In the past, war was simple; good guys and bad guys, where enemies occupied positions, territories, and had alliances that made each easily identifiable. All of this made for a straightforward war.
Today’s war – whatever we wish to call it, is far from straightforward. Every new conflict takes on a new dimension of complexity, particularly when it involves the killing of innocent civilians.
One example of this complexity was the murder of Mr Jean Charles De Menezes.
I expect everyone with access to a news channel in the last few months will have heard of the tragic killing of the London based Brazilian citizen, Jean Charles De Menezes.
Last week, in London, we witnessed the arrival of Mr De Menezes parents. They travelled to the city, that cut short their son’s life, to retrace his final steps and to understand more about the tragedy that claimed another innocent victim in this twisted, new age, war.
Mrs De Menezes publicly demanded the imprisonment and punishment of the officers responsible for her son’s brutal death. Although I have huge sympathy for the families despair, anger and desire for vengeance, it got me thinking about all the other innocent victims of this war, and the question of responsibility, accountability and injustice in the changing face of war.
Do we, as we did in the past, simply accept that all conflicts result in innocent victims and accept them as casualties of war? Do we sit back and wait for our higher courts to exact justice? Or do we seek new routes to justice, in what is a very new world war?
It strikes me that the conventions of war have changed forever, thus our expectations for justice must also change.
Some suggest that this war is no different from any war where terrorist organisations simply use their brand of fear as a weapon to accompany their guns or bombs.
I disagree for two reasons;
1. This war is a viral war. This is a war where its philosophy and goals are not managed centrally. It’s a campaign based on sympathy and empathy, where recruitment is operated and funded locally. Central command and control structures do not exist as they have in past conflicts. This affects battle strategy and what are deemed as legitimate targets.
2. In this real and virual war everyone and everything is deemed a legitimate target; we all become participants, regardless of our position or view on this conflict. This is a war with no civilians; we are merely active or passive. It is a war with no winning end game. Neither side can win but neither side believe it.
If we are all targets, we all become combatants (even pease activists) in this war on terror(if thats' what we want to call it?). Those who align themselves with either side of the campaign must surely be in some way accountable and responsible for the actions and attacks. Therefore somebody must take responsibility for the innocent combatants’, like Mr De Menezes, deaths, their life destruction and families despair.
So let's consider the last innocent victim of this war, Mr De Menezes and the sequence of events, in as much as we know.
From all accounts and it is worth stating that the independent police complaints commission is still working on the investigation.
Let’s assume that the police are, to some degree, accountable and answerable for his death.
Although they were following orders (think Nuremberg), they were on the scene and presumably could have made an informed judgement as to Mr De Menezes risk. All information coming through the managed media suggests the officers acted on information fed to them from central command and that Mr De Menezes was a potential bomber. The police were living in an extreme environment that was London in July 2005, they may have had reasonable doubt but they also had what they thought were reasonable grounds to shoot to kill, or so it would appear. If so, then surely, responsibility must move up the line as these officers can not stand alone shouldering all responsibility?
This argument must surely apply to all innocents denied life as we look beyond the immediate perpetrators other acts of murder, such as:
-Those blasted to oblivion in the London tube bombings
-The denial of life to thousands of Palestinians in refuge camps and occupied territories since 1967.
-The vicious incineration of those in the twin towers..
Could we collectively argue culpability of those behind perpetrators of the said acts? Apparently not for the following reasons:
-Unable to establish proof of direct involvement
-No reasonable grounds for involvement
-Or the person directly responsible is dead
Or so I have been informed by a lawyer. But's let's face it we know the truth.
But if we could persue who would we pursue?
1. The US and UK Governments – for their historic mismanagement of foreign affairs in the middle east post WW 2 and creating the circumstances that all our issues relate to in one fashion or another
2. Israel?
3. Saudi Arabia – for failing to suppress radical Islamic groups?
4. Mr Bin Laden and his merry men – for spreading hate through his media recruitment campaign?
5. Islamic leaders who have failed to spot and report radicalism?
6. Christian community for not spotting the festering issues of this faith based conflict?
Shame, it would make for a wonderful class action.
Recent Comments