Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Tu quoque. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Tu quoque. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, April 12, 2021

Tu quoque

Tu quoque (pronounce to-koh-cue-e)

(1) In philosophy, an appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion.

(2) In international law, a justification of action based on an assertion that the act with which the accused is charged was also committed by the accusing parties.

From the Latin Tū quoque (translated literally as "thou also" and latterly as "you also"; the translation in the vernacular is something like "you did it too", thus the legal slang "youtooism" & "whataboutism". 

An example of the tu quoque fallacy in philosophy

In formal logic, tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument in which an accused person turns an allegation back on the accuser, thus creating a logical fallacy.  It happens when for example when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in order to avoid the substantive matter.

Mother: You should stop smoking; it's bad for your health.

Daughter: Why should I listen to you? You started smoking at fourteen.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

The daughter's tu quoque fallacy lies in dismissing or avoiding the argument because she believes her mother is being hypocritical or at least inconsistent.  While both may be true, that has nothing to do with and does not invalidate her argument.  While not quite the same thing, in 2012 Lindsay Lohan tweeted a hint she had some sympathy with the tu quoque defence gambit: "Why did I get put in jail and a nickelodeon star has had NO punishment(s) so far?". 

International Military Tribunal Trial  (IMT) Trial #1, Nuremberg, 1945-1946

At law, the classic tu quoque defense is an attempt by an accused to deny the legitimacy of a charge by alleging those mounting the prosecution committed exactly the same offence and thus stand equally guilty.  An interesting variation was raised by German Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz (1891-1980), appointed head of state in Hitler's will but on trial for his role as head of the Kriegsmarine (the German Navy) between 1943-1945.  Dönitz argued he should be acquitted because the navies of other (victorious) nations had conducted their operations using exactly the same tactics with which he was charged as war crimes but what was novel was the argument that the conduct in dispute (essentially, unrestricted submarine warfare) was, as practiced by both sides, entirely lawful and within the rules of war at sea.  A great many British & US sea captains and admirals agreed (“admirals are a trade union” Anthony Eden (1897-1977; UK prime-minister 1955-1957) would later remark in another context), some of whom provided affidavits for the defense in which they provided the details of they way they had their submarine forces conduct exactly the same operations which were the basis of the charges against Dönitz.

Defendants in the dock. IMT Trial #1, Nuremberg, 1945-1946.  All were guilty of something but three were acquitted by the IMT and later tried by German courts.  Dönitz (wearing dark glasses) is sitting in the back row (left of the photograph). 

The tribunal's aversion to a classical tu quoque being even admitted for discussion was not mere legal pedantry.  Hinted at by the prosecution declining to indict the German air force for their wartime conduct, despite pursuing the army, navy, and many other institutions of state, there was no hunger to offer defense counsel the chance to cite, inter alia, the carpet bombing (then often referred to as "area bombing") of Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden and other German cities (and of course the matter of Tokyo or the later use of atomic bombs).  For the same reason, the Kremlin had no wish to have discussed the secret protocol to the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact which had divided the spoils of Poland between Germany and the USSR although, because it had become known to the defense lawyers (who managed to sneak-in a mention) the curious situation came to prevail that the protocol, while not formerly admitted as a document, could be referred to but not in detail.  So, in the narrow technical sense, whether specific acts were justified in law depended (at least for the purposes of the trial) on whether or not they were part of the indictment, a position described by one twenty-first century author as “…hypocrisy permitted by Realpolitik” since the novel and vital ideas behind the creation of Nuremberg trial would have been jeopardized had the IMT cast doubt on the legitimacy of the victors’ actions, strategic or tactical.  That has been criticized but mostly by legal theorists who state, correctly “…there is no moral or legal basis for immunizing victorious nations from scrutiny [and]… the laws of war are not a one-way street”.  In the abstract they are of course correct but the circumstances and timing of the Nuremburg trial were, and remain, unique and the matters for judgment so grotesquely horrid that it will always be a special case.

Dönitz’s defense appeared to impress the judges (though obviously not the two Russians who were under instruction from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) to vote to have every defendant hanged).  Although convicted on counts two (crimes against peace) and three (war crimes), he received only a ten-year sentence, the shortest term of the seven imposed on those not hanged or acquitted.  Perhaps tellingly, one has to read the summary of the verdicts to work out against which of the indictment's four counts he had been convicted; it really isn't possible to work it out from the judgment and it wasn't until later it emerged that had been written by a judge who had voted for his acquittal.

Saturday, November 18, 2023

Laconic

Laconic (pronounced luh-kon-ik)

(1) Using few words; expressing much in few words.

(2) A reply or phrase of this character.

1580–1590: From the Latin Lacōnicus (Spartan) from the Ancient Greek Λακωνικός (Lakōnikós) (Laconian) from Lakōn (a Laconian).  Laconia was the region inhabited and ruled by the Spartans, noted for their economical use of language.  The alternative spelling laconick is long obsolete.  Because of the long history, there's no exact synonym but words in a similar vein include terse, brusque, pithy, brief, compact, compendious, concise, crisp, curt, sententious, short and sweet, succinct, breviloquent & brevity.  Laconic & laconical are adjectives, laconism is a noun and laconically is an adverb; the noun plural is laconisms.

Taking Hemlock with Socrates, gracefully

In Antiquity, Laconia was the region inhabited and ruled by the Spartans, known for their brevity in speech and in English, the meaning "concise, abrupt" emerged in the 1580s (although laconical was created and went extinct a decade earlier).  The origin of this sense was when Philip II of Macedon (382–336 BC; king (basileus) of Macedonia 359-336) threatened the Spartans with the words: "If I enter Laconia, I will raze Sparta to the ground." to which the Spartans' replied: "If."  Although allied when faced with the threat of Persian invasion, Athens and Sparta had a long tradition of enmity, realized most famously in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC).  Their differences were cultural as well as political for while the Spartans were known for their dry, understated wit (which we now call "laconic humor"), the Athenians more readily displayed their "Attic wit" (the Attic peninsula the region encompassing the city of Athens), something refined, poignant and delicate, though often not brief.

Death of Socrates (1787), oil on canvas by Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

In Ancient Greece, it was in Athens that art, education and literature was most valued, virtues never forgotten by modern historians, many of whom contrast the earthier Spartans unfavorably although, at the time, perhaps not all Athenians shared the view.  Socrates (circa 470–399 BC), in Plato's (circa 427-348 BC) dialogue Protagoras, detected some cleverness in the Spartans' economy of language which hid their wisdom, revealing sometimes with a brief remark a sophistication of thought and understanding.  Scholars tend however to take this with a grain of Attic salt, noting Socrates’ fondness for a little gentle irony.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

The Laconia Order

The Laconia-Befehl (Laconia Order) was one of the more controversial documents submitted by the prosecution to the International Military Tribunal (IMT) which in 1945-1946 presided over the trial of the leading Nazis.  The order was issued in 1942 by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz (1891–1980; head of the German Navy 1943-1945, German head of state 1945) which he was commanding officer of the Kriegsmarine's (the German Navy) Befehlshaber der Unterseeboote (BdU) (U-boat or submarine) fleet and was pursuant to what became known as the Laconia Incident.  RMS Laconia was a Cunard ocean liner which the British Admiralty had converted to an armed merchant cruiser, making her a legitimate military target.  On 12 September 1942, she was sunk in a U-Boat attack and in the aftermath, while several U-Boats were rescuing survivors with the intention of transferring them to other vessels, they were attacked by US bombers, despite having informed Allied forces by radio that both the Allied soldiers and women and children had been rescued and were sheltering on the decks of the submarines.

In response, the Germans abandoned the rescue operation and cast the survivors adrift.  The new policy was formalized on 17 September when the Laconia Order was signalled to the fleet, dictating, inter alia, henceforth no rescue attempts of survivors were to be attempted unless it was to secure prisoners of military value (captains or ships' engineers) and then only if there was no risk to the U-Boat.  The British prosecution team introduced the order as evidence of a war crime ordered by Dönitz which effectively amounted to ordering the murder of shipwrecked survivors and treated it as the beginning of "unrestricted submarine warfare".  However, the British seem genuinely to have been unaware of the circumstances which led to the issuing of the order and the Americans certainly didn't wish to discuss the conduct of their air-crews, some of whom had been awarded medals for the attack, even though their claim to have sunk the U-Boat were erroneous (though understandable, a crash dive and a sinking visually similar when viewed from the air.  The IMT noted the ambiguity in the order but in the circumstances granted Dönitz the benefit of the doubt and they were further swayed by the affidavit of Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz (1885–1966) who commanded US forces in the Pacific.  Nimitz's submission, supported by others was that the US had conducted unrestricted submarine warfare from the point of the nation's entry into the conflict in December 1941 and that such a policy was wholly lawful under the rules of war at sea.

Defendants in the dock at Nuremberg, Dönitz (in sun glasses), sitting in the back row.

Thus the partial success of Dönitz's sophisticated variation of a tu quoque defense, an attempt by an accused to deny the legitimacy of a charge by alleging those mounting the prosecution committed exactly the same offence and thus stand equally guilty.  The IMT had explicitly banned the use of tu quoque but allowed the argument in this one case because it hung on the notion that unrestricted submarine warfare was, as practiced by both sides, entirely lawful and within the rules of war at sea.  A great many British & US sea captains and admirals agreed (“admirals are a trade union” Anthony Eden (1897-1977; UK prime-minister 1955-1957) would later remark in another context).  The judges must have been impressed but the eventual judgement was certainly murky.  Although convicted on counts two (crimes against peace) and three (war crimes), he received only a ten-year sentence, the shortest term of the seven imposed on those not hanged or acquitted.  Perhaps tellingly, one has to read the summary of the verdicts to work out against which of the indictment's four counts he had been convicted; it really isn't possible to work it out from the judgment and it wasn't until later it emerged it had been written by one of the judges who had voted for his acquittal.

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Football

Football (pronounced foot-bawl)

(1) As Association Football (in some places known for historic reasons as "soccer"), a game in which two opposing teams of 11 players each defend goal-nets at opposite ends of a field, points being scored by placing the ball in an opponent’s net.

(2) As American football (still sometimes called "Gridiron" outside North America), a game in which two opposing teams of 11 players each defend goals at opposite ends of a field having goal posts at each end, with points being scored either by carrying the ball across the opponent's goal line or kicking it over the crossbar between the opponent's goal posts.

(3) By association (sometimes officially and sometimes as an alternative or informal name), any of various games played with spherical or ellipsoid balls, based usually on two teams competing (variously) to kick, head, carry, or otherwise propel the ball in the direction of each other's territory, the mechanisms of scoring varying according to the rules of the code (Rugby Union, Rugby League, Canadian Football, Australian Rules Football, Gaelic Football etc).

(4) The inflated ball (of various sizes and either spherical or ellipsoid in shape and historically made of leather but now often synthetic) used in football, the Rugby codes etc.

(5) Any person, thing or abstraction treated roughly, tossed about or a problem or (in the phrase “political football”) an issue repeatedly passed from one group or person to another and treated as a pretext for argument (often to gain political advantage) instead of being resolved.

(6) In slang (originally in the US military but now widely used), a briefcase containing the codes and options the US president would use to launch a nuclear attack, carried by a military aide and kept available to the president at all times (used as Nuclear Football, Atomic football, Black Box or Black Bag) (by convention with initial capitals).

(7) Used as a modifier: football club, football ground, football fanatic, football pitch, football hooligan, football fan, football ultra, football match etc.

(8) In commercial use, something sold at a reduced or special price.

1350-1400: From the Middle English fut ball, fotbal & footbal, the construct being foot + ball, the name derived from the games which involved kicking the ball.  Foot was from the Middle English fut, fot, fote & foot, from the Old English fōt, from the Proto-West Germanic fōt, from the Proto-Germanic fōts, from the primitive Indo-European pds.  Ball was from the Middle English bal, ball & balle, from the (unattested) Old English beall & bealla (round object, ball) or the Old Norse bǫllr (a ball), both from the Proto-Germanic balluz & ballô (ball), from the primitive Indo-European boln- (bubble), from the primitive Indo-European bel- (to blow, inflate, swell).  It was cognate with the Old Saxon ball, the Dutch bal, the Old High German bal & ballo (from which Modern German gained Ball (ball) & Ballen (bale)).  The related forms in Romance languages are borrowings from the Germanic.  Football is a noun & verb, footballer & footballization are nouns, footballing is a verb & adjective and footballed is a verb; the noun plural is footballs.

Lindsay Lohan in “gridiron” gear, Life Size (2000).  Born in 1986, Ms Lohan missed the fashion industry's first fetishization of shoulder pads.

Although in international use now less common (“NFL” now preferred), the term "gridiron" is still used to describe American football including the NFL (National Football League).  The word "gridiron" refers to the marking originally painted on the field: two intersecting series of parallel lines running the length & breadth of the field which produced a cross-hatched effect recalling the gridirons used on stoves.  After the 1919-1920 season, the grid was replaced with the yard lines still in use today but the name stuck.  In the thirteenth century, a gridiron was an instrument of torture on which victims were chained before being burned by fire and in the same vein (though less gruesomely), in the sixteenth century it described a similar wrought grate on which meat and fish were broiled over hot coals (the same concept as the modern BBQ (barbecue)).  In modern use, it's used of lattice-like structures (though not necessarily of iron) including in ship repair where an grid of metal is used as an open frame supporting vessels, permitting examination, cleaning and repairs when out of the water,  In the slang of live theatre, it's a raised framework from which lighting is suspended.  An interesting (though no longer permitted) use emerged in twentieth century New Zealand land law where "to grid iron" was to purchase land with the boundaries drawn so remaining adjacent parcels were smaller than the minimum able to be registered in fee simple (ie a freehold title), thus preserving the buyer's view and eliminating any threat of gaining undesirable neighbors.  Globally, the cultural and economic impacts of soccer have long been obvious.  Although Lord Moran (Charles Wilson, 1882-1977; President of the RCP (Royal College of Physicians) 1941-1949) thought England eventually would be remembered for her school of physics and lyric poets, the less romantic Sir Richard Turnbull (1909–1998; long serving UK colonial administrator) told Denis Healey (1917–2015; UK defence minister 1964-1970) that “…when the British Empire finally sank beneath the waves of history, it would leave behind it only two monuments: one was the game of Association Football, the other was the expression ‘fuck off’”.  

"Fuck off" has of course flourished in Australia and New Zealand and in some suburbs conversations without it being heard at least once are rare but soccer was different.  It was different in Australia because of Australian Football which, while occasionally called “Aussie Rules” has long been commonly known as football (or footy) so the round-ball game became soccer and the name Socceroo (the construct being socce(r) + (kanga)roo)) was adopted as the official name for the national team.  Australian Football is a game in which points can be scored only by kicking the football between the goalposts and its rules first were written at a time when rugby was quite similar.  In the mid-nineteenth century, although in rugby the concept of the "try" (a player with ball in hand grounding the ball behind the opposition's tryline), there were no points awarded for the achievement; what the try's position on the tryline determined was the place on the field from which the conversion (kicking the football between the goalposts) would be taken and the closer to the posts a try was scored, the easier the kick.  In Japan, where the dominant influence on the language in the twentieth century was the US, the most common form is サッカー(sakkā, from soccer).  In the US, a hybrid (with a few unique innovations) of rugby and association football emerged and was soon more popular than either.  The early name was “gridiron football” but in the pragmatic American way, that quickly became simply “football” but, elsewhere on planet Earth, because that that word described very different games, “gridiron” survived as a piece of product differentiation.  Realizing the linguistic battle was lost, the USFA (United States Football Association), which had formed in the 1910s as the official organizing body of American soccer, in 1945 changed its name to the USSFA (United States Soccer Football Association) before deciding to remove any confusion, deleting entirely any use of “football”.

Ivana Knöll at the FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association (the International Federation of Association Football that, for historic reasons, recognizes more countries than the UN (United Nations))) World Cup in Qatar, 2022.

Noted Instagram influencer, German-born Ivana Knöll (b 1992) was a finalist in the Miss Croatia competition in 2016 and was probably the most photographed fan to appear at the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, always attired in a variety of outfits using the Croatian national symbol of the red and white checkerboard, matching the home strip worn by the team.  Her outfits were much admired and she was a popular accessory sought by Qatari men for their selfies.  She has reappeared at the 2026 World Cup and her swimwear line (including the Crokini (the construct being Cro(atia) + (bi)kini)) is now available through her KnollDoll website.

In Australia & New Zealand, “footy” is the common slang used in all of the four major codes.  Slang terms for footballs include moleskin, pill, peanut, pigskin, pillow & pineapple.  The names are an allusion to the shape and that so many start with the letter “p” is thought mere coincidence.  The figurative sense of “something idly kicked around, something subject to hard use and many vicissitudes” which is the ancestor of the “political football” was in use as early as the 1530s while the US military slang referencing the portable device carrying the materials required for a US president to launch nuclear strikes emerged in the 1960s.  Football (in the sense of soccer) is called “the world game”: and like the game, forms of the word have spread to many languages including the Arabic كرة القدم‎ (calque), the Czech fotbal, the Dutch: voetbal (calque), the German Fußball (Fussball) (calque), the Hebrew כדורגל‎ (calque), the Japanese フットボール (futtobōru), the Korean 풋볼 (putbol), the Maltese futbol, the Portuguese futebol, the Romanian fotbal, the Russian футбо́л (futból), the Spanish fútbol, the Thai ฟุตบอล (fút-bɔn) and the Turkish futbol.  

The Nuclear Football

USN (US Navy) Commander walking across the White House lawn, carrying the “Football” onto Marine One (the presidential helicopter).

The “Football” (also as Nuclear Football, Atomic Football, Black Box or Black Bag) is a briefcase (reputedly made of a reinforced material with a black leather skin) which a military aide to the US president carries so at all times when the Commander-in-Chief is remote from designated command centres (such as the White House Situation Room), orders to the military can be issued including the command to authorize the launch of nuclear weapons.  The Football contains lists of the codes needed to transmit the launch order and the essential technical documentation required to determine the form a nuclear attack should assume.  Apparently, there’s also a check-list of the domestic measures immediately to be executed in the event of an attack including the imposition of martial law and the closing of US airspace to civilian aviation.  This was an outgrowth of the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) Execution Handbook which codified in one publication all essential information needed in the circumstances, something developed during the administration of John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; POTUS 1961-1963) but in the way of things familiar to those acquainted with bureaucratic inertia, the physical size (and thus the weight) of the contents grew and there are reports the package now weights in excess of 20 kg (45 lb).  Of course, everything could be contained on a single USB stick (and the Football presumably includes a number of these) but because it’s something of a doomsday device, everything needs to be accessible in a WCS (worst case scenario) in which electronic devices are for whatever reason unable to be used.

Despite the troubled state of the world, the Nuclear Football has of late not much been in the news but it did gain a mention in one reaction to crooked Hillary Clinton’s (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) criticism of the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) 250 event staged in June 2026 by Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) in the grounds of the White House.  Crooked Hillary had damned the idea of UFC 250 as soon as it had been announced and renewed her attack just before the event began posting: “Remember, during today's literal cage match on the White House grounds: No matter what, it's not his house.  It's our house.  Get a hat, coaster, or sticker to support groups and candidates who will respect the form and the function of the people's house.  Sensibly, her post was on an account that blocked replies from others than those she’d pre-approved.

Despite that attempt preemptively to censor, the backlash was not long coming, crooked Hillary accused of “selective outrage”, those commenting mentioning some of the scandals from the eight years she and her husband (Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001)) lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Scandals associated with crooked Hillary are of course not hard to find and from among those located in the White House, her critics included the pair “literally renting out the Lincoln Bedroom” and, of course, the then president’s salacious behavior with youthful intern MonicaLewinsky (b 1973, with whom Bill Clinton “did not have sexual relations”).  Also mentioned was the “well-documented vandalism and theft of furniture” that occurred upon Bill & Hill vacating the building, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) assessing the damage alone at US$15,000.  Amusingly, the Clinton acolytes had responded to that by saying the damage “was commensurate with that of prior administrations” which is just a glossed admission of guilt meaning: “They did it too”.  At law, it’s known as the tu quoque (from the Latin tu quoque, (literally “and thou also”), best translated as “you did too”) defense; it’s rarely invoked because it’s just an admission of guilt and, in most cases, is not useful even as at attempt at mitigation.  It wasn’t permitted at the Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) of the Nazi war criminals and in his memoirs (1952) wily old Franz von Papen (1879-1969; Chancellor of Germany 1932 & vice chancellor 1933-1934 who secured one of three acquittals at the trial) admitted “It is true that the tu quoque is a bad defence”.

One who really warmed the chance to reply to crooked Hillary’s critique was the retired USAF (US Air Force) lieutenant colonel who for two years “…carried the Nuclear Football for your husband inside that 'people's house' you're suddenly so precious about.  I saw it all up close for two years… while Bill was getting blow jobs in the Oval Office from an intern and groping female Air Force enlisted crew on Air Force One.  You lecture about 'respect for the institution' while your husband lost the nuclear codes.  And when you finally slinked out in 2001?  You and your crew trashed the place—vandalism, theft, the Government Accountability Office confirmed it.  Sit down, bitch, the adults are back in charge.  Compared with that, the post on the Republican Party’s official account verged on an act of kindness, suggesting crooked Hillary should “sit this one out.”  

Set of the War Room in Dr Strangelove (1964).  It’s presumably apocryphal but it’s said Ronald Reagan (1911-2004, POTUS 1981-1989) remarked his only disappointment upon becoming president was that the White House Situation Room was more like something in which an insurance company might conduct seminars than the film’s dramatic War Room set.

The first known use of something recognizable as a “Football” was during the second administration (1957-1961) of Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; POTUS 1953-1961) although in those days it contained purely the vital information and none of the independent communications connectivity which apparently was added only in 1977.  Quite when first it was called "the Football" isn’t known but the term was in use during the Kennedy years and all agree it was based on the idea of the football “being passed” as happens in the game, the link being that it’s carried 24/7/365 by an on-duty military officer.  There’s also the story that “Football” was a refinement (possibly a euphemistic one) of the earlier (and also unattributed) nickname “dropkick”.  In the game of football the dropkick can be used to transfer the ball to another player and it was used as a codename in the film Dr Strangelove, a dark comedy of nuclear destruction.  However whether art imitated life or it was the other way around isn’t known and "Football" anyway prevailed.

The arrival of the Football in Hiroshima in May 2023 with Joe Biden (b 1942; POTUS 2021-2025) who was in town for the G7 (Group of Seven advanced democratic economies) meeting was noted on Japanese Social Media although it wasn’t the first time the Football had been in the city which was the target of the first nuclear attack, Barack Obama (b 1961; POTUS 2009-2017) visiting in 2016.  By the time President Obama stepped off the Air Force One, the Football enabled him to unleash within 30 minutes the equivalent of over 22,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs which, while rather less than in 1969 when the size of the US nuclear arsenal peaked, was still quite an increase on the two deliverable weapons available in August 1945.  The thermo-nuclear (fusion) devices in use since the 1950s were also a thousand-fold (and beyond) more powerful than the fission bombs deployed against Hiroshima and Nagasaki although, as a footnote, while for decades the Hiroshima bomb was a genuine one-off (using uranium rather than plutonium), analysts believe in recent years uranium may again have become fashionable with recent adopters such as Pakistan and the DPRK (Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea)) building them because of the relative simplicity of construction.

For obvious reasons, the US constitution is silent on the matter of nuclear weapons and despite attempts by the Congress to wrest war-making powers from the executive, the implications of the title “Commander-in-Chief” mean it’s the POTUS who enjoys the singular right to order the use of nuclear weapons.  Congress, the courts, the Secretary of War (Defense) and the military top brass have no veto over a presidential launch order, that arrangement a product of the understanding during the high Cold War the warning time of a nuclear attack on the US would be only a few minutes.  A president can of course consult military and civilian advisers but is not bound to follow their advice.  Under the SOP (standard operating procedure), the specifics of the order would be derived from the pre-planned response options carried in the Nuclear Football; as well as target choices there is also the nature of the strike, ranging from “limited” to “massive”.  For the POTUS’s order to be acted upon, they must verify their identity by use of a token (called “the biscuit”) which contains unique authentication codes (on a challenge-response model).  A physical card always carried by the POTUS, the frequency with which the biscuit is updated has never been released but analysts suspect there’s an adherence to standard cryptographic security practices which would dictate a regular (perhaps daily) swaps.  Once authenticated, the order is transmitted through the NC3 system (nuclear command, control and communications), ending up with those personnel who trigger the launch(es).

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

So, in the legal sense, there are no checks & balances operating upon what unarguably is the most serious and consequential act a POTUS could take.  There are steps in the process at which the actions of individuals could stop the strike but that would demand a direct defiance of the chain of command.  The role of the Secretary of War (Defense) is to verify the authenticity of the order and then transmit it to the military where, as a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief, it should unquestionably be carried out.  However, military officers are required to refuse to carry out an order if they deem it clearly unlawful under the laws of armed conflict (and that would include a strike aimed at a purely civilian target with no military rationale).  The legal theory underpinning that is well-understood but what was intriguing was that during the first Trump administration, it was alleged senior military officers had decided among themselves to act as an informal “review committee” of orders coming from the White House, effectively creating a “sandbox” where, if thought necessary, orders could be “buried” while the generals and admirals discussed what to do.  When that was revealed, there was controversy but the approach wasn’t without precedent.  During the administration of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961 & POTUS 1969-1974) it wasn’t unusual for the president when “tired and emotional” to order military strikes on targets here and there (he never suggested using nuclear weapons).  Those orders his aides ignored and when the next morning dutifully they reported their disobedience, the president’s response was always: “Good”.

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

Tango

Tango (pronounced tang-goh)

(1) A syncopated ballroom dance of Latin-American origin, danced in duple time by couples, having many varied steps, figures, and poses and characterized by long gliding steps with sudden pauses

(2) A piece of music composed for or in the rhythm of this dance

(3) A word used in communications to represent the letter "T", most famously in the NATO phonetic alphabet.

(4) In military and paramilitary slang, a code for the enemy, derived from the abbreviation of target using the NATO phonetic alphabet.

(5) A dark orange color shade; deep tangerine.

1913: From the Argentine Spanish tango, originally the name of an African-South American drum dance and most likely of Niger-Congo origin and usually thought derived from the Ibibio tamgu (to dance).  The phrase “it takes two to tango” was from a 1952 popular song; tango first used as a verb in 1952.  Tango & tangoist are nouns, the verbs (used without object) are tangoed & tangoing, the noun plural being tangos.  A 1913 University of Michigan publication noted tango was pronounced either tahn-go or tan-go “depending on your social status”.

Lindsay Lohan in white Kritik sweatsuit, practicing tango moves with instructor, Pacific Palisades, 2007.  It was preparation for her role in Alfonso Arau's Dare to Love Me (2008).

Because of the paucity of documentary evidence, etymologists have long argued over the origin of tango.  Some scholars credit African culture, suggesting the word evolved from the Yoruba shangó which refers to the Nigerian God of Thunder.  This theory holds shangó was morphed through the dilution of the Nigerian language once it reached South America via slave trade.  An alternative theory is that tango is derived from the Spanish tambor (drum) which subsequently was mispronounced by inhabitants of the more impoverished areas of Buenos Aires to become first tambo then ultimately tango.  Less supported is a Portuguese connection, the theory that tango is derived from the Portuguese tanger (to play a musical instrument), a variation of which is the Portuguese tangomão, a combination of the verb tanger (to touch) and the noun mão (hand), resulting in the meaning "to play a musical instrument with one's hands.”  Despite these speculations, most prefer the Niger-Congo origin story.

It takes two.

The phrase "it takes two to tango" is used often by lawyers, moral theologians (amateur and professional), politicians and diplomats.  It applied usually as a way either of spreading blame for something or (often inaccurately) as shorthand for variations of a Tu quoque (you did it too (literally "and you also")) defense.


President Mobutu in Mercedes-Benz 600 Landaulet.

That it takes two to tango was a point made more than once by President Mobutu Sese Seko (Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Bangaa, born Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, 1930-1997; President of Zaire 1965-1997) when responding to accusations of bribe taking and corruption by African dictators in general and him in particular.  He had a point, up to a point.

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Apostolic

Apostolic (pronounced ap-uh-stol-ik)

(1) Of or characteristic of an apostle.

(2) Pertaining to or characteristic of the twelve apostles.

(3) Derived from the apostles in regular succession as bishops.

(4) Of or relating to the pope as being chief successor of the apostles.

1540–1550: From the French apostolique (pertaining to, related to, or descended from the apostles), from the Church Latin apostolicus (apostolic), from the Ancient Greek ἀποστολικός (apostolikós) (apostolic), from apostolos.  The derived form apostolical emerged also in the fifteenth century.  The construct in the Church Latin apostolicus was apóstol(os) + -ic.  The suffix -ic is from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -os, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -os.  The form existed also in the Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically; in English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (HSO) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (HSO).

Apostolic succession

Apostolic succession is the term describing the method through which the ministry of the Roman Catholic Church is held to derive its unique validity by virtue of an unbroken chain of succession from the twelve apostles (or disciples) of Christ.  The mechanics of this are that every bishop is ordained by a previously ordained bishop and that linkage reaches back two millennia to the apostles.  The purity of apostolic succession is an important part of the mystique of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican maintains the linkage is exclusive to them, the schism of 1534, in which Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England 1509-1547) separated the English Church from Rome, sundering also the apostolic succession.  Fearing some doubts might exist, Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903; pope 1878-1903) in 1896 delivered Apostolicae Curae, stating all the Church of England’s ordinations were "…absolutely null and utterly void…".

In terms of canon law, it’s not hard to see the pontiff’s point but the English archbishops soon issued their retaliatory Saepius officio, a highly technical piece, offering a kind of elaborate Tu quoque defense which did little except answer questions nobody had asked.  Almost a century later, the Anglicans offered another, admittedly more convincing but still legalistic, argument based on Anglican consecrations since the 1930s being co-performed by bishops recognized by Rome, so, given the effluxion of time, all Anglican bishops were now also in the old Catholic succession; Apostolicae curae, while not invalid, had been rendered obsolete by events, most obviously the bishops in dispute having by then dropped dead.

The view probably never had any chance of being accepted by the Holy See but the Anglicans’ ordination of women and embrace of gay clergy ended all discussion.  In 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022), head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the old Holy Office or Inquisition) issued a statement confirming Leo XIII’s view, adding ominously that anyone who denies such truths "... would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church".  There the matter has since rested.

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) places hands on the head of newly ordained bishop Peter Bryan Wells (b 1963; apostolic nuncio to South Africa and Botswana, apostolic nuncio to Lesotho and Namibiaand & titular Archbishop of Marcianopolis since 2016) of the United States.  St Peter's Basilica, the Vatican, 19 March 2016.

Cardinal Pell’s appointment as a bishop was in an unbroken chain of apostolic succession from the twelve apostles of Jesus; by touch, he’s able to add links to the chain.  Within the Roman Curia (a place of Masonic-like plotting & intrigue and much low skulduggery), Cardinal Pell's nickname was “Pell Pot”, an allusion to Pol Pot (1925–1998, dictator of communist Cambodia 1976-1979) who announced the start of his regime was “Year Zero” and all existing culture and tradition must completely be destroyed and replaced.

Sunday, June 11, 2023

Succedaneum

Succedaneum (pronounced suhk-si-dey-nee-uhm)

(1) Something used as a substitute, especially any medical drug or agent that may be taken or prescribed in place of another (obsolete).

(2) One who takes the place of another.

1635–1645: From the New Latin succēdāneum, a noun use of the neuter singular of the Classical Latin succēdāneus (succeeding, following after; acting as substitute), the construct being suc(cēdō) (succeed, follow) + -āneus (the composite adjectival suffix).  The notion of a succedaneum exists in many contexts and there are descriptions which are exactly synonymous and some which are merely similar or functionally overlap to some extent surrogate, backup, understudy, replacement, stand-in, locum, alternate, deputy, expediency, proxy, stopgap, body-double, sub, makeshift, fill-in, delegate, temporary, assistant, nominee, replica, successor and substitute.  Succedaneum is a noun and succedaneous is an adjective, the noun plural is succedanea.

Lindsay Lohan body-doubles: The Parent Trap (1998) (left) and Irish Wish (2023 (right).

The understudy is a term from the performing arts (theatre, ballet, opera etc) and describes someone who rehearses a part and is available to perform if the designated character becomes unavailable (illness, injury, tantrum, death etc).  In some cases an understudy may become a replacement if a temporary substitution becomes permanent.  A backup is essentially the same concept as an understudy but is used more generally.  Locum was a seventeenth century adoption of the Medieval Latin locum tenens (literally “one holding a place”) and has evolved as a class-based description of “a temporary replacement”, being by convention restricted to the professions (doctors, dentists, lawyers, vets etc (and for historic reasons the clergy)) whereas a replacement plumber is simply a replacement.  A body-double is used in film & television production to take the place of an actor for a variety of reasons (dangerous stunt work, scheduling conflicts, nudity scenes etc).  Alternates are usually those appointed to some sort of deliberative body, typically a judge appointed to some sort of enquiry or tribunal expected to last a long time, the idea being that in the case the primary judge becomes unavailable (illness, injury, tantrum, death etc), the matter may proceed without interruption.  In this context a nominee is someone nominated to fulfill some role which is for whatever reason (ex-officio, inheritance etc) in the gift of the nominator.  A proxy is particular example of a nominee who is authorized to exercise some right (usually a vote or votes) on behalf of the nominator.  A stopgap or makeshift is a description of something or someone temporarily substituted until a permanent arrangement is made. A delegate is an appointment made to exercise authority held by another but also carries the special value in that the extent of the delegation can be split.  In granting authority to a delegate, the delegated authority can be restricted to a single instance with all other matters reserved for the delegator.  In many cases a deputy or assistant will be able to exercise all or some of the authority held by the higher office but there are no set rules and things will vary from place to place.  As successor is simply a replacement and such situations the word substitute usually isn’t applied.

The issue of the appropriateness of the notion of succedaneum in legal proceedings was explored in the hearings of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) during the first trial of the leading Nazis at Nuremberg (1945-1946).  The first matter considered was whether others could be substituted if a preferred defendant wasn’t available for trial (ie they were dead or missing).  Because of the teleological nature of the trial insisted on by the Americans (who were providing the bulk of the resources and paying most of the bills) which was best served by a thematic approach to the choice of defendants, at least one representative of each defined area of interest was needed.  In the case of the army and navy that was simple because senior officers were to hand and the matter of the air force was fudged by indicting Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945 and Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) although his role as notional head of the Luftwaffe’s and indeed its role in the war received very little attention during the trial; given the Allies carpet bombing campaign had laid waste to German cities which indisputably were treated as civilian targets, it wasn’t something on which the prosecution wished to dwell although the opening address did include the admission the Germans not alone in reducing European cities to rubble and that “… the ruin that lies from the Rhine to the Danube shows that we have not been dull pupils”.  Despite that prosecutorial gesture however, it was make clear to counsel the defense of tu quoque (best translated as “you did it too” (literally “and you also”)) would not be permitted.

The defendants in the dock listening to Kaltenbrunner’s cross-examination, Nuremberg, 1946.

Dead or missing however were three of the most notorious figures from the security apparatus: Heinrich ("Gestapo") Müller (1900-1945 (presumed); head of the Gestapo 1939-1945), Reinhard Heydrich (1904–1942; head of the Reich Security Main Office 1939-1942) and Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945).  However it was unthinkable a trial of the Nazis could be conducted without the Gestapo and the SS being represented so Ernst Kaltenbrunner (1903–1946; head of the Reich Security Main Office 1943-1945) was substituted and it proved a wise choice because of all the defendants, he was the one with absolutely no defense, his guilt established beyond any doubt by the wealth of documents signed in his own hand (his cross-examination a remarkably brief 2½ days).  He was a trained lawyer and simply denied everything although given the evidence his protests didn’t convince even the others in the dock.  He also wasn’t happy about the use of succedaneum, saying more than once he was not prepared “…to be an ersatz for Himmler” although that did him no good and he was condemned to hang.

Dead too was Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) but the trial was not simply about the armed conflict which was fought between 1939-1945; the Americans in particular wanted the trial to be a platform to explore the role of propaganda in totalitarian societies and the way it was exploited by the Nazis in the 1930s.  Goebbels however had been a dominant figure in propaganda and the only official from the ministry of any status who could be found was Hans Fritzsche (1900–1953) who while not exactly “the newsreader” some claimed, was not someone ever concerned with matters of high-policy and he was available for the trial only because, in the haphazard ways things happened at the end of the war, he’d fallen into the hands of the Russians.  Certainly, his voice was well-known to Germans but nobody on the British or US prosecution teams had heard of him and, perhaps more tellingly, neither had some of his fellow defendants.  Despite this unpromising background however, a case was prepared but compared with the mass-murderers and plunderers which whom he shared the dock, the tribunal wasn’t convinced he could be convicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity and ordered his acquittal.  Unlike the substituted Kaltenbrunner who was guilty as sin of horrific crimes, Fritzsche seemed little more than a clerk, guilty of something but not war crimes.  Arrested shortly afterwards by the German authorities, he was convicted as a “major offender” by a denazification court and sentenced to nine years imprisonment.  In the early Cold War however, attitudes were shifting and like many others, he was soon released.

Courtroom during the Krupp trial, Nuremberg, 1947.

By far the most troubling act of (attempted) succedaneum was that of Alfried Krupp (1907–1967).  Krupp was an industrialist and had been head of the Krupp concern (steel works and related production) which was a major supplier of weapons and other materiel to the Nazi war machine, much of it produced using slave labor under appalling conditions.  It was important to ensure a representative of industry be included in the trial and no operation was more dominant in the Nazi economy than Krupps.  In one of those curious mistakes which just can’t be fixed, although it had been intended to indict Alfried Krupp, at some point in the process, a filing error or something happened and instead his father Gustav Krupp (1870–1950) was listed.  The father had actually been “retired” to the titular position of Chairman because of physical and mental incapacity and the error wasn’t noticed until it was too late and the indictment had been issued.  Were it in any other context, an apology could have been made and the paperwork amended but “substitution” in criminal law is a special case and no civilized legal system permits it.  The court had already been made aware that the elder Krupp was physically and mentally not fit to attend a trial which prompted the suggestion he might be tried in absentia but this the tribunal declined.  The prosecution’s alternative plan was therefore to “add” the name of the son to the indictment but this appalled the tribunal even more because it was so obviously as substitution.  By now it was too late to run the argument that the “addition” was simply to correct the earlier filing error and the trial proceeded without either Krupp.

At things turned out, the mistake merely delayed things.  At the time, it wasn’t certain there would be subsequent trials but the success of the main trial encouraged the prosecutors and twelve hearings (referred to usually as the "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials") were conducted including three concerned with the crimes committed in the course of industrial production (Krupp, Flick & IG Farben).  After the trial (1947-1948), Alfried Krupp received a twelve year sentence and the forfeiture of property although he served only a few years before the sentence was commuted.