See Also: Economist's View
and Prometheus 6.
Update: Sorry!
That was shrill, I know. Worse, it was a violation of Jonathan Chait's stated
motives, which are pure and not at all supportive of crime against humanity.
Mr. Chait is a liberal! And liberals do not - one cannot over-emphasize this -
liberals do not approve of crimes against humanity. So it was unfair to imply
that Jonathan Chait favors crimes against humanity just because he took to
the Los Angeles Times to deprecate the execution while hailing the concept of
an aggressive war waged under false pretenses.
Now, it's true that Mr. Chait declares himself to be at once both a liberal and a hawk.
And that his hawkish half appears to wholly approve of wars (when properly prosecuted) of
the sort defined by the
Nuremberg Tribunal
as:
CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging
of a war of aggression , or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for
the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
But that is a completely different crime.
And the mystery of how one can simultaneously be both a liberal and a hawk is left
as an exercise for the reader.
|