bad faith, but it’s goal is to impugn the bill. This new strategy is designed to paint opponents as monsters — though it may be a subjective judgment that being labeled a friend of sex offenders is worse than being labeled a socialist and fascist at the same time.
How can someone behave in this manner without feeling a deep sense of discomfort at having done wrong? One can imagine a CFO quietly cooking the books, with a very low chance of being caught; it’s easier to overcome shame in secret than in public. What’s surprising about these antics is that they are so transparent, and so public. There’s something deeply troubling about a person, or group of people, that would engage in tactics like this, almost regardless of the stakes. If this behavior is allowable, is there any assurance that any action whatever would be out of bounds?
-John
Hate speech and the Constitution
If he contributes nothing else to society, the infamous Fred Phelps has at least forced us to further examine the notion of free speech. At what point does offensive expression become punishable under the law?
Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which has gained notoriety over the past decade as a result of its practice of protesting military funerals with signs that read “Thank God for IEDs,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” and of course “God Hates Fags.” The group believes that our losses in the War on Terror (along with the suffering from Hurricane Katrina and from the economic recession) are part of God’s punishment for our tolerating homosexuality.
The Supreme Court will now hear Snyder v. Phelps, in which the family of a deceased Marine has sued for damages after Phelps et al showed up en force at their son’s funeral. Most Americans would universally and absolutely condemn the church’s actions. But should they be illegal? If the Court sides against Phelps, would that not open the door to further litigation and regulation of “unsavory” speech?
Truly, one of the law’s most difficult conundrums.
-Colin
Wrangling over ethics
What should come of Charles Rangel?
Charles Rangel, senior Member of the House of Representatives from New York and chair of the Ways and Means Committee (which writes tax laws), has agreed to relinquish his committee gavel after a months-long imbroglio involving allegations of privately-funded jaunts and failure to report income derived from real estate holdings.
What may seem less odd to congressional pundits and more odd to an ethicist is why so many are calling for him to give up his chairmanship as opposed to resigning from Congress altogether. Is there a method to the madness, or is everything political posturing? Read more
Is the homebuyers tax credit immoral?
Should government incentivize/disincentivize behavior?
My girlfriend dragged 
me to a bunch of open houses on Sunday. At each, the real estate agent eagerly advertised the federal government’s homebuyer tax credit, which gives up to $8000 in tax credits to first-time homebuyers and long-time homeowners buying a replacement principal residence before April 30, 2010.
The tax credit is an example of the government incentivizing certain behavior – in this case purchasing a home in order to stimulate the economy. And it got me thinking: what other kinds of behavior does the government incentivize…and should it? Read more
Foreign courts and government officials
Yesterday I discussed in depth whether American officials should fight the murder conviction by an Italian court of Amanda Knox. The NYT’s The Lede wrote last week on a British Court, which issued an arrest warrant for former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, alleging she committed war crimes during the 2009 war in Gaza. The case of Livni adds two new dimensions to this complex issue. First, does it matter if the alleged crime was committed by someone acting in their capacity as a government official? Second, does it matter if the crime they are convicted of occurred outside of the territory in which they are being prosecuted?
-Marc
Law & Order: Foreign Country Unit
Should American officials fight for the release of Americans convicted abroad?
A week and a half ago, Seattle native Amanda Knox was convicted in an Italian court of the November 2007 murder of her English roommate Meredith Kercher. Knox who was on study abroad from the University of Washington at the time, originally confessed, but later recanted, claiming her confession was made under duress and police abuse. Her conviction caused outcry in United States and elsewhere, with Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, saying she has “serious questions about the Italian justice system” and even securing a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the case.
This all raises an interesting question: under what circumstances, if any, should American politicians and diplomats challenge the convictions of Americans convicted of crimes abroad?
One position is that the U.S. government should never spend political capital challenging the conviction of Americans abroad. Each country has a right to create and enforce its own laws, the argument would go, and anyone traveling within that country has a responsibility to understand and follow its laws, just as we would expect foreigners in the U.S. to follow our laws.
But for most, I imagine, it is possible to find at least some situations in which we would want the United States to intervene. Read more
Moral luck & negligent driving
Bicycle advocates in my home state of Washington are arguing for tougher laws against reckless drivers who kill pedestrians. In many ways, these new policy proposals mirror the national trend, as the Department of Transportation held a September summit on the dangers of distracted driving, and states like Utah have dramatically increased the penalties for drivers who cause an accident while texting. Are these stricter laws justified, and how responsible should we hold an individual who makes a reckless and deadly mistake? Read more
The law and the death penalty
The New York Times has an interesting discussion on the criminal sentencing of juveniles and the mentally handicapped, a topic we’ve discussed extensively here. The article explores the difference between rules and standards in sentencing. For example, “if you commit murder even hours before your 18th birthday, you cannot be put to death for your crime. The same killing a few hours later may be a capital offense.” That is a clear rule about when to use the death penalty. A similar Supreme Court ruling bars the execution of the mentally disabled. According to the article, while this sounds like a rule, it is actually a standard, because determining mental handicap is somewhat subjective, as compared with proving age. In the end, all of these debates link back to responsibility – at what age and level of mental capacity can we call people responsible for the crimes they commit?
-Marc
Share us