The Pope’s letter to President Bush appealing for clemency for Timothy McVeigh is no surprise. The Pope regularly makes such appeals and has pioneered a more aggressive Catholic approach to capital punishment. What interests me is the position of many Catholic politicians and public figures who ignore this fundamental tenet of Catholicism with nary an explanatory word. Catholic neoconservatives in particular are stunningly silent on this one, while often demanding of gay Catholics that we stay celibate, and of pro-choice Catholics that they renounce their beliefs. Where are the leading Catholic neocons on this question? Richard John Neuhaus? Robert George? John DiIulio? Bill Bennett? George and Neuhaus take pains to oppose any and every measure to accord civil equality for gay men and lesbians, but I’m unaware of their tireless efforts against the death penalty. Maybe someone can point out to me some work of theirs’ on this matter that I have missed. I hope I’m wrong. DiIulio in particular has never seen fit to explain – to my knowledge – his position on the death penalty, while eagerly supporting a president who has signed the death warrants of more criminals than anyone now alive in this country. I’m not saying it’s incumbent of all Catholics to support every public policy position of the Vatican. For obvious reasons, I don’t believe that. But at least I’ve done what I can to explain my reasons for dissenting with the Church hierarchy on some matters. Don’t these other public writers and thinkers owe us the same favor on an issue that is, on the Church’s own terms, far graver than homosexuality?
THE LATEST KERREY SPIN: I guess we can all agree to disagree on what happened that night in Vietnam when up to 20 unarmed civilians were found massacred in a hut after Bob Kerrey’s unit visited. But what’s amazing to me is the almost unanimous view of the establishment that, whatever the facts, Kerrey should not be criticized, and that no-one who wasn’t there can say anything. (Check out the absolution from both right (Bill Safire) and left (Robert Mann) in the New York Times today. Kerrey is absolved by the right because the war was just and murdering civilians is okay in that context; and he is absolved by the left because LBJ was the real war-criminal.) Where were these understanding souls when Serbian war-criminals were put on trial? Murdering civilians in Bosnia is a barbarism, it seems, for which each war-criminal is responsible. Murdering civilians in Vietnam, on the other hand, is a function of an insane war where chaos reigned and the possible culprit needs “healing” not judgment. Some are even saying (Kerrey included) that no-one should be even subjected to questioning when troubling evidence comes to light. “I’ve got a right to say to you, ‘it’s none of your damned business.’ I carry memories of what I did and I survive . . .” Kerrey told Vistica. As John Leo has pointed out, this is an obscene piece of solipsism. Can you imagine the cops who violated Amadou Diallo saying such a thing and having a story about them spiked in Newsweek? Besides, if soldiers cannot be held personally responsible for possible war crimes, why should they be given awards for heroism? If an individual in such a context has no real responsibility for his actions, no ability to make moral decisions, on what grounds can he even be a hero?
THE RANKS CLOSE: The piece de resistance in Kerrey’s defense came, however, in Sunday’s op-ed by Max Cleland, Chuck Hagel and John Kerry. Here, Kerrey’s changing stories, spin-patrol with sympathetic journalists, and weekend bull-session with every other squad member to align their stories are a function of … courage! “Bob Kerrey’s personal and difficult disclosure last week demonstrates the courage we have all known in him for years,” the Senators write. They all oppose even an investigation into the incident. We truly are in Orwellian territory here. Spin is courage. Murder is heroism. Truth is unknowable. War-crimes are not war-crimes if you’ve had nightmares about them ever since.
The Dish 