Frank Paynter makes an interesting claim on his Sandhill Trek blog
Since March 20, 2003 I have been arrested twice for symbolic and non-violent acts of civil disobedience in protest of the wars that the Bush administration has chosen to enter. The crimes were misdemeanors, and the punishments were modest. The judges were pleased to have us in the court room, and the police were uniformly courteous as they performed their duties. Times have changed since the days when symbolic protest was met with violence, incarceration, and felony convictions in my community. These minor acts of civil disobedience in opposition to the Bush regime are the least I can do to stand up for what I know to be true regarding the administration and its wanton foreign policy. By standing up against the Bush regime in this small way, I earn the right to criticize it.
Frank’s objection to the Bush Administration’s wars of liberation in Afghanistan and Iraq, as far as I can tell, is some sort of violation of international law owing to the lack of the UN’s blessing:
…I do know that the Bush unilateralism made it impossible to bring the full force of international law into play. And I opposed the Bush war on Afghanistan, as I oppose a so called WAR on terrorism and the war on drugs.
There seems to be a basic contradiction here. How can a person engage in acts of civil disobedience that violate the law in the interest of a personal moral conviction against a political leader who himself is acting in accordance with a personal moral conviction that happens to violate international law, in the opinion of the protester? In other words, how can you break the law to protest someone else’s breaking the law and still consider yourself a moral actor?
I put that question to Mr. Paynter, he offered an answer, but now he’s erased it. Any other moral snobs who share Mr. Paynter’s point of view are welcome to explain the reasoning to me.
I replied in haste and upon review saw that I had merely rehashed what I had already offered, so I deleted. I did leave your comment in place and I’m mulling over a response. The calculated insult and the antagonistic positioning of your argument make it difficult for me to get through the small stuff to the meat of the matter. I guess my biggest challenge is addressing the claim that the invasion of Iraq and subsequent carnage amounts to a “war of liberation.” Time will tell, since we intend to turn over control in June. While no way did I support the Hussein regime, neither do I support war. I feel you are treating me unkindly by calling me a “moral snob.”
Frank, “moral snob” is the nicest term I can come up with for a pacifist. As if the rest of us *want* to see people killed and suffering in war, and as if there were a real alternative to force. I’m letting you off easy.
Frank’s moral conviction has not as far as I can tell resulted in the death of ten thousand Iraqis. Those collateral ‘war ‘deaths were sanctioned by Congress based on the tandem proposotion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Where’s the moral conviction in that pair of loafers? Frank may be a moral snob but George W Bush is an amoral knob. The ‘war of liberation’ was an on the fly after half-thought. Never mind that Bush broke international law, try US law.
People were dying at Saddam’s hands before we liberated Iraq, bmo, and the blood of those deaths is on the hands of the pacifists.
Pacifism kills by inaction.
Actually, the blood of those deaths is on the hands of Saddam. What are you doing, Richard, to help ameliorate the plight of the victims of ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan? You think Crusader Rabbit and his flying monkey squadron oughta send a coupla stealth bombers in to make things better? Is the blood of those people on your hands or mine?
Talk about moral snobbery… What kind of asshole would assign blame in such a matter? If I thought you had an ounce of goodwill I’d continue the discussion. You don’t. Ciao.
Actually the discussion would be worth continuing if the ill-will and moral conviction were sincere. Nothing here but clean hands from the use of rubber bait.
OK, Frank – some of the blood, not all of it.