Hezbollah Targets Civilians. On Both Sides.

Listening to the news reports on the war in the Middle East, it's easy to miss the implicit double-standard. The journalists generally try to provide balanced facts, which at this point include a casualty count of at least 548 Lebanese (at least 477 civilians), and 56 Israelis (19 civilians). Without context, these bare facts make Israel look the bully and lend credence to the charges of "disproportionality". The figures are updated daily, reinforcing the false impressions, and context is seldom provided. The missing context includes several crucial factors. For one, the Israeli capability to destroy what they aim at is far superior to Hezbollah. The vast majority of Hezbollah's rockets have landed in Israel with no mortal result, not for lack of intent, but for lack of capability. For another, the Israeli capability to take refuge is far superior to the Lebanese. Having had Scud missiles sent at them from the first Gulf War, the Israelis were well-prepared with warning systems and bomb shelters built into many homes. Finally, the most important reason is that Israel does its best to keep its own civilians safe, while Hezbollah cynically pushes Lebanese civilians into the line of fire.

This issue of targeting civilians is another place where the insidious double-standard creeps in. Hezbollah peppers Israel with rockets, generally targeting civilian areas such as Haifa and Tiberius, with little ability to hit any particular target, but they don't really care, because their intention is to cause general terror. However, they are terrorists, and such indiscriminate targeting is what everyone expects of them. There is no surprise or controversy in their intent, so their intent gets little attention in the day-to-day news. The count of Hezbollah rockets fired, along with any notable damage of the day, is duly reported, but as to their indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians -- no news there. The terrorists are doing just what we expect terrorists to do. With Israel, on the other hand, its stated intention is to hit military targets and avoid civilian casualties insofar as possible, a noble intention that they have understandably fallen short of on numerous occasions. Yet precisely because expectations are so high for Israel to conduct itself flawlessly, every time Israel hits any civilians, that's news, and gets reported as such. Thus, we repeatedly hear on the news the shock and horror of Israel hitting civilians. Because news inherently focuses on the unexpected, and because the expectations are so imbalanced when a decent nation fights a terrorist group using civilian shields, the news cannot help but create an imbalanced impression unfavorable to Israel.

Listening to the news, it's too easy to miss the responsibility of Hezbollah, not only for the Israeli civilian casualties, but for the Lebanese civilian casualties. The IDF is doing its utmost to hit only military targets, but it is Hezbollah who is intentionally and callously using the Lebanese civilian population as its shield. What happened at Qana (where 37 children were killed) was a tragedy, and the Israelis did indeed drop the bomb, but it was Hezbollah who drew target rings around the town. That building where the Lebanese children were hiding is the same place that Hezbollah were hiding their rocket launchers. People of Lebanon, if you think that Hezbollah is your "protector" from the Israeli aggressor, your trust is misplaced. Hezbollah cares nothing for you, except to use you, your wives, and your children for cannon fodder and propaganda.

UPDATE: Here's some very interesting info about the imbalance in the news coverage. It seems Hezbollah have quite the propaganda machine going.

Stem Cells and Animal-Rights Vegetarians

President Bush's first-ever veto, of a bill authorizing embryonic stem cell research, has flared up once again the debate about the ethics of such research. While a vocal minority of Americans object to this research as destruction of human life, I believe the majority of Americans are taking a more pragmatic view, that the tiny clump of cells called a "blastocyst" represents human potential but not human life, and it is reasonable to use them for life-saving research especially when they are going to be discarded anyway. This debate has not fallen cleanly down traditional political lines. When it was discussed on the NPR radio program Left, Right, and Center, the representatives across the political spectrum all agreed that embryonic stem cell research was worthwhile and not unethical.

The emotional debate about the ethics of the research tends to overshadow the actual question on the table, which is not whether such research should be permitted, but whether such research should be funded by the federal government. It's a different question. Andrew Sullivan (who himself opposes such research) has aired some interesting viewpoints. In one, a researcher notes that it is often not practical for a researcher to isolate his research and funding sources in a lab that typically supports a variety of research simultaneously. (His predicament called to mind those who take the kosher laws very seriously, such that they end up having to have duplicate sets of kitchen service and cookware.) In another, an optimistic libertarian opined that private funding sources already appear to be more than picking up the slack left by the federal non-funding, which is as it should be anyway. (Certainly, the federal funding void has created an opportunity for some states, such as my home state California, to gain a competitive advantage by funding research at the state level.) Given these developments, I'm somewhat sanguine about the President's veto.

I do think that the President's position seems reasonable. He does not advocate banning the controversial research. He merely advocates not having the federal government bankroll it when some taxpayers have moral misgivings about it. It seems a reasonable compromise for both sides. It does, however, raise a question in my mind. To what extent should the federal government not be engaged in practices that some citizens (even if just a vocal minority) have a strong moral objection to. Animal rights activists come to mind, those of the belief that all killing of animals is wrong, and carnivorous behavior is immoral. Such people are certainly a minority, but they also certainly have a very strong moral belief. Should the federal government therefore disengage in any direct activity or funding for activity that supports the meat industry? Should the feds stop providing meat inspection services and animal health programs (e.g., studying of "mad cow" disease and programs to prevent it)? This would seem to be consistent with the President's rationale on stem cell research. And of course the strong libertarians would agree with such a proposal -- not that they necessarily oppose meat-eating -- but that the government should not be involved in it. Food for thought.

A Higher Ethical Standard

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to remove Rep. William Jefferson (D-New Orleans) from his position on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, because of questions about his ethics. The voice vote indicated a strong consensus. However, a small number of Representatives criticized the action as being unprecedented (which is apparently true), noting that Jefferson has not yet been indicted (which is true), and Jefferson should be deemed "innocent until proven guilty". It's this last point where they're wrong. When it comes to institutions where people are invested with serious fiduciary responsibility, they must hold themselves to a higher standard. They must not only refrain from crime or impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety. In this case, the FBI has found $90,000 in cash hidden in the Representative's freezer, and someone else has already plead guilty of the crime of bribing him. To call Jefferson's situation as having the appearance of impropriety is rather an understatement. The actions of the House in this matter are entirely proper.

The Congressional Black Caucus had the misjudgment to play the tired race card here, suggesting that Jefferson was singled out because he was black. This is utterly ridiculous. Jefferson was singled out not because he is black, but because the FBI has cold (literally) hard evidence showing him to be corrupt. (Likewise, Cynthia McKinney was "singled out" not because she is black, but because she has a bad attitude, no manners, and a tendency to violence. Someone should really explain to the Black Caucus that using their race as a bald excuse for inexcusable behavior does a serious disservice to those people who really do suffer discrimination on account of their race. Though in fairness, there were rumors of dissension within the caucus, which the lack of calls for a roll call vote would support.) Jefferson's own arguments -- that the House action is denying the people of his district of the service of their Representative -- are plain pathetic. If Jefferson cared about serving the people of his district, he wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. And if he cares about them now, he would resign Congress immediately and allow them the chance to elect someone honest to replace him.

Nancy Pelosi is entirely correct to say that "this isn't about proof in a court of law", and in her determination to "hold Democrats to a high ethical standard". (Some may argue or question her motives in this, but regardless, it's nice to see someone doing the right thing.) Pelosi went on to add "I wish the White House would do the same", a reference to the collective sigh of relief over in the White House at the news that Karl Rove would not be indicted by the special prosecutor investigating the Valerie Plame leak case. Apparently, at the White House, the standard of ethics is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. impropriety. criminal acts. getting convicted.

Beyond The Pale

I've written recently about how I don't believe that the death penalty is appropriate, not that the worst criminals don't deserve death, but that we as a society damage ourselves in the process. The controversy has stayed in the news recently, with DNA evidence posthumously confirming that an executed man in Virginia was indeed guilty. Now in a couple of hours, California will execute a 76-year-old blind diabetic man (who is also a multiple murderer). It's unfortunate that the most appropriate penalty for these criminals is no longer practically available. Exile. It is perfect in its justice. These people have violated society and for a fitting punishment they should forfeit all the benefits of civil society. Some crimes are beyond the pale, and that is literally where such criminals should be sent. If only we still had someplace like Devil's Island or even Australia a few centuries ago. Perhaps the best we could do today would be to negotiate a deal with Kim Jong-Il: we'll give him some food and some energy, but he has to take some of our prisoners as well. (He wouldn't even have to keep them imprisoned. Just let them live in North Korea the rest of their lives. That would be justice enough.) But if we can't do any of those things, we should at least lock these people away for the rest of their lives in complete forfeit of all the benefits of society. I'm not talking imprisonment as we currently do it. I mean no telephone, no television, no books, no letters. No visitors (especially no visitors brokering book or movie deals). No protection from their fellow exiles. In short, no society. Put them where they have put themselves: beyond the pale.

Tookie Taken: Ruminations on Capital Punishment

It is bizarre timing that now, in the throes of the holiday season, the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams forces us to pause from writing cards and shopping for gifts to reflect on the death penalty. But like it or not, it is upon us. I had never given a lot of thought to the issue before, but I realized I ought to if people are being executed in my name as a citizen of California. I had conflicting feelings about it. On the one hand, some crimes are so heinous that nothing short of execution seems appropriate. But on the other hand, execution seems so, well, barbaric.

I'm more interested in contemplating the death penalty in general than in arguing the particular merits of this specific case. In short, I will just say this about Tookie Williams: if the death penalty is ever appropriate, then it is appropriate for this man. He was convicted of multiple murders of the most callous and cold-blooded kind. While he protested his innocence to the end, and duped a few gullible idealists into believing him, there is no real question on this matter. Though there may well have been cases in which innocent people have been executed, this is not one of them. Moreover, he does not dispute that he was a co-founder of the Crips gang, and there is strong reason to believe that he was guilty of much, much more than what he was convicted of. This was an evil man with a formidable legacy of evil. As to his alleged redemption, he never even admitted what he had done, let alone begin to regret it. His touted efforts to dissuade children from becoming involved in gangs are more likely to be a calculated PR tactic. He certainly didn't dissuade his own son from following in his father's footsteps. To me, that's what makes his case provocative. If capital punishment is only appropriate in extreme cases, where guilt is clear and the crime is heinous, one can scarcely imagine anyone more deserving than Tookie. That clarifies the question: is it ever appropriate to execute anyone, even someone like Tookie Williams?

In considering the question, one must distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate reasons for capital punishment. One important purpose of the penal system is to protect society from dangerous people. That purpose is equally served by life imprisonment without parole as it is by execution. Another important purpose is deterrence, the pause that one criminal's fate may give to another prospective criminal. On that count, actual results should be looked to. I haven't looked into such studies, but my hunch is that capital punishment as it is practiced in the US is a weak deterrent, because it is such a rare and long-drawn process. (Tookie lived a quarter century between sentencing and execution.) A stronger deterrent effect might be achieved if execution were meted out more swiftly and frequently, but that's not possible to do without transforming the US into someplace more like the old Soviet Union or the Taliban or Singapore (all of which had low crime rates for the crimes that they punished).

Then there are the illegitimate reasons for capital punishment. One most commonly cited is that it is "justice" that capital crimes be answered with capital punishment. But justice is a misnomer here, the proper word is vengeance. This is the old "eye for an eye", and it is as barbaric as chopping the hands off of thieves. Believe me, I feel the allure of it too. It's hard to think of the crimes Tookie committed, and not to wish much more painful deaths on him than the one he suffered. But a civilized society must rise above this, or it ceases to be civilized. It has nothing to do with what the criminal deserves. It has to do with what we as a society become if we stoop to blood vengeance. And I'm coming to believe that if we practice capital punishment, we corrupt ourselves.

Another common justification given is that the family of the victims deserve to see the murderer executed. But this is just another spin on the same blood vengeance. If we truly believed that, then we should have a guillotine or a firing squad, and we should allow the families of the victims to pull the trigger, and enjoy the violence of spilling the murderer's blood. If that sounds barbaric to you (and I hope that it does), then ask yourself whether that differs in any significant moral respect from the clinical death-by-injection carried out on Tuesday.

A different argument is sometimes made that it is expensive to maintain someone in prison for life, and why should the good taxpayers be burdened with supporting a worthless life. If one looks only at the ledger, there seems to be an argument there. But one must look at the non-fungible costs. Killing someone because their life "isn't worth the expense of supporting it" is a monstrous precedent. If we do that, we cease to be a society in which life is sacrosanct, and we become instead a society where each life has a quantifiable worth. Once that bright line is crossed, all sorts of questions become fair game, including euthanasia or medical treatment decisions based on how much a given person's life is worth. Should we go around to state hospitals euthanizing patients who are unlikely to leave the hospital but not dying soon and costing the state a lot to support? If that sounds barbaric to you (and I hope that it does), then ask yourself whether that differs in any significant moral respect from killing a prisoner just because it costs a lot to keep him alive?

To recap: the legitimate reasons for capital punishment are uncompelling. The compelling reasons are illegitimate. And even if some extreme criminals deserve death, we cannot be the executioners without becoming barbarians ourselves.