And all of that might be--but any other route than to insist on absolute responsibility is morally unacceptable, because when it comes to atrocities, there can be no wiggle room. If you get caught, you face the consequences...period. I do not believe that leniency can ever be an answer for war crimes. Mind you, I'm not one for putting the verdict ahead of the trial, but there definitely needs to be a trial and "I was just following orders" cannot be accepted as an excuse.
Now, I can point to a couple cases where the individual in question has already done his or her penance. Tekeny Ghemor has, for instance--his entire life after his tour on Bajor has been his penance for Kiessa Monastery, and I consider his case closed due to the fact that he repented of his own volition and has worked to bring down the corrupt regime.
I don't think every soldier who was in the war should be put to death, by any means. Some might not even get long sentences at all, or might do their penance in other ways--community service, of a sort. But I do think they have to be made to face what they've done in no uncertain terms. I'm strongly reminded of that scene in Band of Brothers where the civilians who chose to ignore the death camps in their backyards were made to go in and dispose of the bodies. That was a VERY apt and appropriate punishment. They wanted to deny? Well, they couldn't any longer--and given the idiots we've seen these days that HAVE tried to deny the Holocaust, it's a damn good thing we had more people around to see the evidence firsthand, and not just Allied soldiers.
Now in modern day...I would say that after such service should come counseling and rebuilding. Cardassians should have to know for a fact what happened, never be able to deny it. That said, they should not have to hate themselves simply because they ARE Cardassian--rather, strive to redefine what being a Cardassian means. But not before facing the truth to the point where it can never, ever be denied.
I agree,
NG, being Cardassian fans means we grapple with these difficult questions.
I also agree ENTIRELY with the idea that everyone must take responsibility and make penance however they can. That said, I have a few problems...
Hmmm, well, you say "leniency can never be an answer for war crimes". How do you define "war crimes"? Who decides what is a "crime" or not? Why should we trust that judgement? Those in wartime who insist that performing certain deeds is a crime have almost certainly engaged in acts
I consider morally unjustifiable- who punishes them? Consider the Vietnam My Lai massacre. The USA made a big deal about the murders- yet had no problem with forcing ITS OWN SONS to accept appalling suffering and death, and showed NO repentence for its actions. So the American government had no desire to protect its sons, instead desiring to essentially enslave them, making it QUITE CLEAR that their lives and safety meant little or nothing and that their deaths were somehow perfectly acceptable, yet the deaths of Vietnamese villagers was treated as an outrage, and those very young men who were the victims of American society were those who received hatred and punishment. Did society as a whole take responsibility for its mistreatment of the soldiers? No, that responsibility was brushed aside and ignored in favour of pointing the finger and making those soldiers demons. That, I must say, is not right.
In many cases, when asked to harm others or else perform acts most would consider immoral, the soldiers so ordered either perform these deeds or, very likely, they will be shot. To say "following orders" is not an excuse is to insist that accepting your own murder is preferable. You're basically suggesting that the soldier in question should automatically be willing to sacrifice his life for the victim's- and the victim will undoubtedly suffer anyway, of course, so the sacrifice in practice means little. When asking these soldiers to accept reprisals for refusing orders, you're essentially telling them, "your life is less important than these people's and you should be willing to lay down that life..." Well, that's all soldiers are ever told. That's what every young man drafted into a military is told, that his life means nothing compared to any number of other people's concerns. He should fight for his country, for his family, because it's his duty, blah, blah, blah- he should fight in other's wars, often whether he wants to or not. Surely denying them the right to the "orders" defence is simply another form of that oppression- trying to guilt these soldiers into accepting their own death and their own lack of worth to further someone elses' satisfaction? Its a callous disregard for these people- they are, as ever, simply pawns of other people's ideologies.
Saying all the soldiers in a war must be made to face what they've done- I agree entirely- but if you say it's just the soldiers and not every one else you're punishing the victims just as much as if you were blaming the victims of the
recognized atrocities. No-one ever has empathy for the soldiers who are the primary victims of war for the very reason that they want to be able to shrug off those soldier's deaths, be comfortable with sacrificing them- and that includes sacrificing them in peace as well as war, making them the demonized scapegoats for their society that enables them to avoid responsibility themselves. From believing it's okay to send your sons off to die in battle, it's very easy to progress to believing they should either take a bullet to save a stranger-- or else take a bullet in punishment for their society's sins- for YOUR sins, because you, whoever you are, share in that responsibility.
Each individual must take responsibility for their actions, I agree ENTIRELY. I am in TOTAL agreement that each soldier must come to accpt responsibility for their actions. But how is the soldier to make penance and take responsibility if the society who put him in that position- and gravely mistreated HIM, refuses to accept responsibility, indeed uses him as the scapegoat and mistreats him further? That will make him- justifiably so- far LESS likely to acknowledge his own crimes.
It's the soldier's own society, in its entirety, that must face what it has done- chief among what it has done being the very practice of conditioining its soldiers into doing these things and telling them orders are to be followed, or else. Everyone who raised their son with the understanding that he must fight for his country is equally responsible when that act of nationalism translates into atrocities. We ALL have a responsibility for war, not just the soldiers participating, because those soldiers are only in that position in the first place due to the ideologies held by the populace as a whole and how those ideologies are applied to our children. Why should the unlucky people pressured or conditioned into being the ones who must live in the darkness take sole responsibility while the more fortunate members of society shrug it off and point fingers? THAT is denying the truth in my eyes. War crimes trials are often simply ways for society as a whole and its leaders specifically to avoid their responsibility by instead throwing all the responsibility on their unfortunate soldiers. I don't trust war crimes tribunals for this very reason- it's a means of wiping your hands of your own crimes by highlighting those of others to the exclusion of yours- even if the others only committed their crimes under your influence.
As for atrocities not being denied, atrocities are ALWAYS selectively remembered. The very atrocities people in our nations use to make points about "never forgetting" and "making truth known" have been selectively picked based on various criteria, chief among them who committed the acts and who the victims were. And for each atrocity that is made the focus of attention, another is brushed aside and, yes, actively ignored or even denied, because it's not the "right" people being victimized to generate pathos, or not the "right" perpetrators to generate the correct "us and them" attitude. Our societies right now are deniers.
Perhaps most of all, they deny the atrocities they committed against their own sons.
................................
EDIT: I thought I should include an example to further justify what I wrote. I know from his writings- I don't know him personally, but his works- a British veteran of the Second World War, who, under orders, once shot- executed- a 12 year old boy who was spying for the enemy. He was a good man, and he didn't try to avoid responsibility or brush it off. He was never able to forgive himself for murdering a child, and I'm pleased he had the courage to face up to his actions and seek genuine penance. But, why hasn't his society, and that of the boy for that matter seeing as they put the child in that position- made the same move? Britain, and almost all other nations involved in the war, still glorify in ideas of "heroism" and refuse to accept responsibility. It is ENTIRELY appropriate that this man acknowledge his guilt and try to make amends, but it is not fair that he should be made to do so when the society behind him doesn't. I can imagine the anger I'd feel if he were tried as a "war criminal" by the very same society who WANTED him to be what he became in that war.
)
Oh, I'm quite scrawny myself! I'm also the clumsiest guy around. The military would probably try to repost me to the opposing side...
