Seeing the Humanity of “the Enemy”: Movies to Provoke Thought and Discussion
by John Whitehead
One of the many pernicious effects of war and other violent conflicts is how they push people into demonizing people on the other side of a conflict. Once people become identified as “the enemy” in a conflict, they become one-dimensional figures of evil or otherwise less than human in their opponents’ eyes. This psychological process of demonization makes killing other people much easier.
In contrast, art, at its best, can make us appreciate the humanity and complexity of the characters it portrays. Art can provide a more rounded portrayal of characters even when those characters belong to groups or act in ways that otherwise might make us reduce them to negative stereotypes.
When works of art deal with real-world conflicts in an intelligent way that reveals the characters’ humanity, they can serve as a welcome antidote to the demonization such conflicts encourage. I can think of three notable movies that do this important work of showing the humanity of different sides of violent conflicts.
Each movie comes from a different country and deals with a different historical conflict. Captivity and the complicated relationships that arise from it are themes in all three.
Prisoner of the Mountains [Кавкавский Пленних] (1996): This Russian movie, an updating of a Leo Tolstoy short story, is set during an unnamed conflict that is presumably meant to be the First Chechen War (1994-1996). This war pitted Russian government troops against Chechen separatist insurgents. The movie revolves around what happens when two Russian soldiers, Vanya and Sasha, are captured by insurgent Abdul-Murat.
Abdul-Murat hopes he can exchange the two soldiers for his own son, who is held prisoner by the Russians. He is willing to keep the two men alive as long as he can get his son back, but no longer.
Through the men’s captivity and the accompanying negotiations, we get to know Vanya and Sasha and Abdul-Murat and his family, as well as Vanya’s mother, who plays a role in trying to free her son. Both Russians and Chechens are capable of demonizing and killing each other, but they are also capable of kindness and mercy. Captives and captors can even connect as people and enjoy each other’s company. The movie also makes clear how all parties are to some degree victims of a corrupt Russian military establishment that is almost as indifferent to its own soldiers as it is to the insurgents.
While the movie includes scenes of violence, Prisoner of the Mountains is highly unusual among war movies in not sensationalizing violence. Even movies trying to show the horrors of war can portray violence in a way that is dramatic or exciting. However, when violence occurs in Prisoner of the Mountains, it is generally presented in a quick, matter-of-fact way, with few cinematic effects. The movie avoids being exploitative while reminding us of how war and wartime hatreds destroy human lives.
Some Mother’s Son (1996). During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, a significant conflict arose in the early 1980s over the status and treatment of IRA members imprisoned by the British. Margaret Thatcher’s government insisted on treating the IRA as a group of criminals. The imprisoned IRA members insisted that they were prisoners of war and should be accorded the rights of POWs, including being allowed to wear their own clothes rather than prison uniforms. Several IRA prisoners, most famously Bobby Sands, protested their treatment by going on hunger strike.
This fictionalized retelling of the prison conflict looks at two widowed women whose sons are among the imprisoned IRA hunger strikers. Annie Higgins is a staunch IRA supporter who looks with pride on her son’s activities; Kathleen Quigley is an apolitical schoolteacher who rejects the IRA’s violent tactics. Despite their differences, the two women unite to campaign for humane treatment for their sons and the other imprisoned men.
Some Mother’s Son clearly abhors the Thatcher government’s draconian policies (the main government representative is portrayed as being unrelievedly hateful, in one of the movie’s less subtle touches). Nevertheless, the movie also, in some very powerful scenes, condemns IRA violence. Both protagonists and their diverging views are treated respectfully and other characters, including some British officials, display intelligence and humanity.
Perhaps most interesting, Some Mother’s Son poses the question of whether trying to extract concession by slowly killing oneself through a hunger strike is an ethical tactic. The movie also questions the ethics of sacrificing lives—even one’s own life—to make a political point.
Four Days in September [O Que é Isso, Companheiro?] (1997) In 1969, a Brazilian radical group called MR-8 decided to challenge the military dictatorship ruling their country by kidnapping Charles Burke Elbrick, the US ambassador to Brazil. By capturing the diplomat, the radicals hoped both to force the US-backed regime to release some of their comrades from prison and to gain publicity for their cause. Four Days in September dramatizes the kidnapping and the complications that ensue.
The focus of the movie is Fernando Gabeira, one of the MR-8 radicals. He and his comrades are mostly college-aged intellectuals. They are idealistic and self-serious but also prone to bickering and joking around like any other group of students. The movie also shows that for all their passion they are largely out of their depth when it comes to violence.
Their hostage is well matched to such captors: Ambassador Elbrick is an intelligent man who feels guilty about US support for the dictatorship. Fernando and the others soon start talking and arguing with Elbrick and something almost like a rapport develops between captors and captive. Nevertheless, radicals must face the question of whether to kill Ambassador Elbrick if their demands are not met.
The movie also follows the Brazilian police’s attempts to track down the kidnapped ambassador. The officer in charge of the investigation has been deeply involved in the regime’s repression, including torture. Rather than present him simply as a villain, though, the movie shows how the police officer is haunted by what he has done; he seems to be suffering from Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress, which now mars his life.
Because the movie takes the time to show us all these different characters as real, flawed but sympathetic people, how the crisis is resolved and the various fates people meet makes the viewer feel the tragedy of the whole situation all the more deeply.
All three of these movies were made roughly 30 years ago and thus are due for rediscovery. Any of these movies would make for valuable viewing and topics of discussion among consistent life ethic advocates or other activists concerned with peace and justice. All serve as important reminders of the need to see past the passions of political conflict and recognize others’ humanity.
==============================
For more of our movie reviews, see:
The Movie “Wicked”: Making a Real Person of the Witch of the West
A Complex Man’s Complex Legacy: What the Movie Rustin Leaves Out
The Violence That Didn’t Happen
Seeing Is Believing: Films to Inspire a Consistent Life Viewpoint
Movies with Racism Themes: “Gosnell” and “The Hate U Give”The Darkest Hour: “Glorifying” War?
Hollywood Movie Insights I (The Giver, The Whistleblower, and The Ides of March)
Hollywood Movie Insights II (Never Look Away, The Report, and Dark Waters)
Jasmine, Aladdin, and the Power of Nonviolence
The Message of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”: Abortion Gets Sexual Predators Off the Hook
Justice Littered with Injustice: Viewing Just Mercy in a Charged Moment
Their Abortion Stand Still Hurts Democrats
by Rachel MacNair
Yesteryear
We’ve long been making the point that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with having not merely a pro-abortion stand but an aggressive stand, tolerating no dissent.
Here are illustrative quotations:
A Couple of Decades Ago:
Mark Shields
Dems doing worst to lose “Catholic vote”, Mark Shields Creators Syndicate, July 22, 2002
In a deliberate act of political bigotry, the Democratic National Committee is daily telling Catholic voters to get lost. Do you think I exaggerate? Then go to the Democratic National Committee website . . .
There is under “Catholic” only one Democratic Party-endorsed site to visit: the absolutely unflinching champions of abortion on demand, “Catholics for a Free Choice.” How offensive is this? Well, what would be the reaction if the only DNC-recommended site under Jewish-American . . . was “Jews for Jesus?” Or if Native Americans were directed to the “Little Beaver” and Tonto library?
Beyond the insensitivity is the ignorance. Does anybody at Democratic Party headquarters know that polling, for the past half century, has consistently shown that Catholics – on issues from health care to workers’ rights to the environment and civil rights – are consistently more liberal than are Protestants?
Jim Wallis
Politically Homeless, Sojourners, Jan 4, 2018
Moral issues of intrinsic concern to the faith community are often disregarded or disrespected by Democratic Party orthodoxy, which often takes extreme or overly strident views on issues like abortion. Many of us in the faith community regard abortion as a moral issue and part of a consistent ethic of life and seamless garment of concern for the many threats to human life and dignity. . . we find the Democrats even reluctant to make a commitment to reducing abortion by supporting women with health care, nutrition, and social services. Many in Democratic leadership don’t seem to want to talk about or even being willing to use the word “reduction” as a positive term in relation to abortion . . . While a younger generation in the faith community is indeed more welcoming of LGBTQ people than their parents have been, they are not so welcoming of abortion as the Democratic elites seem to be, and the Democratic Party needs to figure that out.
During Trump’s first term:
David Brooks
The Abortion Memo, The New York Times, February 1, 2018
To: Democratic Party Leaders
From: Imaginary Democratic Consultant
Re: Late-Term Abortions
Dear Democratic Leaders,
Last week I watched as our senators voted down the Republican bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks. Our people hung together. Only three Democrats voted with the other side. Yet as I was watching I kept wondering: How much is our position on late-term abortions hurting us? How many progressive priorities are we giving up just so we can have our way on this one? . . .
Millions of Americans became single-issue voters. They consider the killing of the unborn the great moral issue of our time. Without pro-life voters, Ronald Reagan never would have been elected. Without single-issue voters who wanted pro-life judges, there would never have been a President Donald Trump. I understand that our donors (though not necessarily our voters) want to preserve a woman’s right to choose through all nine months of her pregnancy. But do we want late-term abortion so much that we are willing to tolerate President Trump? Do we want it so much that we give up our chance at congressional majorities? Do we want it so much that we see our agendas on poverty, immigration, income equality and racial justice thwarted and defeated?
Michael Wear
Democrats Shouldn’t Be So Certain About Abortion, The New York Times, July 14, 2019, pg. SR4
Mr. Wear served as part of President Barack Obama’s faith-based initiative and on both of his presidential campaigns. He’s not a consistent-lifer but makes some interesting points.
Democrats used to express great offense if Republicans described them as the party of “abortion on demand.” Now, Democratic candidates seem happy to leave the impression that their party is just that, often justifying their position by suggesting it’s a direct result of listening to women, communities of color and those with low incomes. Here’s the problem: They don’t speak for these communities when they appear to support abortion on demand. We know that 73 percent of women believe abortion should be restricted to at least the first three months (with a large percentage of those women supporting even greater restrictions). According to a June Morning Consult/Politico poll, 42 percent of Hispanics support Hyde (28 percent oppose), as well as 36 percent of African-Americans (37 percent oppose) and 46 percent of Americans with an income under $50,000 (31 percent oppose).
But Now, Post-Dobbs
Some pundits thought abortion was a winning issue, and strategists believed having a pro-abortion measure on the ballot would bring out more Democratic voters. In 2024, that strategy clearly failed – some states passed the measures and yet still went for Trump. And while some of the measures succeeded, not enough did to recommend this as a future strategy. See the rundown of 2024 measures and the state constitution strategy from our project website, Peace and Life Referendums.
I live in Missouri, one of the states with a “right to abortion” amendment that passed with just 51.2% of the vote. So I know what the pro-amendment ads said: “Missouri’s abortion ban went too far.” They didn’t try to make the case for the amendment, which went to the opposite extreme. And rumors were flying about the ban being far more extreme than it actually was.
But we’ve known for all these decades about public opinion on abortion: the two extremes each have a fraction of the population. Around half or so are somewhere in the middle. From Gallup:
They divided positions into three groups, but a continuum better fits the situation. That 50% includes the only exception being their understanding of abortion being necessary to save the life of the mother, and then another portion will be exceptions for rape and incest only. Along the continuum will be people that say first trimester only, plus other ideas.
Note that the category of “legal under any” is only about a third of the population. And even some of them, if you question them further, may balk at sex selection.
Such questions as taxpayer funding of abortion, informed consent, and parental involvement aren’t included. So if that third includes many with opinions on those that are different from the Democratic rhetoric, they don’t even have that third.
No matter how Democratic politicians may fool themselves into thinking the public is with them when they observe anything less than full opposition to abortion, that doesn’t translate to full support for abortion either.
Full support, the kind where we have the candidate actually visiting an abortion facility, where abortion pills are offered by a mobile van outside the Democratic convention, where the pro-abortion rhetoric is extreme and constant – that fits in with an elitist image.
Inasmuch as a perception of elitism was one of the Democrats’ election problems, their abortion rhetoric added to that image.
As put in the non-partisan publication,The Hill:
Among Kamala Harris’ many strategic blunders, abortion may be her greatest. In her overemphasis of and overextension on this issue, Harris exhibited the same elitism and hubris that doomed her entire campaign.
==================================
For more of our posts on interacting with the Democratic Party, see:
Adventures as a Delegate to the Democratic Party Convention / Lisa Stiller
My Day at the Democratic National Convention / Rob Arner
For more of our posts about elections, see:
Pro-life Voting Strategy: A Problem without an Answer / John Whitehead
My Difficulty in Voting: Identifying the Problem (about the American Solidarity Party) / Monica Sohler
Oh My, How the Election Conundrum Has Changed (2024) / Rachel MacNair
Human Being, or Merely Potential Human?
by Jim Hewes
In abortion debates, a pro-abortion presenter might dismiss the developing human organism within the womb as merely a potential human. This suggests a state of being unreal or incomplete. This term is misleading and fundamentally flawed, as it denies biological reality and creates ethical confusion.
Historically, labeling certain groups as less than fully human – be they Jews, black Africans, or immigrants – has been used to justify grave injustices. Similarly, categorizing pre-born children as merely “potential humans” is a dangerous precedent and an arbitrary exclusion of a whole group of powerless, voiceless human beings. It diminishes their rights and protections, leaving them vulnerable to a complete disregard and a brutal injustice.
Misuse of the Term “Potential”
I have a potential job; do I actually have a job?
He has the potential to be one of the team’s best players; is he actually the team’s best player?
She has a potential cure for cancer; does she have a cure for cancer?
Applying “potential” to a developing human being similarly suggests that the pre-born child is not yet real. But is any other part of a woman’s body –such as a gallbladder or appendix – referred to as having potential to independently become a fully developed human being? Clearly not.
In other words, when the word “potential” is used it means that there isn’t a reality, but just abstract future concept. So too, calling the pre-born potential humans means they aren’t real.
That’s why ultrasound of a pre-born child can be so moving to a pregnant woman. The picture of the baby in utero affirms visually and emotionally that what is present is an actual living human being, not merely potential life.
Scientific and Biological Reality
The man’s sperm and the woman’s ovum by themselves never have been, nor ever could be, an individual person. Yet at the moment of fertilization the pre-born child doesn’t simply have potential DNA, the child possesses actual DNA. This includes a complete design, which is unrepeatable and completely distinct from the DNA of both the mother and the father.
Fetal surgery offers treatments that can correct certain medical conditions before birth. This would be impossible if the pre-born were merely potential life. This demonstrates that “potential human” really means “pre-human,” which is obviously irrelevant to the fundamental scientific definition of human life, as determined by embryology.
Sarah Terzo’s article on Substack reports on a book Pregnancy and Abortion Counseling by Joanna Brien and Ida Fairbai (1996 p.176) – a very pro-abortion book. Even these authors admit that sonographers experience difficulty when seeing a baby about to be aborted. This is unlikely if the child were merely “potential” life.
For a real and powerful story of one sonographer’s graphic experience see Choice 42.com “The Procedure,” witnessing the abortion of an actual human being, not a potential one. It was seeing a real life (not a potential life) being aborted on a sonogram. Abby Johnson’s testimony, famously portrayed in Unplanned, confirms this: witnessing the sonogram of a real human being aborted prompted her to leave Planned Parenthood and become a strong pro-life advocate.
If the pre-born were merely potential life, there couldn’t be a strong objection made against a pregnant woman taking thalidomide, consuming an excessive amount of alcohol,) or taking drugs like cocaine, all of which can cause birth defects. In other words, there wouldn’t be an objection to deforming, addicting, burning, suffocating, starving, dismembering, or torturing a life which is only a potential life. The strong disapproval and prohibition of such actions only makes sense if what is harmed is an actual life, not merely a potential human being.
Survivors of Abortion:
Not Potential but Actual Human Beings
We have real life stories of those who were considered at one time just potential lives yet survived an abortion. Many more stories are at the Abortion Survivors Network.
Melissa Ohden (“You Carried Me: A Daughter’s Memoir,” and “Abortion Survivors Speak Their Silence”)
Jessica Shaver Renshaw (“Gianna”)
Claire Culwell (“Survivor: An Abortion Survivor’s Surprising Story of “Choosing Forgiveness and Finding Redemption”)
Cynthia Toolin-Wilson (“Survivor: A Memoir of Forgiveness”)
“Potential” as a Weapon
What moment is our potential achieved? Then, what is it about that moment that makes us human? What makes this moment different from the potential after this moment is achieved (whether at conception or moments before birth)? One is never less a human because of their potential. There are always events or conditions that could increase or decrease whether the potential will actually happen or be fulfilled.
In addition, once we meet that “potential” that makes us human, does our potential cease? If so, then it appears that our “humanity” as defined by potential is a “dead end street.” If not and we have the potential “to grow,” then growth is not a foreign concept to being human, which makes the embryo or fetus as much human as any other stage of development.
In a pro-abortion rationalization, potential is the enemy. It diminishes us. In fact, our potential should really enhance our present worth and value!
Using the word “potential” in this situation is simply arbitrary categorization. It results from linguistic manipulation. All social engineering is proceeded by verbal engineering. Saying a pre-born child is only a potential life is just another modern example of the self-creating of one’s own reality, divorced from an objective truth. Redefining reality to suit subjective views threatens objective truth and undermines moral accountability.
Conclusion
The consequence of this arbitrary framing is done by those in power, who then determine certain pre-born children aren’t human beings, but only potential humans, which means that a whole group weren’t worthy of the rights and protections afforded to human beings. How is it possible to have a complete brutal annihilation of something that is only potential?
The phrase “potential human” effectively means “pre-human,” a distraction incompatible with scientific definitions provided by embryology. The embryo or fetus is undeniably a human being, complete with unique DNA and developmental autonomy. Labeling any human as “potential” rather than actual diminishes their inherent dignity, echoing tragic historical errors we must avoid repeating.
======================================
For more of our posts addressing abortion rhetoric, see:
Through Heaven’s Eyes: Honoring the God-Given Worth of Every Life
Ava Addams
by Ava Addams
In a fractured world where value is too often assigned by status, productivity, or popularity, the message of the Gospel cuts through the noise with a bold, unrelenting truth: Every human life bears the image of God.
- Not some.
- Not just convenient.
- Not only the ones who agree with us or look like us.
Every life.
- The unborn and the elderly.
- The refugee and the prisoner.
- The addicted and the mentally ill.
- The lonely teen and the forgotten widow.
- The misunderstood outcast and the well-dressed executive.
Scripture doesn’t let us pick and choose who matters. Instead, it calls us to see everyone through the lens of heaven—through the eyes of Christ, full of compassion and justice.
- Life in the Womb: Formed by the Hands of God
Our culture often debates when life begins, but Scripture is remarkably clear. Life is sacred from the very beginning—knit together by divine hands.
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
—Psalm 139:13
The unborn are not potential people—they are people with potential. They are not accidents or statistics. Each heartbeat echoes the creativity and intention of the Creator. To honor life in the womb is to acknowledge that God is already at work, forming and knowing that child with infinite care.
This isn’t about politics—it’s about posture. It’s about a heart that trembles in awe at the sacred mystery of life and dares to protect what God calls precious.
- The Elderly: Carriers of Legacy and Wisdom
In a youth-obsessed culture, the elderly are often viewed as obsolete or burdensome. But God’s Word tells a different story.
“Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained in the way of righteousness.”
—Proverbs 16:31
The elderly are not leftovers from a past era—they are living testaments to God’s faithfulness. Every wrinkle is a line in the story God has written. Every story is a treasure chest of wisdom for the next generation.
The Church is called to honor, not ignore—to listen, not dismiss. The family of God is multigenerational by design. We need their prayers, their stories, their presence. They remind us that God is not done working, even in our final days.
- The Marginalized: Where Jesus Still Walks
Jesus had a pattern. He consistently moved toward those the world moved away from.
The leper, the woman caught in adultery, the tax collector, the Samaritan woman—these were the people Jesus honored with His presence, His time, His love.
“Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
—Matthew 25:40
To follow Jesus is to walk the same road—toward the broken, the ignored, the oppressed. The refugee fleeing war. The homeless person sleeping on church steps. The mentally ill neighbor navigating darkness alone. We don’t just offer charity—we offer dignity. We don’t just give—we stand beside.
True justice isn’t loud outrage. It’s quiet, consistent love that lifts the fallen and restores their God-given worth.
- The Misunderstood and Forgotten: Bearing God’s Image
Some people don’t fit easily into our boxes. They’re too complicated, too different, too uncomfortable. But every single one bears the Imago Dei—the image of God.
“So God created mankind in his own image . . . male and female he created them.”
—Genesis 1:27
That includes the person with special needs.
The one struggling with gender identity.
The one battling addiction.
The teenager drowning in anxiety and depression.
The parent who feels they’ve failed.
To honor life means we don’t define people by their struggles. We see deeper. We see God’s fingerprints. We love first. We ask questions. We listen. We refuse to reduce people to categories or headlines.
- The Church’s Calling: Be a Voice and a Refuge
In a broken world, the Church is not meant to be an echo chamber of judgment—it is meant to be a lighthouse of hope. When we speak up for life, we must do so with both conviction and compassion. Truth without love hardens hearts. But love without truth dilutes the message.
Let our churches be sanctuaries of grace. Let our homes welcome the weary. Let our tables have seats for those who’ve never felt truly seen.
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”
—Proverbs 31:8
We are not just called to believe in the sanctity of life. We are called to embody it—in every decision, every conversation, every act of kindness.
A Final Reflection: Looking Through Heaven’s Eyes
When Jesus saw the crowds, He didn’t just see faces. He saw souls.
“He had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”
—Matthew 9:36
To walk in His footsteps is to train our eyes to see as He sees.
To see the unborn and say, “You are wanted.”
To see the elderly and say, “You are still needed.”
To see the hurting and say, “You are not alone.”
To see the broken and say, “You are still beloved.”
Because every life matters—not because of what it can do, but because of who made it.
And when we finally learn to see people through heaven’s eyes, we’ll begin to love them with heaven’s heart.
==================================
For more of our posts from a Christian perspective, see:
Abortion and the Christian Bible: A Consistent-Life Perspective
The Consistent Life Consensus in Ancient Christianity
Nukes and the Pro-Life Christian:
For more of our posts from additional religious perspectives, see:
Why the Interfaith Approach is Important
Abortion and War are the Karma for Killing Animals (Hinduism)
Conviction When Real Guilt is Irrelevant
by Ms. Boomer-ang
Sarah Terzo, in her October 2024 blog post about the September 2024 execution of a man, despite the fact that the one who testified against him had later retracted his statement and declared he did not want someone to die for something he did not do, observed, “It often seems that our justice system doesn’t actually care whether the person executed is guilty, only that the killing takes place.”
An episode with a similar motivation occurs in Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451, which John Whitehead wrote about in October 2023 for other purposes. In that episode, law enforcers are chasing dissident protagonist Guy Montag. Montag evades his pursuers and finds shelter with a group of men who live outside society. Together they watch the chase on a portable TV. Though the pursuers have lost Montag’s trace, the broadcaster announces that they are converging on their target. Montag’s new friend Granger observes, “they can hold their audience only so long. The show’s got to have a snap ending, quick!” Soon enough the persuers find a man walking alone outside, kill him on live camera, and proclaim, “The search is over, Montag is dead; a crime against society has been avenged,” now on to the next fun program!
Meanwhile, Granger surmises that the real victim was conveniently someone “the police have charted for months, years,” for non-conformity, like walking outside in the early morning.1
History is full of examples where the actual guilt of a punished person is less important than carrying out the punishment. Reasons include leaving no crime unavenged, closing the case within a certain time frame, and taking advantage of an opportunity to hurt or eliminate a member of a disfavored minority. When the punishment is death, additional reasons include emphasizing the triumph of the death penalty, taking advantage of an opportunity to apply it, and dispiriting opponents of the death penalty.
These attitudes sometimes lead to miscarriages of justice and sometimes acts of war. Below are examples of possible miscarriages of justice. In these cases, both domestic and international, more important than guilt or innocence was the person’s ethnicity, birthplace, religion, and/or political beliefs.
Leo Frank / Bartolomeo Vanzetti / Nicola Sacco
In 1913 in Atlanta, Leo Frank was sentenced to hang for the murder of Mary Phagan, a child-laborer in the pencil factory where he had been superintendent. Of the initial persons of interest, the only one charged was Frank, the Jew.
Two days after the indictment, a man reportedly told an Elks Club, “I’m glad they indicted a goddam Jew…. If I get on that jury, I’ll hang the Jew for sure.” 2 He got on the jury.
After conviction, all Frank’s appeals failed, but the testimony led the governor of Georgia to commute the sentence to life imprisonment in 1915. A few months later, a mob kidnapped Frank from jail and hung him, in front of a mass of joyful spectators. Postcards and songs celebrated the lynching, and antisemitic pogroms broke out. Half of Georgia’s Jews moved out of state.
In April 1921, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were sentenced to death for murdering two people in Braintree, Massachusetts, a year earlier, during an armed robbery of a shoe factory. Their execution took place in August 1927.
Prior to the 1920 murder indictment, Vanzetti had been tried for a holdup. Thirteen witnesses swore he was nowhere near the scene. But since Vanzetti was an Italian and an admitted radical, the truth was too radical for Judge Webster Thayer. He told the jury: “This man, although he may not have actually committed the crime attributed to him, is nonetheless morally culpable, because he is the enemy of our . . . institutions.” Vanzetti was convicted of that holdup in addition to the murder he and Sacco were later famously convicted for.3 The same Judge Thayer presided over the murder trial.
Reichstag Fire 1933 / World Trade Center Explosion 1993
In 1933, shortly after Hitler became chancellor, Germany’s Reichstag (Parliament) building burned down. Upon hearing the building was on fire, Goering declared: “Without a doubt, this is the work of Communists . . . This is a Communist crime.” And Hitler exclaimed: “God grant that this is the work of Communists . . . This is a God-given signal . . . If this fire, as I believe, is the work of Communists, then we must crush out this murderous pest with an iron fist.”4
Sure enough, in the building, they found a Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe. By September, five Communists were on trial for the fire: one German, three Bulgarians, and van der Lubbe, who was Dutch and visually impaired. The other four were acquitted, but van der Lubbe was convicted and executed. Meanwhile, Hitler used this as an excuse to speed up establishing an “iron-fist” dictatorship.
Whether van der Lubbe acted alone, as part of a conspiracy, or as a Nazi dupe has been debated. Some theories even suggest that by the time he came to the Reichstag, the fire had already been kindled, without his knowledge, by storm troopers. (Wikipedia, April 7, 2025)
Sixty years later, in the USA, an explosion ripped through New York’s World Trade Center, killing six. One of the cars parked in the basement had been rented to a foreign-born Muslim. Case closed. The literal truth did not matter. He was quickly found guilty.
I witnessed a fellow member of a frequently-persecuted group cheering at the verdict. When reminded that five years earlier, the convict would have been a Columbian drug dealer, ten years earlier he would have been a “Russian agent,” and 70 years earlier he would have been one of us, she said, “Yes, but,” and smiled smugly. When reminded of Leo Frank and Sacco and Vanzetti, her eyes lit up, as if saying, “We enjoy the fun we missed out then!”
In Russia, would the convicted have been a Chechen? In Spain, would the convicted have been a Basque?
Iin 1995, a car bomb wrecked the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 167. At first certain that a foreign-born Muslim did it, people tormented local Muslims, resulting in a Muslim woman giving birth so prematurely the baby died. But then the culprit was identified as an American-born Christian, Timothy McVeigh. Then, even though McVeigh’s opinions on such issues were unknown, New York Times columnist Frank Rich jumped to blame Right to Life movements for the bombing. Can guilt by stretched association get any non-conforming movement in danger of being labeled terrorist?5
Many more examples from around the world of people convicted without solid evidence abound. Several aspects require whole essays of their own. One is plea bargaining, which proceeds as if the defendant is guilty, despite no trial. Another is interrogations that seek to elicit confessions and convictions rather than find the truth. Another is the effect of wrongful convictions on the real culprit.
Wrongful convictions do not make the world safer. The idea of the death penalty or any punishment as a deterrence goes out the window with the disregard of actual innocence or guilt. Accusing and unjustly convicting members of a disfavored minority can unjustly intimidate some members of that group into leaving the area or changing or concealing their identity. Others may become more prone to crime, because they figure they’ll be punished anyway. And it can lead members of favored groups to feel they can get away with any crime if there’s likely to be a member of a disfavored group near the scene.
FOOTNOTES
1(Copyright 1951. This edition, Simon and Schuster, May 2018, pp. 141-44)
2Douglas O. Linder, “Leo Frank Trial,” UMKC Law School, www.famous-trials.com, copyright 1995-2005
3 John Frango, “Today’s Immigrant-Bashers Should Recall Treatment Their Ancestors Faced,” Journal News, March 11, 2000.
4 Philip Metcalf, 1933, New York: Harper & Row, The Permanent Press, 1988, pp. 83-84
5Frank Rich, “Connect the Dots,” New York Times, April 30, 1995
Picture of Mr. Frank found in Mr. Linder’s post
========================
For our posts on similar topics, see:
Not Caring about Guilt or Innocence: An Execution Case that Illustrates a Pattern
Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Death Penalty
Is the Death Penalty Unethical?
The Death Penalty and Abortion: The Conservative/Liberal Straitjacket
Abortion When it Involves a Rape: See the Faces
by Jim Hewes
Addressing abortion following criminal rape is sensitive and complex. Below I draw from nearly two decades of direct experience as the director of Project Rachel, where I have accompanied many women wounded and hurt by abortion.
I also rely on people directly affected such as Rebecca Kiessling, Lianna Rebolledo, Stephanie Reynolds, Jennifer Christie, Kathy Barnette, Ashley Sigrest, Kay Zibolsky, Julie Makimaa, Aimee Murphy, Jennifer Christie, Rebekah Berg, Paula Peyton-IIari, Serena Dyksen, Ayala Isenberg, Teresa delMilagro, Ryan Bamberger, and Steventhen Holland, to shed light on this very difficult and emotionally charged issue.
Understanding the Trauma of Rape
A forcible rape is a horrible violent act, but how society responds to this hideous crime is critical. Many women report that abortion only deepens their trauma, making healing far more difficult. Alternatively, in choosing life, they benefit from recognizing the power they possess to break the cycle of violence and reclaim their lives.
There are many stories in the book “Victims and Victors,” as well as in the DVD “Except in Cases of Rape? 12 Stories of Survival.” I urge you to get these resources so that you can hear for yourself firsthand from a group of women whose voices are not often heard in this debate.
Survivor Stories: Transforming Pain into Purpose
Ryan Bomberger’s biological mother was raped, and he was conceived. Instead of having an abortion, she placed Ryan for adoption. Ryan started the Radiance Foundation and has become a passionate advocate for adoption, knowing that the birth mother may keep in touch with the family that adopts her baby, if there is a mutual agreement.
Kay Zibolsky was raped and became pregnant at the age of 16. She placed her daughter Robin for adoption. She said that her baby became part of her healing. Kay’s response to this difficult part of her life was to start the Life after Assault League, which helps women in similar situations that Kay had faced. Her memoir is The Sorrow of Sexual Assault and the Joy of Healing.
Julie Makimaa was conceived in rape. Her response was to start Fortress International, which has helped with the concerns and needs of women, children and families affected by sexual assault.
Aimee Murphy was raped at the age of 16, and her rapist threatened her with violence if she didn’t get an abortion. Aimee didn’t want to aid the rapist by doing more violence to her pre-born child if she was pregnant. She eventually started Rehumanize International (a member group of the Consistent Life Network) to help educate people to respect all life.
Steventhen Holland’s mother was in a mental institution. They were pressuring her to have an abortion, but she placed him for adoption; he is a part of “Broken, Not Dead” ministries, which helps people in similar situations.
Twenty-year-old Ayala Isenberg was raped more times than she could count during four years of abuse beginning when she was just a little girl, eventually at age 15 conceiving through rape. When she conceived her daughter Rachel, she chose not to get an abortion when she realized that there were people who wanted to really help her. Her daughter was the one person in the world whom she really loved. She knew that children like hers don’t deserve to be erased and that they do really matter.
Lianna Rebolledo was raped at age 12. She saw her daughter not as a reminder of the violent act of rape or some type of punishment, but someone precious who resulted from a horrible, tragic experience. But good can come from evil. Her child was a reminder that love is always stronger than hate. It isn’t how one begins life, but who one will become that matters. Our ultimate value isn’t based on the act that brought any of us here, but the intrinsic dignity of every life. Lianna and other such women refused to let the rape define who they were or who their child was but relied on something much deeper. This is reflected as she speaks out trying to help victims of abuse.
Challenging Common Assumptions
These women and men, as well as others, put a name, a face, a voice, and a story on what too often is just an abstract concept or a theoretical argument. These victors who don’t abort remind us that life is always a gift, never a punishment. In addition, these mothers refuse to allow these horrible traumas to define their identities.
Moreover, there is a flawed underlying assumption in the media discussions:– that all women who have conceived by rape want an abortion. Studies, including those reported by Shauna Prewitt in in her Georgetown Law Journal article, found that at least half, and in many studies the majority, of women with a pregnancy resulting from rape choose not to abort the baby. Many survivors realized that they had the opportunity (because of their great courage and compassion) to show that they are far greater than the rapist. These women knew they could break the chain of destruction and the cycle of violence.
An assault by the rapist is compounded by an assault by the abortionist committing violence within the rape victim. Abortion is a decision and act that can never be reversed but could add more guilt and additional traumas to an already burdened woman (if not immediately, maybe years later).
A rape is a conscious intentional violent act done to a woman. Someone larger and more powerful than her “took over” her body in her vulnerable state. She is the innocent victim of a sexual assault. Why would she, who is bigger and stronger, in turn make a conscious decision to perpetuate this type of violence by intentionally victimizing her child, who is also an innocent like her? Why would she lower herself to the level of the rapist by aborting a defenseless baby who had done nothing wrong? A woman who chooses to bring her child into the world after she’s been raped is refusing to let the rapist turn her into him.
Choosing a Different Path
Abortion after rape won’t “unrape” the victim, and the womb will be forcefully opened again by the abortion. She may feel “forced” at some level to have an abortion. She may because of this become a victim for the second time. Also, she may compound her pain because she will not only have to heal from the rape but also from the abortion.
The abortion could even hide or cover up the crime committed against her.
Rapists should not be executed but should be sentenced to the full extent of the law, including strengthening laws that don’t accomplish this justice.
Yet should we continue to allow the death penalty of innocent pre-born babies where we don’t use the death penalty for the terrible crime of their fathers? In fact, one of the reasons for opposition to the death penalty for those on death row is the possibility of executing someone who is innocent. Aborting the child after the mother is raped gives the child fewer rights than the rapist.
In states where abortion is illegal except for rape, the message of the “rape exception” might give a green light to potential rapists, including those predators of sexual abuse. In these instances, legal abortion may mask the true problems of a criminal rape. Males having a sense of entitlement to female bodies may cause more criminal rapes to occur.
The alternative is more thorough criminal investigations, as well as more rape prevention measures, aimed at addressing the underlying problem of a rape culture.
Love Triumphs Over Hate
Unfortunately, many sectors of society only offer women who have conceived in rape a “quick fix,” a band-aid solution of abortion. Women know that what is bad for their child will be bad for them, and what is good for their child will be good for them. Ultimately, women deserve better than a violent solution of abortion, and so do their pre-born children. They deserve comprehensive support and genuine compassion. True healing occurs when they receive true compassion, an abundance of resources, and encouragement to choose life, knowing others will be right there for them in long run.
==========================
For more of our posts on abortion and rape, see:
Two Women Pregnant from Rape, Two Outcomes
Abortion Facilitates Sex Abuse: Documentation
How Abortion is Useful for Rape Culture
A Pro-Life Feminist Critique of the “Rape and Incest Exception”
The Message of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”: Abortion Gets Sexual Predators Off the Hook
Persuading People to Act against the Nuclear Threat: Some Findings and Recommendations
by John Whitehead
A perennial question for activists is “How do you get people to join you?” Persuading people to accept your views on an issue and then to act on these views is a major challenge.
Addressing this challenge, specifically regarding activism against the threat of nuclear weapons, is the subject of the recent report Rewriting the Narrative on Nuclear Weapons. A joint project of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and Ploughshares, the report seeks to identify a more effective way of communicating to the American public about the nuclear threat.
Rewriting the Narrative on Nuclear Weapons is designed to “support the work of anyone pursuing changes in policy to reduce nuclear threats and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons globally.” The report’s findings and proposed communications strategy, or “narrative,” are intended to “create an opportunity to explore new ways of engaging the public on nuclear weapons and open windows for meaningful policy change” (p. 8).
A crucial feature of the new anti-nuclear narrative is an emphasis on the goal of reducing the threat from nuclear weapons. This goal, rather than the more ambitious goal of eliminating these weapons altogether, is likely to be more appealing to people who are not yet committed anti-nuclear activists.
The narrative’s central idea is “Every step we take to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons brings us closer to creating the safe and sustainable future we all deserve.” As the report explains, “In the face of deep skepticism about the possibility of totally eliminating nuclear weapons…this narrative was accepted by audiences as believable, worthwhile, and achievable” (p. 7).
The recommendations in Rewriting the Narrative on Nuclear Weapons are worth serious consideration by anti-nuclear peace activists. Some of these recommendations may also be applicable to other forms of activism within the Consistent Life Ethic movement.
Useful Approaches to Addressing the Nuclear Threat
Rewriting the Narrative on Nuclear Weapons draws on various forms of research. NTI and Ploughshares retained the services of Metropolitan Group (MetGroup), an organization that develops social justice-oriented strategies, including communications strategies.
MetGroup reviewed research on communications strategy conducted by the nuclear risk reduction and disarmament community, as well as how nuclear issues have been covered by the media in recent years. The group also conducted surveys of the public and extensive consultations with activists and experts from a variety of organizations. MetGroup then developed a narrative on anti-nuclear activism that was refined through a series of focus groups.
The narrative crafted through this process is meant to motivate those most open to anti-nuclear activism while also reaching out to those who may be more ambivalent but are open to persuasion. The narrative and the rationale and research that went into it are complex, and reading the full report is worthwhile.
I will highlight just a few points from the report about communicating the anti-nuclear message that struck me as particularly significant:
- Begin with a comprehensible, even modest, goal.
As the report notes, “There is overwhelming skepticism about the total elimination of nuclear weapons” (p. 30). Talking to people about nuclear abolition tends to elicit wariness. Talking to people about reducing the nuclear threat elicits a more positive reaction. Focus group participants agreed with the statement “Even if we never get all the way to that goal [abolition], every step in that direction will only make us safer” (p. 30).
Although the report doesn’t delve into which steps to advocate, the Back from the Brink Campaign, which I have described before, certainly offers specific goals, short of abolition, that can reduce the nuclear threat. These could be starting points for outreach.
- Emphasize ordinary citizens’ ability to make a difference.
A telling comment in the report is that “People do not think they have a role to play in nuclear risk reduction and disarmament and are consistently left out of the success stories we tell” (p. 27).
A review of media coverage of nuclear issues found that such coverage neglects ordinary citizens’ efforts and instead focuses on policymakers and experts. In news stories from 2020-2023 on nuclear weapons, most people quoted were government officials, with only 2% of the people quoted being ordinary citizens.
Identifying actions anyone can take to reduce the nuclear threat, such as participating in demonstrations or contacting elected officials, can make people more engaged and willing to act. For example, people can contact their representatives in Congress to support the recently introduced H.Res 317, which calls for several useful measures to reduce the dangers of nuclear war.
The next point nicely combines the two above:
- Talk about past successes.
Showing how activists have reduced the nuclear threat in the past demonstrates that success is possible and can also provide an opportunity to show how ordinary citizens have had an impact.
The dramatic reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the world—from over 70,000 weapons in the mid-1980s to roughly 12,000 in 2025—is an extraordinary accomplishment. Multiple focus group members identified this accomplishment as giving them hope that further nuclear reduction was possible.
Among anti-nuclear slogans shared with survey respondents, the slogan that received the most positive response was “We’ve Come So Far, We Can Finish the Job” (p. 37).
- Be prepared to address the notion that nuclear weapons keep us safe.
Research by the Chicago Public Affairs Council in 2023 found that a significant majority of Americans thought having nuclear weapons made the country safer. This notion is presumably rooted in the idea that American nuclear weapons deter other nuclear-armed countries from attacking the United States.
To counter this notion, activists can highlight previous times the world has come close to nuclear war, including because of false alarms; the danger of an erratic or incompetent president making decisions about nuclear weapons; and the danger of accidents involving nuclear weapons. Emphasizing the immense costs of current US plans to invest trillions in nuclear weapons may also be helpful.
As the report explains, the goal is to shift the discussion away from an “us vs. them” understanding of nuclear weapons that pits the United States against nuclear-armed nations such as Russia or North Korea and replace it with an understanding that “all of us” are threatened by nuclear weapons.
Rewriting the Narrative on Nuclear Weapons also has a valuable observation about the language we use to discuss the nuclear threat. Talking about “The dangerous idea that threatening mass destruction somehow makes the world safer” is more effective than talking about “The dangerous misconception that nuclear weapons keep us safe.” As the report notes,
The “dangerous idea” language frames the issue in terms of logic and common sense (i.e., how can threatening mass destruction be safe?). The “dangerous misconception that nuclear weapons keep us safe” implies a degree of naivete, or worse unwitting complicity, on the part of the public, closing the door to further discussion (p. 27).
- Highlight opposition to nuclear weapons within the national security establishment.
The report notes that “survey research indicates that most people say they are likely to trust nuclear weapons experts, U.S. military leaders, and cybersecurity experts more than academic experts, religious leaders, or even current or former top government officials” (p. 27). The example of someone like General George Lee Butler, a Vietnam veteran and former head of the Strategic Air Command who has since become a fierce critic of nuclear weapons, may be persuasive.
Conclusion
Rewriting the Narrative on Nuclear Weapons offers findings and recommendations that may help anti-nuclear activists craft more persuasive messages. Some of these findings and recommendations may be applicable to other issues covered by the Consistent Life Ethic. In particular, the three principles of identifying comprehensible goals, emphasizing the power of ordinary citizens, and talking about past successes are broadly relevant. Let’s take these insights to heart to make our activism for peace and life more effective.
==================================
Some more of our posts on the practicalities in opposing nuclear weapons:
Abortion and the Unwanted Child
by Fr. Jim Hewes
In the 1990’s I was invited to be a presenter to a non-profit organization who was considering moving to support abortion rather than continuing to stay neutral. It was in a home filled with quite a few people. There were two of us on the pro-life side and two on the pro-abortion side. I asked the facilitator if I could go first. At that point I had be involved in the pro-life movement for about 10 years, but I had discovered a new insight that I shared with the group.
I grew up in a home with the disease of alcoholism. My dad was what you would call a functioning alcoholic. He wasn’t bad or mean, but the disease took a toll on our family. That is why alcoholism is called insidious, baffling and powerful. What happens is the focus of the family is on the disease of alcoholism, not the children; they become secondary, a fallout from the disease. This was affirmed for me with others who I met with for years in Adult Children of Al anon groups.
What this meant was I grew up with a sense of feeling of being unwanted. I knew that most abortions were done because the child was unwanted. It was a “light-bulb” moment because I realized that was why I was so involved in the pro-life movement — to help unwanted children not be devalued and destroyed. After sharing this, on my way home, a friend who had come with me said that I changed the whole atmosphere in the room.
In the last pro-life talk I gave, I began with this story. A young woman came up to me after the talk and thanked me. She said that her father always made clear to her that he wanted a boy; now she realized why she became a strong feminist. So, I now begin every pro-life talk this way, inviting people to reflect on what experiences have influenced their decision about abortion.
Do We Kill for Unwantedness?
Kathi Aultman
Dr. Kathi Aultman, a former abortionist and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of Jacksonville, stated this clearly in her testimony before Congress: “The fact that the baby was unwanted was no longer enough justification for me to kill it. I could no longer do abortions.”
This belief—that the unwantedness of a child justifies ending its life—is a completely distorted belief. If the timing of an unexpected pregnancy is “wrong” for the parents, it doesn’t mean life is wrong for the child. An unexpected pregnancy may come at an inconvenient time for some—but it doesn’t follow that all unwanted pregnancies translate into unwanted children.
What happens if there is an unwanted situation of a child after birth? One doesn’t kill the child. Rather, the child is given protection and support by society.
Unwantedness Beyond the Womb
It would be wonderful if there were not only no unwanted children, but also no unwanted frail elderly, no unwanted people of color, immigrants, etc. The key is how someone is treated whether they are unwanted or not. Being wanted is not the measure of the dignity or value of one’s life.
History gives tragic examples of what happens when society deems some people unwanted. Hitler’s Germany, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the Rwandan genocide, slavery in the United States, demonization of enemies in war, of those on death row, of immigrants from other countries, all began with the belief that certain lives were less worthy. The same logic is applied today subtly to groups of people, especially to pre-born children.
Feelings Can Change
Many women initially feel overwhelmed by an unexpected pregnancy, especially under difficult circumstances. But these feelings often change as the pregnancy progresses. When women see their baby via ultrasound or feel that first movement, a powerful connection can form. In fact, Save the Storks reports 80% of women who board a Mobile Ultrasound Van, and see their child, choose life.
Cheryl Meyer and Michelle Oberman, in Mothers Who Kill Their Children, document numerous cases of mothers who have killed their children after birth, and they discovered that for one reason or another their children only became unwanted after they were born. This demonstrates once again from another perspective how unwantedness is subjective and changes. A human life shouldn’t hang in the balance.
Additionally, placing a child for adoption is a loving option.
The Power of Support (or Lack of It)
In surveys of women who have had abortions, they were asked: “what would it have taken for you to have had the child?” A significant number answered: “if the father had wanted the child.” So, the mother often first feels unwanted by the important people around her. Sadly, that unwantedness is transferred to her pre-born child. Unwantedness often stems not from the child’s nature, but from the loneliness or pressure or rejection the mother feels.
Offering support can make all the difference.
A May 2023 peer-reviewed study by the Charlotte Lozier Institute surveyed 1,000 women who had abortions and found that a staggering 60 percent said they would have carried their child to term if they had greater emotional or financial support, or both. Two-thirds said their decision to abort violated their own values and preferences.
Child Abuse: Wanted Doesn’t Always Mean Loved
Dr. Edward Lenowski did a study of 674 battered children that were seen in a medical center (Heartbeat, vol.3 no. 4 Dec.1980). He was surprised to find that 91% of these children were planned and initially wanted. Apparently, these children at some point after birth, failed to satisfy unrealistic expectations or emotional needs of their parents, who reacted with violence toward them.
In fact, since abortion has been legal, society has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of reported cases of child abuse. In 1972, before the abortion law was changed, it was reported that there were 167,000 cases of child abuse; but in 1999, there were 1,220,000 cases of child abuse reported. Although there have been better ways to report child abuse today, the significant increase may in part because of the fact that at the earliest stage of life ( gestation) we treat children as unwanted objects that can be discarded violently through an abortion, and this mentality begins to spread in our society like a deadly virus even after birth.
See more on this at the CLN blog post: Prevention of Child Abuse.
A Profound Example
When I was pastor of an inner-city parish, I received a call one day from a couple that I had married over a year before. They asked me to come to a nearby hospital to baptize their son Jose who had been born prematurely. I met them in the waiting room and then we went into the neo-natal unit. My jaw dropped when I saw Jose because he was born at only 22 weeks gestation. Even though I had seen all the pictures of the pre-born child at various stages of development for many years, this was the tiniest human being I had ever seen outside the womb. He was so small that I could literally hold him easily and completely in my hand. The nurse brought me an eye dropper and I baptized this incredible gift of life.
I left them and went outside the door at this hospital. As the cool breeze hit my face, a profound realization came to me; somewhere in another part of this same hospital there probably was a baby like Jose having his or her life ended through a late term abortion. Intrinsically they were both in the image of God, but Jose was wanted by his parents and thus valued and protected, whereas this other nameless vulnerable life was ended, simply because he or she was not wanted or valued. I wondered what terrible things would happen to us as a society if we continued to use the external and passing notion of being wanted or not wanted to determine the value of life and who will live and who will die.
We Deserve Better
Violence at the beginning of life has made us more tolerant of violence in other areas. It won’t heal the deep pain of an unexpected and unsupported pregnancy, nor fix societal wounds. These women and men, their pre-born children, and society deserve a better solution than the violence of abortion.
Through violence like abortion one can kill the unwanted, but one can’t kill unwantedness. What we need is a culture that affirms the dignity of every life—born and pre-born—and surrounds women, men, and children with real love and real options, before birth as well as after birth.
===============================
For similar posts, see:
Signal Chat: The Media Misses the Actual Scandals
by Rachel MacNair
A journalist is mistakenly invited and included in a group chat of top officials discussing a military strike in Yemen. Details of the operation that’s about to happen are given there, but the reporter doesn’t divulge them to anybody at that point. Indeed, it’s not until the strikes happen as detailed that he knows the texts were real and not a prank.
So the mainstream media and late-night comedians are discussing the illegality of using the Signal app for such a chat since it isn’t sufficiently secure for keeping secrets. They comment on the incompetence of having included the reporter. They wonder whether anyone should be fired over this.
As is their custom, they’re missing the real scandals here.
Scandal 1: People were Killed, Including Children
According to a Yemen Data Project report, from March 15-21 there were at least 53 civilians killed. At least four of them were children.
Anti-war demonstration of Yemeni children (1994)
Much of the discussion in the press is about how the information being leaked might potentially have put the pilots carrying out the strikes in danger. Far rarer is any discussion of the danger that actually happened to dozens of innocent bystanders.
Scandal 2: Callous and Gleeful
The term “collateral damage” has always been an outrageous euphemism, but at least it acknowledges that something undesirable happened. Not even noticing the “collateral damage” is way more callous.
There was a celebratory attitude about having hit the intended targets, totally oblivious to the nightmare caused to those killed and to their loved ones who must mourn them. Here’s a screenshot of emojis in response:
It’s one thing to make the case that military actions are a tragic necessity, that killing may be unavoidable for an important goal that will save other people’s lives. This is common in just war theory, but that’s not what’s happening here. Glee is not sorrow. For those who think it was justified, only sorrow is called for.
Scandal 3: Pointlessness
But it’s not justified under just war theory. It’s not good strategy for the stated goals, since it’s a strategy that’s been tried for years and never worked yet. There’s no good rationale for why that would change and suddenly work now. As is common for the war mentality, it’s out of touch with reality.
As Daniel McCarthy puts it in The Real Scandal of the Signal Leak | Compact:
Yet something else endangers the lives of America’s military personnel in a far more significant way—namely, sending them into another Middle East conflict in the first place . . .
What the Signal chat revealed is that Donald Trump is making the same mistakes as Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush before him—egged on by his conventionally hawkish national security advisor, Michael Waltz, the figure most likely to have been responsible for Goldberg’s accidental inclusion in the conversation.
Scandal 4: Secrecy
It seems so very obvious to almost all media commentators that the scandal is that secrets weren’t kept. Yet we live in a democracy. There aren’t supposed to be secrets kept from the people, since the people are the ultimate decision-makers.
Secrecy doesn’t merely protect the people tasked with fighting a war. It also protects the war planners from public scrutiny. This is a recipe for disaster.
As Daniel McCarthy put it:
The scandal here isn’t what the government failed to keep secret, it’s the secrecy itself and the dangerously ill-conceived policies it serves . . .
What’s remarkable here is the concern with looking indecisive rather than with making a bad decision. Which should be the criterion of whether or not America goes to war? Secretary Hegseth ought to discuss that with the American people—and President Trump, too.
Main Scandal
The overarching, biggest scandal of all is one that we already knew before this specific one arose, and which we’re bound to have evidence for yet again. In two parts:
- We’re still immature enough to kill people in wars.
- Much of the media understand this as normal, and present it that way.
==========================
For similar posts, see:
Seeing War’s Victims: The New York Times Investigation of Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria
Heartbreakingly Common: Suicide Among Veterans
The Preferential Option for Nonviolence in Just War Theory: Opportunities for Just War and Pacifist Collaboration
The Civil War Conundrum, 150 Years Later
U.S.A.I.D. – The Good and the Bad
by Rachel MacNair
The Trump administration is trying to shut down the United States Agency for International Development. The courts are weighing in and developments are likely to change between the time I write this and the time you read it.
The US Congress is supposed to have a say since it created the agency and legally has to have a say in shutting it down, but it seems to be amenable to the idea. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the humanitarian aid will be transferred to the State Department and that he’ll then work with Congress to shut down the agency itself.
So what’s a consistent lifer to think? We at the Consistent Life Network aren’t going to have an opinion on how the bureaucracy defines which group is doing what so long as it’s done well. We wouldn’t get into an argument over whether humanitarian aid like food and medical care is administered by U.S.A.I.D. or instead by the US State Department, or some other entity, as long as it’s distributed with life-saving impact that preserves the dignity of recipients. But the extent to which that’s been what’s been happening all these decades isn’t as total as it should be (as discussed under negatives below).
Opponents of war as we are, the division of sides into the white hats and black hats is something we know better than to do. That’s not how the real world works. It’s a mixture, as practically all of life is, and so I’m going to offer thoughts on two positives and two negatives about U.S.A.I.D.
Positive – Humanitarian Assistance
This New York Times opinion piece says it well: As Fellow Pro-Lifers, We Are Begging Marco Rubio to Save Foreign Aid (February 10, 2025).
One of George W. Bush’s major achievements was the PEPFAR program, giving medical help to HIV-AIDS patients. It has provided help to over 20 million people world-wide, so the lives saved are probably far greater than the number that were taken in his wars. The wars still shouldn’t have happened, of course, but it gives you a sense of the magnitude.
As the “Fellow Pro-lifers” say:
We think PEPFAR should be a special priority of the pro-life movement. Its treatments empower mothers to protect their unborn children and provide hope that the births of these children will be moments of joy, not despair. It’s the same kind of hope we’ve tried to give mothers when we’ve stood outside abortion clinics to offer alternatives, or counseled women through high-risk pregnancies.
This is one of many U.S.A.I.D. initiatives fighting disease. Food aid to places of famine is also crucial.
Elon Musk is claiming “no one has died” due to his cuts, but this is clearly untrue. The lack of care with which sudden cuts were made has led to deaths; The New York Times details some in the linked article.
Even if the administration gets its act together to undo the damage to the organizations that sudden cut-off caused, there will have been deaths in the meantime. Heartless bureaucrats that can’t be bothered to be careful or well-informed about what their policies are actually doing on the ground should be mortified to realize it. They need to repent.
Positive – Autocrats Hate It
From Jon Lee Anderson in The New Yorker: Growing Up U.S.A.I.D. (February 25, 2025):
Perhaps the best advertisement for U.S.A.I.D. is that autocrats tend to hate it. In 2012, Vladimir Putin expelled the agency from Russia, purportedly for inciting pro-democratic unrest; Evo Morales, the left-wing president of Bolivia, ejected it the next year. When Trump announced recently that the program would be killed, there were celebratory announcements from petty despots around the world—in Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán chortled on Facebook that Trump was upending the world order by ending support of U.S.A.I.D., “gender ideology,” “funding for the globalist Soros,” “illegal migration,” and “the Russia-Ukraine war.” Orbán added that he intended to hunt down recipients of U.S.A.I.D. funding in Hungary. “Now is the moment when these international networks have to be taken down,” he said. “It is necessary to make their existence legally impossible.”
Negative – A Pro-Abortion Organization
Last year, about $607.5 million of the U.S.A.I.D. budget was for family planning.
Under Republican administrations since Reagan, this has by executive order not included abortion. Reagan established this as “the Mexico City policy” because of a conference in Mexico City in 1984, and the name has stuck.
All Democratic administrations since then have rescinded the policy by executive order.
So under Democratic administrations, U.S.A.I.D. has become one of the major promoters of abortion internationally. Millions of dollars have not only gone to abortion provision, but lobbying governments to legalize abortion.
It has been common to call the Mexico City policy a “global gag rule.” This pejorative view of what’s actually a life-saving policy, when held by the people supposed to carry out aid under Republican administrations, will do great damage. Aid workers have gotten used to being able to re-establish abortion advocacy when Democratic administrations come to power.
Promoting abortion in countries that view it as baby-killing that they don’t want is a form of cultural imperialism.
From Is Legal = Safe?, May 15, 2014, Culture of Life Africa
As International Planned Parenthood Federation (and other like-minded groups) continues to mount coordinated pressure on African nations for legal and “safe” abortion for women, we see them pouring astronomical amounts of money to grease corrupt palms, confuse undecided minds and harden unsuspecting hearts towards the unborn in various African countries.
This is most unfortunate because throughout our Continent, there is a unanimous celebration of human life from the womb . . .
But all of this is under severe attack by the well-paid proponents of Abortion who have flown into Africa on the wings of wealthy, western pro-abortion organizations . . . They speak with the unmistakable force and arrogance of 21st century imperialists
Negative – Imperialism
Again from Growing Up U.S.A.I.D:
As my family moved around the world, it was clear that perceptions of the United States were far more complicated than that, and not just because of the bloody debacle in Vietnam and the racist outrages back home. In my twenties, when I told people that my father had worked for U.S.A.I.D., the inevitable knowing response was “You mean the C.I.A.”
The proximity between the two agencies was hard to deny. In the sixties, America often disbursed aid as “credits” to foreign governments, which in turn supplied the equivalent amount of local currency to the U.S. Embassy. The funds were apportioned by the “country intelligence team”—which invariably included the C.I.A. station chief. The C.I.A. also partnered with the Office of Public Safety, an American program that trained police forces in Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, and elsewhere. In 1973, after reports emerged that its graduates had engaged in terror and torture, Congress disbanded it. A Senate Foreign Relations Committee report lamented that the program’s notoriety had helped “stigmatize the total U.S. foreign aid effort.”
And a final thought from that article:
Recently, the left-wing author Ignacio Ramonet, who is close to the Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, took a moment during his weekly podcast to ponder the significance of Trump’s dismantling of U.S.A.I.D. “It’s just incredible,” he exclaimed. “Is he destroying the U.S. empire from within?”
====================
For more of our posts on recent politics, see:
Not Panicked / Always Panicked
Trump Sabotaging the Pro-Life Movement
The Deserving and Undeserving Poor vs. the Worthy and Unworthy of Life: How Both Major Political Parties Pick and Choose Who They Help and Whom They Kill
Aftermath of State Ballot Initiatives
Presidential Election 2024: Consistent Life Perspectives
Pro-life Voting Strategy: A Problem without an Answer