In both documentaries, General Idi Amin Dada and The Act of Killing, the authors spent a considerable amount of time with the perpetrators of mass murder. In The Act of Killing Joshua Oppenheimer gets access to the executioners, gangsters and paramilitary leaders who carried out millions of mass killings. In General Idi Amin, Barbet Schroeder spent time with one of the greatest mass murderers and the third Ugandan President Idi Amin Dada. Schroeder was able to document his firsthand account of events. Both documentaries demonstrate the kind of extraordinary access the authors were given and their ability to document the unspeakably painful truth.
In both documentaries the perpetrators seem to have the impression that they are in control of …show more content…
Idi Amin lived the last days of his life comfortably under the protection of one of the richest countries in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, while the executioners of Indonesia still live the good life of a celebrity in their homeland None of them face the consequences for their crimes against their own people. In The Act of War, one of the executioners, Adi Zulkadry was asked about his thoughts in the fact that what he did was considered “war crime” by the Geneva Convention. Zulkadry (aka Adi) boldly claims that he does not necessarily agree with those kind of international laws. He argues that what is considered a crime then and now is subjective. Adi backs up his statement by adding that “when president Bush was in power Guantanamo was right, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, but now it is wrong.” Adi sums it up by saying that “War Crimes are defined by the winners”, he and his gangster were the winners, hence, they can make their own definition of war crimes so they do not have to follow international …show more content…
Vedantam (2010) shows this by telling a story regarding a puppy, named Hokget, adrift on the Pacific Ocean. “Money poured into the Humane Society to fund a rescue” writes Vedantam. People around the world came together to save Hokget even though most of them would never get a chance to see this dog. On the other hand, “Eight years before Hokget was rescued, the same world that showed extraordinary compassion in the rescue of a dog sat on its hands as a million human beings were killed in Rwanda…” (Vedantam, 2010, 401). And the question remains why are people doing nothing to end suffering on such a large scale or prosecute those who caused the most harm and have done unspeakably evil things. According to Vedantam, there are many explanations to the difference in response to Hokget and that of genocide. One justification can be our lack of interest or concern towards mass suffering (p. 402). The reason for this is that we feel personally responsible for single incidents than millions who actually need assistance. Vedantam further explains that “the reason human beings seem to care so little about mass suffering and death is precisely because the suffering is happening on a mass scale” (403). Hokget drew all kinds of attention because she was a single dog lost in a
In both documentaries the perpetrators seem to have the impression that they are in control of …show more content…
Idi Amin lived the last days of his life comfortably under the protection of one of the richest countries in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, while the executioners of Indonesia still live the good life of a celebrity in their homeland None of them face the consequences for their crimes against their own people. In The Act of War, one of the executioners, Adi Zulkadry was asked about his thoughts in the fact that what he did was considered “war crime” by the Geneva Convention. Zulkadry (aka Adi) boldly claims that he does not necessarily agree with those kind of international laws. He argues that what is considered a crime then and now is subjective. Adi backs up his statement by adding that “when president Bush was in power Guantanamo was right, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, but now it is wrong.” Adi sums it up by saying that “War Crimes are defined by the winners”, he and his gangster were the winners, hence, they can make their own definition of war crimes so they do not have to follow international …show more content…
Vedantam (2010) shows this by telling a story regarding a puppy, named Hokget, adrift on the Pacific Ocean. “Money poured into the Humane Society to fund a rescue” writes Vedantam. People around the world came together to save Hokget even though most of them would never get a chance to see this dog. On the other hand, “Eight years before Hokget was rescued, the same world that showed extraordinary compassion in the rescue of a dog sat on its hands as a million human beings were killed in Rwanda…” (Vedantam, 2010, 401). And the question remains why are people doing nothing to end suffering on such a large scale or prosecute those who caused the most harm and have done unspeakably evil things. According to Vedantam, there are many explanations to the difference in response to Hokget and that of genocide. One justification can be our lack of interest or concern towards mass suffering (p. 402). The reason for this is that we feel personally responsible for single incidents than millions who actually need assistance. Vedantam further explains that “the reason human beings seem to care so little about mass suffering and death is precisely because the suffering is happening on a mass scale” (403). Hokget drew all kinds of attention because she was a single dog lost in a