« Re-Tooling | Main | A Little Comic Relief »
March 4, 2008
Vigilantism 2.0
By now, many of you have probably heard of or seen the video that has been racing around the net that purportedly depicts a US Marine in Iraq killing a puppy. If you haven't, you probably shouldn't (it had a big impact on even a walking callus like me). If you insist on doing so, it can be found in various places (it reportedly keeps getting pulled down wherever it is put up), but try here. In it, you see what is likely a US Marine (the authenticity of the video is subject to debate, but I can see no smoking gun kind of tell that would lead me to doubt its authenticity) manhandling a puppy and then casually
throwing it (presumably to its death) from an embankment.
Needless to say, a shocking image like this has provoked a range of often emotional responses. I was personally disgusted by the video and hope that, if it is authentic, the Marine pictured in it is punished as severely as possible. I have a hard time accepting the oft-advanced argument that this is simply an inevitable product of the violent conditioning that is war: I think that even those truly inured to violence and brutality still do not engage in gratuitous malice. No, I suspect something else is going on here: this guy probably lives at the intersection between an anti-social personality type and a sadist.
Equally outrageous, however, has been the the public dissemination by various blogs of the private identifying information for an individual suspected of being the Marine in the video (the video ends with a soldier off-camera possibly identifying the offending Marine as "Motari", which has led to this individual with the same surname being advanced as a suspect), typically accompanied by calls essentially for a vigilante response.
For excellent examples, see "Crime and Federalism", the video link above or, even better still, Mir1, which actually posts his home address and number.
As upsetting as the video images are to me, am I the only one who finds this electronic lynch mob rush to judgment a bit sickening as well? WE DON'T EVEN KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHO IS IN THAT VIDEO, WHERE IT WAS ACTUALLY SHOT, ETC. Although my personal sense is that it probably is real, the fact is that anyone with access to am Army-Navy store, some airsoft weapons and a desert environment could have shot it. And all we have is some brief mention of one name (is it actually the Motari referred to on the video? Is Motari the one throwing the dog, or a third Marine off camera (you can't be certain from the video)? Did he say Motari? Moteri? Motarrey?) to go on ( and have the good people at Mir1 not noticed that the surname in the address they provide does not even match that of the individual accused of being the Marine in the video?)
But don't lose hope. The author of "Crime and Federalism" offers the following sage advice:
Others have noted, and I agree, that we must await confirmation of the puppy killer's identity before taking further action. The matter is still under investigation, and we need to confirm identities. Once we have confirmation, we should do everything legally within our power to make the killer's life a living Hell. But we must await confirmation before taking further action.
Although he has been somewhat more careful than many of those commenting in blog postings about this incident by adding the qualifier "legally", I am still left with the following question: who the the hell empowered this guy, or any of the other individuals making calls for legal (or, in many cases, blatantly illegal) action against this individual? Who do you think you are, and can you explain to me why it is that you seem to think that the blogosphere is a more acceptable staging ground for vigilantism than the streets? When did this become acceptable? We are a society with rules and individuals and institutions lawfully empowered to enforce those rules. Why is it acceptable in the blogosphere for some people essentially to deputize themselves?
Posted by dag at March 4, 2008 3:58 PM