Sci said:
This is completely fair and accurate. The stated intent of the Accords, to bring the Avengers under democratic control, is completely reasonable. But the first thing the U.N. Task Force did was put a hit out on Bucky without charge or trial.
Actually they were going after him for a crime they believe he committed.
Sure. And then they decided to pre-emptively kill him without an indictment or a trial.
They were on shoot on sight orders becuase they were going after a guy who took out several quinjets by throwing SHIELD agents into their turbines, tossed a guy into a truck, and who scares the crap out of other assassins, out of a desire not to fucking die.
Not a valid excuse. They built a prison capable of holding an Asgardian -- they're more than capable of finding non-lethal countermeasures for a super-soldier. Hell, mere sedatives were sufficient to subdue an Asgardian in
Thor -- are we supposed to believe there was no way of putting Bucky under surveilence and then shooting him with a sedative dart?
Plus they stoped trying to kill Bucky the moment he was surrounded and they could take him into custody, and team Stark wasn't sent after him with kill orders.
This part was good. And indeed, it was at the point where they had captured Bucky and stopped trying to kill him that Steve was almost ready to compromise and accept U.N. authority over the Avengers -- before Tony ruined it by revealing he had Wanda imprisoned on the Avengers Compound without, again, the benefit of charge or the writ of habeas corpus.
Yeah, well seeing as the current infighting between the tv and movie branches is a thing, that argument was never getting made.
Sad, but true. And it means that the arguments Cap presents in CA:CW mostly rely on the assumption that he knows better than democratically-elected representatives of the people and should therefore be above the law.
"Made to answer?" If the MCU's governments bear any resemblance to real world counterparts, then their so-called moral authority and judgement leaves much to be desired.
Doesn't matter. You cannot have individuals capable of state-level interventions out there who answer to no one. You wouldn't want Eric Prince running a Blackwater army capable of doing whatever it wants -- and you wouldn't want the Avengers out there doing whatever
they want.
The use of force is only legitimate when it is employed by the state; the democratically-elected state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force or else you have the rule of men rather than the rule of law. Nobody has a right to exercise executive authority without a democratic mandate -- and no one elected Steve Rogers.
Remove that, and to the point, hand over the individual right to exercise free will (particularity when that will cannot be argued to be anything other than the result of genuine altruism) to some morally and ideologically questionable body of governments, and chaos follows.
By that logic, the military shouldn't answer to democratically-elected governments but should do whatever its leaders think best. Perhaps you would enjoy living in Pinochet's Chile, but I would not.
Don't be absurd. People support hypocritical governments all the time. There's been no popular revolt against the United States government in spite of its clear human rights violations in Guantanamo or at Abu Graib.
Revolution has many faces and forms. In this case, the "revolt" came in the form of anti-Gitmo, etc. Obama's winning the presidency, instead of another Republican (McCain) who supported much of the actions/policies of the previous administration.
Pure nonsense. The Obama administration has continued key Bush-era policies, including
utilizing Bagram Air Base for extra-legal detentions and
spying on untold millions of U.S. citizens within their own border. This is to say nothing of his decision to assume for himself the power to order
the assassination of U.S. citizens without a trial, a human rights abuse and violation of the Constitution far in excess of Bush's -- indeed, putting hits out on people is
kind of Obama's thing.
And, no, voting for someone else is not a revolution or a revolt. It is voting for someone else. No one stormed the Winter Palace.
(I could not help but notice that the innocent people whose deaths Cap do not think warrant accountability for himself were black.)
Now, we're getting down to it--you seem to have some bug up your rear about the Cap character, since I will not pretend you were being facetious with that ridiculous line.
Actually, Captain America is pretty much my favorite superhero. Has been ever since
Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I love
his history as an implicit progressive, I love
modern fandom's interpretation of Cap as a fighter for equal rights, I love his story arc throughout the MCU films, I love the Steve/Peggy and Steve/Bucky relationships -- I really like Captain America. Hell,
one of my favorite fanfics ever interprets Cap as a 1930s era socialist who comes out of the closet as bisexual. (Seriously, read "Steve Rogers: P.R. Disaster." It's a great little story.) I have about four different Cap-themed fan-created songs on my phone. And I love, love the fact that in CA:TWS, it was Captain America who rebelled against a system of global surveillance, warrantless spying, and pre-emptive assassinations without a trial, and who got Black Widow to leak SHIELD's dirty secrets to the public, Edward Snowden-style. Loved it.
No, I like Captain America just fine, thanks.
The problem is that Cap in CA:TWS was the kind of person who wanted to serve the people, but was willing to rebel in the face of government abuse of power. But the regulation of a group of people who specialize in inflicting massive organized violence is
not an abuse of power -- it is a legitimate function of government. In fact, it is THE legitimate function of government. Certainly, I will grant that the specific form that regulation takes
may be abusive, but it is not inherently so. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that, say, the French Armed Forces ought to be able to defy the President of the French Republic -- or that there is nothing sinister when
the Army promises politicians who are conspiring to impeach the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil in order to end a corruption investigation, that it will prevent protestors from causing them any problems.
The control of the use of forces capable of massive organized violence by the democratic state is an essential pillar of liberal democracy. Without it, we are reduced to relying on the mere virtues of personality rather than systems of democratic accountability.
And, yes, it bothers me very much that Cap is depicted as arguing that he should not be regulated after his actions lead to the deaths of innocent black people. Hard for that not to in the age of Ferguson. I don't think Cap is racist -- but I think that writing decision carries unfortunate implications the writers did not intend.
Note how you attempt to reduce the magnitude of their acts,
The magnitude of their virtue is irrelevant, because in a system of liberal democracy, the monopoly on the legitimate use of force by the democratic state within the context of a system of constitutional rights and legal accountability is what you are supposed to rely upon --
not one man's (sometimes inconsistent) personality.
Systems, not personalities. The rule of law, not the rule of men -- even good men.
Captain America noted in The Avengers that when he was in Germany and saw a man putting himself above everyone else, he came to a disagreement. Yet here he is in CA:CW, and here you are, essentially saying that Cap himself should be put above everyone else.
Absolute nonsense,
If Cap thinks he should get to decide where and when and upon whom he will inflict organized violence, without having to answer for his decisions to the legitimately-elected representatives of the people or being accountable to the democratic state, then in what way is he
not putting himself above everyone else?
The only way to know the will of the people is for them to hold an election and delegate legislative, executive, and judicial authority to a democratically-elected government.
Sigh. Many significant movements made it supporters' desires known long before any legislation, vote or formal acknowledgement
A
movement is just that -- a segment of the populace pursuing a political agenda. It is not the entirety of the people, and one cannot determine whether or not the will of a movement is the same as the will of the people as a whole
unless you have an election.
I repeat: The only way to determine what the people as a whole want is through an election. Which means that you have to deal with the inevitable fact that the people who win those elections have a democratic mandate, and Cap does not.
It is Steve who thinks that his wisdom from on high should overrule those of democratically-elected governments.
I'll let you sit on that blanket idea of "democratically elected governments" you (in the totality of your arguments) seem to sell as the universal good well equipped to know when, where and how to trot out aid sans internal and often self-serving motivations.
It is not that I think politicians in democratic states are without vice or poor judgment. It is that I recognize that those who have obtained democratic mandates are the only ones with the legitimate authority to exercise executive power. You cannot claim the right to exercise executive power and yet not answer to the people via democratic elections. To do so is an inherent violation of the right of the people to regulate the exercise of executive power.
You have no idea how much that applies to innumerable real world governments.
I hold a bachelor's degree in political science with a concentration in international relations -- I am well aware of government corruption, thanks. This does not change the fact that only those who have obtained democratic mandates have the right to exercise executive authority, and that nobody elected Cap.
We don't have a copy of the Accords to read. What are they saying, really?
Are they setting up the situation that is similar to The Avengers comic from about the late 60s to the 80s, that the Avengers were a government approved independent agency with a liaison for communication but not too much interference (unless the plot called for it).
or
Are they basically drafted and have to stay in their compound until they are told where to go and what to do?
or maybe something in between?
The movie depicts that Accords as placing the Avengers under the authority of a U.N. Task Force, and establishes that those who don't wish to sign on may retire. This is a legitimate exercise of governmental authority in cooperation with other governments. It then depicts that Task Force as engaging in a human rights violation by ordering a hit on Bucky without a trial -- an illegitimate exercise of governmental power.
Agents of SHIELD depicts the Accords as requiring anybody with superpowers to register with their national government -- a deeply disturbing civil rights violation.
That's the biggest issue with the Accords. None of our heroes had time to read it. Ross comes in mere days before the signing, when to get 117 countries to agree to it would have taken months, maybe years, to write. How can you expect everyone to sign on the dotted line when they don't know what's in it?
In fairness, the timeline is not entirely clear. Given that Cap seems to have been alerted that Peggy died the day her body was found, and that there was enough time to transport the body to England and organize a reasonably large funeral, I gather at least three days must have passed between Secretary Ross's meeting and the signing ceremony in Vienna. That is enough time for the Avengers to read the Accords -- particularly Tony and the Vision, since they are geniuses who process information exceedingly quickly.
I forget, did the blue vials in the back of Howard Stark's car ever get explained? Was that set up for a future movie?
Did the movie specifically explain it though? I don't remember. Was it that scene where they showed the other Winter Soldiers going nuts in the gulag maybe?
The movie depicted the Winter Soldier as obtaining the blue vials for Hydra and then those vials being administered to other people whom Bucky described as having also gotten the super-soldier serum for Hydra. So, yeah, the movie made it pretty clear this was some variation on super-soldier serum.
Though I suspect it's not quite as poweful as the Erskine/Stark variation used to produce Cap.
