Nothing To Do
"Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11," my editor says. Which is to insist that Americans be too stupid to figure out the connections between rich, weapons-hungry totalitarian rogue state dictators in the Islamic world and the destruction of American cities and tragic loss of life.
"But, Iraq didn't do that." That would be my editor's answer. No, of course not. No nation-state did. Do you really want to assert that a nation-state is forbidden from defending itself against some non-national terror movement? That stands the concept of "international law" on its head, It's like saying, as some seem to, that a U.S. soldier can shoot an Iraqi soldier, but if that soldier takes off his uniform and dons a civilian's clothes and keeps firing his RPG at the U.S. soldier, he's immune to being shot back at, under the Geneva Accords.
But then this is the same editor who defends running U.S. casualty stories every day out front, while burying terrorist stories and rebuilding stories inside, if allowing them ink at all, by saying, "that's what the readers want."
"But, Iraq didn't do that." That would be my editor's answer. No, of course not. No nation-state did. Do you really want to assert that a nation-state is forbidden from defending itself against some non-national terror movement? That stands the concept of "international law" on its head, It's like saying, as some seem to, that a U.S. soldier can shoot an Iraqi soldier, but if that soldier takes off his uniform and dons a civilian's clothes and keeps firing his RPG at the U.S. soldier, he's immune to being shot back at, under the Geneva Accords.
But then this is the same editor who defends running U.S. casualty stories every day out front, while burying terrorist stories and rebuilding stories inside, if allowing them ink at all, by saying, "that's what the readers want."
<< Home