Genocides of their imaginations
Yesterday, computerless, I happened upon an AP report about a recent Romney press event Washington Post's free daily. Here's the electronic version:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to address the U.N. General Assembly next week, but instead should be greeted "with an indictment under the Genocide Convention," Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Monday.
Funny, I thought to myself in my typical, reflexively anti-Republican way, that it's now acceptable on the American right to call for people to be indicted for crimes that have not been committed. Not just "crimes", of course, but "incitement of genocide"--perhaps the second worst of all possible crimes.
Of course, it turns out that this has nothing to do with Republicanism, and everything to do with our nutty, but incredibly bipartisan approach to Middle East affairs. Romney was just calling for fuller enforcement of this resolution, which passed by a narrow margin of 411-2.
Comments
I disagree. while this is undoubtedly used to further spooky neoconservative fantasies, here's a quote from the genocide convention:
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d ) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
If you look at (c), there's a long history of cases in which incitement paved the path for widespread violence. Now, it's arguable whether or not Ahmedinejad's words actually incited violence (wipe Israel off the map? I forget), but it's a good discussion to have.
There's controversy about what Ahmadinejad actually said (see Juan Cole). But whether Ahmadinejad said "this occupation regime must vanish from the page of time" or "this occupation regime must be wiped off the map" it's an awfully convoluted (as opposed to direct) incitement to commit genocide, if it's even that.
but in your post, you write "it's now acceptable on the American right to call for people to be indicted for crimes that have not been committed".
you would find it acceptable to indict someone for inciting genocide without committing one, right?
If you're saying that ahmedinejad never committed the crime of incitement - be clear. Otherwise it obscures an important part of the debate.
What's the debate? I missed it. Clear up the language (see above) and it doesn't change anything.
Post A Comment