![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 48. Go back in thread:
Posted by madeline on October 14, 2006, at 21:43:04
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to » madeline, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 18:59:03
Well to answer your question - yes, if I were a doctor I certainly would go to a concentration camp (even though I maintain that this is not really applicable in this setting).
What I would NOT do, is follow an order NOT to treat a wounded jewish detainee in that concentration camp.
I think physicians simply do not have the right to say when and under what political (and yes in my mind war is political) conditions to treat patients.
I hear what you are saying, he is challenging the legality of this war under international law.
His challenge would have much more merit in my mind, however, if he were going there kill people rather than administer medical aid to them.
He is simply not the best spokesperson for this cause.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 22:14:39
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to, posted by madeline on October 14, 2006, at 21:43:04
> What I would NOT do, is follow an order NOT to treat a wounded jewish detainee in that concentration camp.so you wouldn't follow orders that are unlawful under international law?
> I think physicians simply do not have the right to say when and under what political (and yes in my mind war is political) conditions to treat patients.
> I hear what you are saying, he is challenging the legality of this war under international law.yes. so it isn't a moral thing so much as it is a refusal to follow an order that he had good evidence to believe was illegal under international law.
> His challenge would have much more merit in my mind, however, if he were going there kill people rather than administer medical aid to them.
> He is simply not the best spokesperson for this cause.he is probably more articulate and informed than your average foot soldier... the court cases will continue with people making a case that the invasion of Iraq was unlawful according to international law.
other people have followed suit...
he got the ball rolling was all...
and he will appeal.
Posted by madeline on October 15, 2006, at 8:53:57
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to » madeline, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 22:14:39
Do you not think a physician under these circumstances has a moral imperative to help the injured in the Iraq?
Posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 9:18:29
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 19:12:24
If you really think it is equivalent to the Nazis how can you live with yourself while contributing to it? Doesn't that make you a collaborator? How is it different from Germans who just looked the other way during their war?
Posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 10:04:26
In reply to Are you paying taxes that support that war? » alexandra_k, posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 9:18:29
Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:39:38
In reply to Sorry. I withdraw above questions (nm) » zazenducky, posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 10:04:26
thanks. actually... my income counts as a charitable donation and hence it isn't taxed.
though i guess i pay goods and services tax etc etc etc...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:41:15
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to » alexandra_k, posted by madeline on October 15, 2006, at 8:53:57
> Do you not think a physician under these circumstances has a moral imperative to help the injured in the Iraq?
not if he has good reason to believe that going to Iraq is in breech of international law...
surely... there are injured people in the UK?
people who are damaged from the terrorist attacks and the like???
Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:43:33
In reply to Re: Sorry. I withdraw above questions, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:39:38
though i should probably say that Helen Clarke (Prime Minister of New Zealand) said 'we refuse to send people to die for a war we don't believe in' right after Bush said 'whoever is not for us is against us'. That was a little scarey... But I think it is fair to say that the PM did have the backing of the majority of the population (and probably even the UN) about then...
Posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:25:27
In reply to Re: Sorry. I withdraw above questions, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:43:33
One small picky point.
The footsoldiers are not the ones charged with war crimes or cimes against humanity. You really do have to be in a position of significant power to be charged with that-- unless as in the US, a government is charging one of its own, in which case a lesser authority (eg a Marine Sgt. such as Lieutenant Calley in the Vietnam War) will be charged.
For example Adolf Eichmann, who was, I believe the one who famously claimed that he was following orders, was not a footsoldier:
"SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962) was head of the Department for Jewish Affairs in the Gestapo from 1941 to 1945 and was chief of operations in the deportation of three million Jews to extermination camps. He joined the Austrian Nazi party in 1932 and later became a member of the SS. In 1934 he served as an SS corporal in the Dachau concentration camp. That same year he joined the SD and attracted the attention of Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. By 1935 Eichmann was already working in the Jewish section, where he was investigating possible "solutions to the Jewish question....
It was Eichmann who organized the Wannsee Conference of January 1942, which focused on issues related to the "final solution of the Jewish question." From this point Eichmann assumed the leading role in the deportation of European Jews to the death camps, as well as in the plunder of their property."
The overwhelming majority of those in the SS and in the German army were never considered for prosecution, nor were German citizens who may have done all sorts of things.
Not, by the way, that I agree that the invasion of Iraq is even vaguely similar to the Nazi period.
My reason:
1. you intentionally decide to commit genocide or
1. You, for reasons that I won't guess at, invade a country, apparently with some idea of geopolitical gain, but also the idea of creating democracy or some friendly government with a fairly decent central authority, but
your plan doesn't work beyond your worse imaginings of not working; your political party whose goal is maintenance of power, as well as other things, must go on, so you turn a blind eye to the nightmarish consequences of your policy of invasion
2. history will judge you, but you try to think this is a "comma" in the whole parade of human historyThese are not the same cases. Given civility rules, I'll stick with that.
Jost
Posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:33:46
In reply to Re: Sorry. I withdraw above questions, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:43:33
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/
The Nizkor Project
The claim was ofen made at the Nuremburg trials by defendents, also Nazi leaders:"The Nuremberg Trials were a series of trials most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military and economical leadership of Nazi Germany. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1949, at the Nuremberg Palace of Justice. The first and best known of these trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which tried 24 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany. It was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946. The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT), including the Doctors' Trial. This article primarily deals with the IMT; see the separate article on the NMT for details on those trials."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
Jost
Posted by Declan on October 15, 2006, at 13:35:49
In reply to Are you paying taxes that support that war? » alexandra_k, posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 9:18:29
It may not be *equivalent*, but that's not saying a lot.
Posted by Declan on October 15, 2006, at 13:40:29
In reply to Re: Sorry. I withdraw above questions, posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:25:27
I agree with you, Jost, about the second interpretation, although 'geopolitical gain' covers a fair bit of territory in the Persian Gulf.
Posted by Declan on October 15, 2006, at 13:47:39
In reply to Re: Citation for my last post, posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:33:46
Since we're on to Eichman, Jost, may I ask you your opinion of his interrogation? When I read the transcript in some book which was without commentary, I wondered/assumed that the passage of time and the position he found himself in (losing the war, change in public opinion)had softened his previous convictions. That's the only way it made sense to me.
Where was it they turned out the lights and locked the office door when they'd done their work? Budapest?
Posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 14:47:23
In reply to Re: Are you paying taxes that support that war? » zazenducky, posted by Declan on October 15, 2006, at 13:35:49
Posted by madeline on October 15, 2006, at 22:09:13
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:41:15
Okay, I disagree- respectively.
And let's just leave it at that.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 23:41:45
In reply to Re: Sorry. I withdraw above questions, posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:25:27
> The footsoldiers are not the ones charged with war crimes or cimes against humanity.
yeah. though i don't know that there is anything written into the law with respect to who can and can't be charged. that was something that came up in the trial too...
> Not, by the way, that I agree that the invasion of Iraq is even vaguely similar to the Nazi period.the only point of similarity was thought to be the legality / illegality of the war with respect to international law.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2006, at 1:21:36
In reply to doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 9:17:26
> > He said: "I have evidence that the Americans were on a par with Nazi Germany with its actions in the Persian Gulf.
I understand that you don't agree with what Americans are doing, but please be sensitive to the feelings of others here (such as Americans and their supporters). Even if you're quoting someone else.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceYou might want to consider asking another poster to be your "civility buddy" and to preview your posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the new system:
previous block: 4 weeks
period of time since previous block: 18 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 18 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 1 week. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 4 - 1 = 3 weeks. And if we triple that, that's 9 weeks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2006, at 1:21:44
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by Dunder on October 12, 2006, at 11:40:47
> In my opinion, his prosecution is just one more injustice
I understand that you may feel hurt, angry, and upset about the war, but please be sensitive to the feelings of others here (such as those who support it).
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceYou might want to consider asking another poster to be your "civility buddy" and to preview your posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by tealady on October 21, 2006, at 0:03:11
In reply to doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 9:17:26
I guess you can think it's better hana century or so ago when you ddn't obey orders in the British army.. at least he was only jailed, not shot... thinking of beginning of the Oz army here
.. they may jail in UK for no paying taxes (which may be used in support of the war too), I heard of something along those lines
Posted by tealady on October 21, 2006, at 2:47:54
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq » alexandra_k, posted by tealady on October 21, 2006, at 0:03:11
> I guess you can think it's better hana century or so ago when you didn't obey orders in the British army.. at least he was only jailed, not shot... thinking of beginning of the Oz army here
>
> .. they may jail in UK for no paying taxes (which may be used in support of the war too), I heard of something along those linesI don't know what he's doing in the army though if he objects to the war in Iraq. I would think it's been going on long enough for him to get out?, and its not like he was conscripted ?
.. not sure here.. in which case there is some validity in the "trying to make a martyr of himself" .. or at least "make a point" argument.I don't personally agree with the "punishment" of jail though.. I reckon society shouldn't throw away his skills, or crowd its jails unnecessarily.. not even consuidering the wasted cost of his "stay" for all concerned!
Maybe 6 months of hospital doc work with no pay or similar would have been far better for all concerned.. including the UK.. which surely is what our justice sytem is supposedly about?
He could have "served his country" far better this way.. or if he was sent to an area with more refugees he could have helped make amends for what he believed his country was wrongfully doing... at least I think he should have been given the choice..There appears to me to be a lack of vision/flexibily/thought in the justice system displayed here.
Posted by zazenducky on October 24, 2006, at 9:43:46
In reply to adding.., posted by tealady on October 21, 2006, at 2:47:54
Kevin Tillman the brother of Pat Tillman who was killed in Afghanistan has an article in Truthdig online magazine. It's called After Pat's Birthday.
You'll have to google, Bob wouldn't like the link.
I think it is something everyone should read.
But what can one person do?
He says vote. But my state is the reddest state in the land of the free. What good will one vote do? (I always vote anyway)
I think if there was a draft people would be in the streets. But would that make any difference?
Polls say 74 percent of people don't support the war already.
But how can you leave now without causing more death after you leave? Don't you have a moral responsibility to those people now to try and keep the peace?
What can one person do?
Posted by Declan on October 24, 2006, at 14:42:28
In reply to An american ex-soldier speaks out, posted by zazenducky on October 24, 2006, at 9:43:46
I suppose the argument is that in the absence of foreign (COW) troops the Iraqis would turn on the foreign jihadists, have a relatively brief (what does that mean?) civil war and sort things out.
That's a problem with invading countries. You can't always declare victory and leave at a time of your choosing.
Posted by zeugma on October 25, 2006, at 18:41:54
In reply to Re: An american ex-soldier speaks out, posted by Declan on October 24, 2006, at 14:42:28
> I suppose the argument is that in the absence of foreign (COW) troops the Iraqis would turn on the foreign jihadists, have a relatively brief (what does that mean?) civil war and sort things out. >>
I don't know what 'relatively brief' means, either, but I know even less about civil wars 'sorting things out,' except, I suppose, in the sense in which the playground bully 'sorts things out.' I've seen the adjective 'Hobbesian' applied to Iraq in my local paper, which is basically descriptive of that kind of 'sorting out.'
>
> That's a problem with invading countries. You can't always declare victory and leave at a time of your choosing.>There may well be no intention to leave. The Senate narrowly squelched an attempt by Democrats to retain the provision (contained in the original granting of war powers act) that no permanent military bases would be constructed in Iraq in the latest authorization of funds for the occupation.
Perhaps it is advantageous to create crime, if you're an out of work policeman. Reasoning along similar lines, chaos may create the need for an elaborate set of fortresses.
Impeccable logic, but the ingratitude of those most in need of your services creates the need for more and more in the way of troops. A draft is not long in coming.
And then as z+ says, there will be riots in the streets here.
-z
Posted by fayeroe on October 26, 2006, at 15:33:31
In reply to Re: An american ex-soldier speaks out » Declan, posted by zeugma on October 25, 2006, at 18:41:54
"Perhaps it is advantageous to create crime, if you're an out of work policeman."
or if you're big business, you can always create a war. pat
Posted by Declan on October 26, 2006, at 23:13:56
In reply to Re: An american ex-soldier speaks out » zeugma, posted by fayeroe on October 26, 2006, at 15:33:31
The Iraqis will maybe get the blame....'they weren't worth it', 'they weren't grateful'. It will be interesting to see whose fault it ends up being.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.