10/13/2004: "Soil our hands? Never!"

Another appalling moment brought to you courtesy of European ideologues:

A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.

US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.

The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

They are seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.

"It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," Greg Kehoe, an American working with the IST, told reporters in Hatra, south of the city of Mosul.

Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.

The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.

Imagine a slight rewrite of this story: "The Europeans were staying away from Auschwitz as the evidence might be used eventually to put former Nazi Governor-General of Poland Hans Frank to death."

I'm against the death penalty (at least in its American form; I think you can make a decent case for it with regards to tyrants like Saddam, where there can be no conceivable doubt about their guilt), but the idea that you would turn your back on evidence of mass murder because you were too worried about what might happen to the perpetrator makes me ill.

(Thanks to LGF for the link.)

Replies: 6 Comments

on Thursday, October 14th, none said

Maybe it's not such a wise idea to condemn a group of people ("The Europeans") because of the *opinion* of *one person* as the the *alleged motives* for why they weren't there (assuming that they indeed are not).

Perhaps if you personally know this Mr. Kehoe and consider him an absolutely unimpeachable witness on such matters I can understand. We all have friends we would treat in such a manner. If, however, he's a complete stranger you know absolutely nothing about...?

For you to take the word of such a person and become "ill" because of it suggests that you are acting more out of your own perrsonal prejudices than out of any genuine facts.

on Thursday, October 14th, Christopher Culver said

One, it is in doubt what the "Europeans" are doing here. And in any event, we already know he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison. That's a given. The Europeans in general just wouldn't want the case to progress from justice to barbarity.

You are making it sound as if the Europeans want Hussein to walk free, and I don't think anyone wants that.

on Thursday, October 14th, Athanasius said

Guys, please read my comments more carefully. I said nothing about "the Europeans" (except in my paraphrase of Kehoe's statement); I did say in the opening sentence I was directing my comments at "European ideologues," meaning those for whom opposition to the death penalty takes precedence over doing the full job of bringing a criminal against humanity to justice. I didn't say they wanted him to walk--sorry if I left that impression--but that they were opting out of doing the job that needed to be done. They know full well that he'll never see the light of day again, regardless of whether they help with the investigation, so they used the opportunity to make a political statement, if Kehoe can be believed.

Kehoe, by the way, is not some yahoo with a shovel. The BBC should have made that clear. The St. Petersburg Times did on April 29 when he got his current job:

"Tampa lawyer Greg Kehoe has been picked to serve as the regime crimes adviser in Baghdad, heading up the office that is building criminal cases against Saddam Hussein and his former top advisers.

"Kehoe, 49, a former assistant U.S. attorney who has prosecuted Bosnian war crimes, will be leading a group of international specialists who will advise Iraqi judges and prosecutors on how to try leaders of the toppled Hussein regime."

So I think he knows a little about investigating the kinds of crimes he's looking into in Iraq.

on Thursday, October 14th, none said

"I did say in the opening sentence I was directing my comments at "European ideologues," meaning those for whom opposition to the death penalty takes precedence over doing the full job of bringing a criminal against humanity to justice."

And who is that, exactly? According to Kehoe, it is the "European investigators" in Iraq. You seem to agree with him. However, my point doesn't change, regardless of his being a "former U.S. attorney" or his experience in prosecuting war crimes.

Again: what reason is there to believe his *opinion* about the alleged *motivations* of others? He claims that "the European investigators" aren't there because they don't want to do something that will help Hussein get the death penalty. You seem to accept that claim without question and I don't think that is reasonable.

I agree that it would be a bad idea to subvert justice in the name of not assisting the death penalty, even if you hate the death penalty. Whether anyone in Iraq is *actually* doing that, however, is open to question. Kehoe thinks it is happening. Maybe he is right.

Maybe he isn't, though. He's human. I don't know enough to say and, quite frankly, I question whether you do. It's a pretty serious charge to make and not necessarily one to be made on the say-so of a single person through quotes filtered through a reporter you don't know.

on Thursday, October 14th, Athanasius said

None: You are kidding, right? What you are suggesting here is that you shouldn't believe news reports unless you personally know the individuals involved, both those in the news story and the reporter. The attitude toward news reports that you seem to be advocating would essentially mean the end of journalism. But you don't really mean that, do you? What you really mean is, "I don't like what this news report says, so I'm going to assume that it's wrong." Consider this: the source is the BBC. Don't you think that if the BBC had evidence to contradict Kehoe's statement they would have offered it in the story? The reason I buy what Kehoe says is that in his prior work investigating and prosecuting war crimes in the Balkans, he undoubtedly made the acquaintance of some of the same people who could have been expected to help with the Saddam investigation. Unless someone comes forward with something to the contrary, I have no reason to think that he isn't correctly judging the situation. If you, the BBC, or anyone else can come up with something solid that contradicts him, I'll be happy to put that in an update.

on Thursday, October 14th, none said

"What you are suggesting here is that you shouldn't believe news reports unless you personally know the individuals involved, both those in the news story and the reporter."

But it's not a news report. You aren't hearing this from a reporter who is filing a news story, you are hearing a claim from a stranger quoted in a news story. There's a difference.

Do you believe every claim quoted in every news report? I would expect not.

I only mentioned the relevancy of knowing the man personally because *if* you did *then* you might have a good reason to accept his allegation *on his word alone*.

"What you really mean is, "I don't like what this news report says, so I'm going to assume that it's wrong.""

Don't tell me what I do or do not mean. I have no personal stake or interest in whether the person's claims are true or not. I neither want the charges to be true nor do I want them not to be true - you should no more impugn me, someone you don't know, then you are willing to impugn the Europeans you don't know.

My only point is that you are accepting a claim from someone without a hint of question or skepticism - and not just any claim, mind you, but a claim that, if true, would constitute a very serious charge of unethical and unprofessional conduct. Such charges should neither be believed nor accepted lightly.

"Unless someone comes forward with something to the contrary, I have no reason to think that he isn't correctly judging the situation."

You also have no particular reason to think that he *is* correctly judging the situation. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. All you have so far is a quoted allegation - nothing more. The reporter didn't even add anything that might support the allegation. If they did, don't you think they would have offered it?

So you have an allegation from a person you don't know about people you don't know. Why are you so quick to accept it? Do you not know how to give people the benefit of the doubt and simply withhold judgment until substantive information is made available? Do you not know how to construct a skeptical post that reads "IF this is true, then I'd be pretty mad, but of course we don't know so I'll just address some general principles raised by the possibility..."?

"If you, the BBC, or anyone else can come up with something solid that contradicts him, I'll be happy to put that in an update."

Then again, maybe the obligation is *yours* to *verify* serious charges before agreeing with and uncritically repeating them? Or don't you think you have any such ethical obligation? These unknown Europeans are your brothers as much as anyone and deserve your consideration as much as anyone.

One might take your criticisms of the ethics and morals of others more seriously if you demonstrated a bit more humility and care before accepting and repeating serious charges like this. You might want to skim back through your posts to see how often you *aren't* quick to judge, especially based upon very limited information. You might be surprised.

I know that if I saw someone accuse *you* of something serious, *I* would not uncritically or unskeptically repeat it. Yes, I might make mention that an allegation had been made, but I would also take care to note that an allegation from a single person is not enough to draw any real conclusions from.

I'm disappointed that you don't demonstrate the same generosity to others.