Character Assassination

What matters? Where is the line between informed citizens and TMI? Between honesty and gossip? Between documentary and propaganda?

In the photo above, a South Vietnamese police officer is summarily executing a Viet Cong soldier in broad daylight in the middle of a major street in Saigon, the capital city of South Vietnam.

The killer is an American ally, a uniformed representative of a "nation" (South Vietnam) that no longer exists. South Vietnam no longer exists. That simple and immutable fact should quiet all the revisionists who insist we did not lose the Vietnam War.

So the killer is our guy. His uniform, gun, and bullets were paid for by American taxpayers. He is clearly shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man in the head in the middle of the street. The viewer can safely assume that the victim had no trial.

Does that matter? What about the victim? A Viet Cong soldier, who according to the government of South Vietnam was a simple terrorist. And indeed, men like the victim, dressed in civilian clothes and indistinguishable from anyone else, regularly murdered civilians in South Vietnam.

Did the victim personally blow up a nightclub? Did he murder a nun? Did he torture an American POW? Did he slit the throats of the killer's wife and children 10 minutes before the photograph was taken? Does that matter?

When we study history, we need to know where to draw the line. Like most lines, this line is arbitrary, because any attempt to define an immutable barrier leads to madness or fascism.

When we see a photo of a police officer shooting an unarmed and handcuffed man in the head, do any other details matter?

It is an impossible question to answer. But like most questions which are impossible to answer, this is a case where the most important task is in the asking of the question itself.