Overheard in Nashville
I heard two women discussing Osama bin Laden. They were both glad that it would help Obama get re-elected, because otherwise he would have taken flak for escalating the war in Afghanistan. One then said this:
My son asked me, “Mom, is it right to kill somebody?” And I said, “Look I can only think to explain it like this. If someone broke into our house, and was going to kill you and [your sisters], and the only way I could stop him was to shoot him, then I would do that and it would be okay.”
OK, that would have been a good answer if her son has asked why (according to the official accounts) Osama bin Laden shot at the Navy SEALs who burst into his house and killed his family member(s). But that’s not what her son was asking.
==> Yes I am aware of major differences in the two situations. The answer still struck me as rather ironic.
==> I am a pacifist and I understand that my views are in the minority. But it really disturbs me how joyful Americans are over this. Glenn Greenwald linked to this particularly good illustration.
The Vatican came out saying that Christians should not rejoice over the death of Osama. Here’s the statement:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/05/02/christians-should-not-rejoice-at-death-of-osama-bin-laden-says-vatican-spokesman/
I think Greenwald is going too far. Being happy at the death of bin Laden is a natural reaction that happens at the emotional level. Intellectually reasoning about the morality of the situation and concluding that his shooting was justified, however, is not — it requires deliberation. You can do the former without doing the latter, which is what I think Greenwald did.
But then he thinks that opposing the methods used, and believing bin Laden should have just been captured means he must deny having felt any satisfaction, which I doubt.
To borrow from Batman Begins: it’s not who you are on the inside, but what you do that defines you.
“Natural reaction at the emotional level”
Yes, when children scream, cry and shout, they have a natural reaction at an emotional level.
When they become adults, they learn to guard emotions, hold themselves together, and be in charge of their feelings rather than the other way round.
Had there no need for the child to become an adult, there would have been no need for parents and teachers to educate them – let alone tell them not to shout, cry, scream, or laugh out loud.
“An affected manner shows shallowness in a man and lewdness in a woman.” – Hakagure, collection of Japanese maxims.
“it really disturbs me how joyful Americans are over this”
Did you expect something different? The Bad Guy is dead. America is Great. The manichean minds are satisfied and thus celebrate with their tribe.
As for helping Obama, by the time the elections get here people will probably be more worried about food prices, gas prices, employment and how much loot they deserve from the rest. Although, I’m sure he’ll help us remember. (it is nice that Guilliani might not be able to mention 9-11 every third sentence now)
Did you expect something different?
I expect that the occupation of the middle east will continue to result in the killing of innocent people. But I can still be disturbed about it.
“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that” ~ MLK Jr.
Turns out MLK didn’t say that first sentence.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/
OK
I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that
Didn’t care who said it, but that’s how it was sent to me so I felt obliged to give credit.
That’s not really that disturbing to me, maybe only a little. Then again I am in favour of the death penalty for murderers. Many Palestinians celebrated the attack on the WTC. Now that is disturbing.
A trillions dollars, millions of dead Iraqis and Afghans, and the crushing of any notion of the constitution limiting the Feds during “war”………….all for one “supposedly” dead person…..
Amuuurrrricaa!!!!!!!!!! Fuck Yeah!!!!!!!!!
Millions?!! That’s the highest estimate I have ever read. Are you sure that number is correct? Every loss of innocent live is tragic.
Thanks for pointing that out. That should have been singular. I also should have clarified that its not all innocent. That’s including soldiers deaths.
I think it’s more disturbing to hear about people who are not joyful when justice is done. A persons emotional reaction is a reflection of their values and the stronger the emotion the higher the value. If someone’s emotional reaction to an act of justice is banal at best or aversion at worst then that can only mean that they do not hold justice as virtue worthy to be achieved. IMO May 2nd should be made into a National Holiday to celebrate an act of justice that is 10 years overdue.
The fact that such an act involved the killing of an evil person not only serves to illustrate just how necessary and important justice is to a civilized society (i.e. a society that aspires to NOT be evil) it also serves as warning to those who threaten such aspirations as well as a salve to heal its wounds, as I am sure anyone who witnessed (or survived) 9/11 will surely tell you.
One final note, it is disturbing in the extreme to hear people say that only an “uncivilized” person would celebrate the death of any human being regardless of context or circumstances and they usually point to how the Palestinians celebrated 9/11 as an example of how we should not act. But, to do this completely whitewashes the differences between a criminal and his victim, of an act of murder vs. an act of self-defense, that the actions of either are equal and should be treated as equal. Such a viewpoint is nothing less than treason to the victim and a tacit endorsement to the criminal for what else could it mean to explicitly withhold judgment i.e. withhold justice and state that neither the victim nor the criminal should expect anything of you? Who is betrayed and who is endorsed by such an attitude?
I’m with RS on this one. When the police break down doors and and start shooting criminals I rejoice in justice being done. The government shouldn’t have to worry about how they hand out justice or following the rule of law. Shoot first and ask questions later, or dump the body in the ocean and stone wall all questions. That’s true justice. I find the notion of innocent until proven guilty to be the pansies way. If the government said he needed to die then that’s good enough for me. If we kill a few innocent people along the way to bringing justice so be it. You got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? Feel good America, we killed another bad guy. We should celebrate this death with a holiday everyday for the rest of our lives. Immerse yourself in the sweet joy of government murder. I mean what was OBL’s problem anyway? It’s not like we killed any innocent people in the middle east. How dare he fight us when we brought freedom to his doorstep.
I’m going to disagree with the premise that justice necessarily leads to joy. I have a 4-year old son who sometimes does mean things to his friends, and I need to punish him. In a sense that is justice as well, but I get no joy from it. In fact, the opposite.
Similarly, with bin Laden, what I see is a tortured, vile human being. I feel pity for him, frankly, and if you believe in either the buddhist notion of kamma, or Judeo-Christian judgment, it is clear that his worst days are ahead of him. Either, in my opinion, is real justice.
So I feel profoundly sad that a human being is capable of becoming such a monster. I mourn for those who died or suffered for his actions. I am proud of the servicemen who by all accounts executed this mission flawlessly. I am proud of all the men and women of the armed forces, as well as intelligence, who have risked their lives dealing with terrorism. And I feel anger that bin Laden’s actions have affected all of our lives in tangible ways – such as extensive screenings at airports.
When I heard of his death, I felt relief that it’s over, as well as hope that fewer people will die or suffer because of terrorism. but joy? No. Justice may have been done, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a cause for celebration, in my opinion. justice does not necessarily equate to joy for me, but invokes more sadness because justice is necessary. It’s not a lack of principle, but rather a set of principles perhaps constructed differently than yours.
What makes you suppose that justice does not equate to the lives saved by the act? Is that not a reason to feel good?
Justice, as I define it, is about acting to preserve life (as opposed to disciplining a child) and taking those actions sometimes requires taking a life, as it did with UBL. Achieving that goal and successfully completing the actions is no different that fulfilling any other goal and feeling good at the accomplishment is normal.
I think people conflate the action with the goal or the means and the end. If the end is just then there is absolutely no reason to think the means is anything else.
If the end is just then there is absolutely no reason to think the means is anything else.
OK, but there is a fairly famous principle that supposedly is at the heart of Western civilization that flatly contradicts you on this.
no, not really. you are presuming that the mere selection of an end, absent any moral principle, would justify the means. that is not what I am saying.
The end chosen via a moral principle requires a means to achieve it so if the end is moral, then so too are the means.
RS, Murph didn’t presume anything about the morality of ends when he criticized your extremist, indeed dogmatic, utilitarianism.
Suppose my desired goal is to become more prosperous. Is my goal chosen via a moral principle? Yes.
OK, according to you, since killing you, your family, your friends, and taking everyone’s wealth will make me more prosperous, my means are therefore moral as well.
Your assertion is patently ridiculous.
Even moral ends do not necessarily justify the means, because means themselves can be ends for others that are a violation of their liberty.
@ Major_Freedom
“Suppose my desired goal is to become more prosperous. Is my goal chosen via a moral principle? Yes.”
No, since this beggs the question as to how you define “prosperous”.
If prosperious is anything your whims desire then it ceases to be a moral principle as it only applies to your arbitrary whims.
For it to qualify as a moral principle, what you define as prosperious must apply equally to everyone else so in that way it would exclude any means that would infringe on the “prosperity” of others.
What makes you suppose that justice does not equate to the lives saved by the act?
What makes you suppose the loss of countless lives in pursuit of that one death can be decided as being “worth it” by us?
Is it that lives halfway across the world don’t count as much as lives here?
“Is it that lives halfway across the world don’t count as much as lives here?”
Who’s life and in what context?
OBL was a terrorist who proved that he can and will kill Americans so he has demonstrably proved that he is a legitimate and objective threat so it is “worth it” in the sense that less American lives will be lost if that threat is eliminated. That does not me we have a licence to kill anyone anywhere for any reason. Context counts and so do the facts. The people with him in that compound are complicit so their deaths are their own fault. Any innocent bystanders accidentally injured or killed in our pursuit of justice is regretable but the fault ultimately lies with OBL and the people and/or country protecting him, NOT the US.
“The people with him in that compound are complicit so their deaths are their own fault. Any innocent bystanders accidentally injured or killed in our pursuit of justice is regretable but the fault ultimately lies with OBL and the people and/or country protecting him, NOT the US.”
Firstly, I don’t think anyone was simply, specifically, talking about innocents who might have been about in this compound – I believe they were speaking in the broader context of the last ten years.
Secondly, let’s go ahead and take your second point to its logical end. So let’s say police are trying to capture a murderous criminal on the run in some neighborhood. They can’t seem to find him, but they know he’s there. They decide the best course of action is to simply napalm the neighborhood. In doing so, they find that they’ve successfully killed the criminal, along with a whole lot of innocent people. So, in light of what you’ve said, that leaves me with two questions:
1.) Does the responsibility for the deaths of all the innocents in this case lie squarely and wholly on the criminal?
2.) Even if you believe %100 of it does, could those in pursuit have handled things in a more prudent way – sparing those innocent lives?
@crossofcrimson
“They decide the best course of action is to simply napalm the neighborhood.”
This hardly qualifies as a “logical end” scenario.
First, no domestic police agency tasked with protecting its own innocent civilians from a murderer would consider, as part of completing its objective, killing those same civilians in the attempt to apprehend the criminal so I reject the implication out of hand.
Second, whatever it is they do decide to do would have to fall within the same constraints as their overriding objective. No police force captures criminals merely for the sake of capturing criminals, they do so to protect the non-criminals so it does not follow that they would enact a plan that is counter to their own ends as you imagine.
“This hardly qualifies as a “logical end” scenario.”
Right…and neither does jumping through all the hoops we have to get OBL – that’s kind of the whole point.
“First, no domestic police agency tasked with protecting its own innocent civilians from a murderer would consider, as part of completing its objective, killing those same civilians in the attempt to apprehend the criminal so I reject the implication out of hand.”
Right – and I doubt it’s the military’s objective to kill innocent civilians when they’re out trying to get the bad guys. Again, you’re kind of making my point so I’m not sure where the contention lies.
“No police force captures criminals merely for the sake of capturing criminals, they do so to protect the non-criminals so it does not follow that they would enact a plan that is counter to their own ends as you imagine.”
It’s amazing how analogizing foreigners as Americans can suddenly open up someone for insight. I agree with you whole-heartedly. Now replace “police” with “American military”, murderous criminal with “Osama bin Laden”, and “neighborhood” with “Middle East”.
If you can give why your logical/moral insights change when those parties are swapped out, I will show you the difference between radical libertarians and almost everyone else.
@crossofcrimson
“If you can give why your logical/moral insights change when those parties are swapped out”
They change because a government is acting as the agent on behalf of its citizens NOT as an agent on behalf of the rest of the world, therefore its duty is to protect its own citizens and to the extent it has been forced by agressors it must act to do so, collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable. the moral fault lies with the agressors not with the agency of self defense.
that is the difference.
“that is the difference.”
So, by your account, people outside of geographical boundary A don’t enjoy the same rights as people inside geographical boundary A?
Care to explain why you believe this to be so?
@crossofcrimson
“people outside of geographical boundary A don’t enjoy the same rights as people inside geographical boundary A?”
insofar as government action is concerned, it can only be responsible for the people who reside within its own borders. natural rights are natural rights but their practical implementation depends on a government bound to a geographic location and its authority comes from its own citizens not from people around the world in general.
“nsofar as government action is concerned, it can only be responsible for the people who reside within its own borders.”
So we have no responsibility to not violate the rights of people outside of that geographical boundary then?
Actually government action should be limited to within its own borders to start with.
Or be subjected to international law, which the US won’t accept.
“So we have no responsibility to not violate the rights of people outside of that geographical boundary then?”
If it comes down to the choice between our innocents vs their innocents then our government has only one obligation in that regard.
“If it comes down to the choice between our innocents vs their innocents then our government has only one obligation in that regard.”
Oh sweet. That’s pretty convenient for us. So is there a number of dead non-Americans that might equal, ethically speaking, a dead American or is it just a total and blatant disregard for rights altogether?
Nicely put Country Thinker. Life can involve certain grim but necessary tasks.
I am not sure that his death will have a great practical significance other than that due to his removal as a rallying point or hero. To me, it goes beyond justice to in some sense a more fundamental place – it signals that we have not lost our will to survive.
so does this rant mean that you think OBL is somehow innocent? or should be treated like a US citizen and been read his miranda rights?!?
so does this rant mean that you think OBL is somehow innocent? or should be treated like a US citizen and been read his miranda rights?!?
This answer surprises me in light of your earlier thoughts. Do you have a problem with the president putting an American citizen on the kill-list, without any trial or even a procedure to determine the person’s guilt?
Cuz Obama has done that too.
I don’t see what a person’s nationality has to do with your views on killers-deserve-to-be-killed-by-commandos.
A suspension of habeus corpus is not applicable to an American citizen under normal circumstances but I could imagine an abnormal circumstance where an American citizen could be legitimately subjected to harsher treatment than usual, say if he was caught on a battlefield in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban.
Anwar Al Awlaki is being targeted in civilian settings in Yemen. Do you subscribe to the theory that the entire world is the battlefield in the war on terror?
no, but if he is being given safe harbor by another nation then that nation is responsible for any acts of destruction that he perpetrates against US interests and that would establish that nation as part of the war on terror.
RS,
Do you think the U.S. was justified in invading Iraq?
Justified? Yes, but I don’t think it advanced our interests in our war against Islamo fascism. We should have gone into Iran rather than Iraq. Iraq turned out not to be the threat that was presented to us. I certainly don’t like the way the war was conducted or what we did thereafter, none of that was in any way helpful and indeed it is probably very harmful in the long run.
Ok, now your views make sense to me RS.
Great question Richard Moss. I didn’t realize he was just following the neocon drumbeat. Poor soul.
RS,
You wrote ” Iraq turned out not to be the threat that was presented to us.”
I appreciate your answering the question, but I am a bit puzzled by your answer.
You say it was justified, but suggest the invasion was based on bad information. Not only that it was conducted badly and was counter-productive.
What, then, made it justified?
Furthermore, would it be only regrettable if an Iraqi accidentally killed a few innocents in his pursuit of those responsible for the misinformation and poor execution of the Iraqi invasion?
I think the Iraq war was a crime, I think much of the mis-information on which it was based was deliberate, but I think accidentally killing innocents -let alone several thousand -in pursuit of those responsible would be certainly more than regrettable. It would also be a crime.
@ Richard Moss,
It was justified because Sadaam was a tyrant and was supporting terrorism around the world (Palestinians) as well as posing a threat to our interests by pursuing WMDs although not to the extent we believed.
Fabricated or not he still posed a threat, just not an immediate one. Iran was/is the immediate threat.
As far as Iraqi’s killing US innocents goes, it does not compare. Iraqis were living under an oppressive regime that did not allow any dissent and threatened its neighbors with aggression. Iraqis and their political representatives do not recognize individual rights nor are they defending themselves from someone (the US?) who is trying to take them away. All they are doing is fighting us for the right to subjugate their own people (in the same way Hamas and the PLO is doing with the Palestinians). No one doing that can have any claim to be acting in self-defense, justice or “rights” as we here in the US know them.
@RS
Well that depends. Are you saying innocent in terms of 9/11 or some other terrorist attack? In terms of 9/11 not even the FBI has charged him with that crime so if you are rejoicing over his death because of 9/11 I find it sad. What proof is there that OBL planned and orchestrated 9/11?
That doesn’t mean I like or respect the guy. I don’t like any person that commits acts of aggression to achieve their ends unless it is done in self defense. I feel the same way about Obama and Bush murdering innocent people as I do a “terrorist” murdering innocent people. I don’t differentiate between good and bad cold blooded killers. I also don’t rejoice in capital punishment. I rejoice in rule by laws and not rule by tyrants.
As for whether he should have rights, my answer is yes. I don’t see any reason for the rule of law should be thrown out because a group of people hate someone. I wouldn’t support murdering anyone without giving them a chance to defend themselves in a court of law. I don’t see why where you are born should make that any less true.
@Dan
Innoncent as in morally and legally. when someone attacks you or declairs war on you or othewise posses an existential threat to you there is no “legal process” other than to resort to the immediate force of self defense.
You obviously already know he is guilty of the crimes, he himself has admitted them and we have corroborating evidence, our government does not need to build a legal “case” for war. It simply has to determine the threat and gain the proper legal authority and then eliminate it. Thats an oversimplification but that is the gist of it. If you disagree then I would not be surprised to hear you say we would need some kind of rediculous UN approval or some such nonsense. When someone is shooting at you you dont stop and ask permission to shoot back.
As far as his “rights” goes, what rights could OBL claim and on what grounds? none. his actions have uniquivically stripped him of any claim to any right or even a consideration to right whatever, not to even mention the fact that “rights” and their protection only apply to citizens within legal context, not to non-citizens who have declaired war. The rule of any countries laws only applies to its own citizens and any country it treats with. what treaty did we have with OBL?
“when someone attacks you or declairs war on you or othewise posses an existential threat to you there is no “legal process” other than to resort to the immediate force of self defense.”
Except when we try the criminals responsible like in the numerous other terrorist incidents that were tried in court. Hey, come to think of it, the first attack on the twin towers was tried in our court system. I guess you feel justice wasn’t served because no innocent people were killed in a full blown war apprehending these criminals.
“You obviously already know he is guilty of the crimes, he himself has admitted them and we have corroborating evidence, our government does not need to build a legal “case” for war.”
What evidence? Why didn’t the FBI charge him for 9/11 like other crimes he committed. I’m not denying the guy didn’t commit any crimes but 9/11 hasn’t been charged against him.
“If you disagree then I would not be surprised to hear you say we would need some kind of rediculous UN approval or some such nonsense. When someone is shooting at you you dont stop and ask permission to shoot back.”
I’m a libertarian. Do you know what that means? I’m guessing no from the above comment.
“the fact that “rights” and their protection only apply to citizens within legal context, not to non-citizens who have declaired war. The rule of any countries laws only applies to its own citizens and any country it treats with. what treaty did we have with OBL?”
Oh, I thought rights came from our nature. I didn’t realize rights come from the government. USA USA USA! FREEEEDUMB!
Kill em all and let God sort them out, right RS?
“I’m not denying the guy didn’t commit any crimes but 9/11 hasn’t been charged against him. ”
so then is it your opinion that a legitimate war is fought by capturing enemy soldiers on the battlefied, trying them in a civilian court, build a legal case against them, and if found guilty, return them to the battle field with their weapons and then let our soldiers kill them?
is that what your post implies or am I missing something?
Should all murderers be shot in their homes? No attempt at arrest, just kill them without a trial?
Is that what you are implying or am I missing something?
“not to even mention the fact that “rights” and their protection only apply to citizens within legal context, not to non-citizens who have declared war. ”
This is patently false. The US constitution, and all its protections, extend to anyone under US jurisdiction. This includes anyone captured and held in territories the US has jurisdiction over.
This is the EXACT reason the Supreme Court ruled detainees at Gitmo had to be given Habeus reviews. Ashcroft and Bush tried to argue that Gitmo wasn’t under US jurisdiction, but (citing countless cases of the US trying individuals at Gitmo in Federal courts) they rejected the argument.
It also didn’t help that while Bush and Ashcroft were arguing in courts that Gitmo wasn’t under US jurisdiction, Bush was receiving legal advice that for the purposes of torture Gitmo WAS under US jurisdiction.
Im no legal expert but I do believe that a battlefield (where most of these people were captured) on foreign soil does not fall under US jurisdiction, at leas not until the territory is formally annexed after it is taken in battle.
Any person held in US territory, under US jurisdiction has the right to a habeus review as guaranteed by the constitution. This wasn’t even challenged by Bush and Ashcroft. It is fact. They were asserting that Gitmo isn’t US territory. They honestly argued in open court that it is under Cuba’s jurisdiction. You go try telling the Navy commanders there that they actually take orders from Castro….. we’ll see how well that goes. They lost this case.
Even absent that. The right to habeus corpus is one of the central tenets of Anglo-Saxon law, traced all the way back to the freaking magna carta.
ALL persons being held against their will have the right to challenge their captivity. Period. Regardless of any constitution, law, treaty, or anything. This is the most important, inalienable, natural right a person has when confronted with a government that wishes to have him disappear.
habeus corpus may apply but all that means is they get a military trial.
they are not civilians so they are not entitled to the same civil rights as a US citizens.
Dan,
You ask for proof that OBL ocrastrated the 9/11 attacks.
Among other things, we have videos of Bin Laden claiming responsibility for orcastrating the 9/11 attacks.
Is that not proof?
A lot of people like to say that but it isn’t true.
This is from wiki but I couldn’t post the direct link for some reason from my phone. Gary North’s lrc article from tues has a link to it though. If you do find some evidence you should pass it on to the FBI because they are obviously not aware of it.
Posted to Secrecy News blog on September 12, and copied to similar sites including Wikileaks.org, the ten years of messages span from 1994-2004. The packet, issued in 2004, is nearly 300 pages, and labeled “official use only”. It was translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), a division of the CIA, and includes interviews with bin Laden from various news agencies and also includes messages he sent directly to the United States.
One message includes bin Laden’s denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.
“Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest,” said bin Laden on September 16, 2001, just five days after the attacks.
tin hat anyone?
I just posted something that the CIA provided. I thought providing info given by your Gods of war would suffice.
Werent you crying about ad hominem a few different times on this blog RS? So does that mean you are childish and can’t make a coherent argument like you said about RG?
the idea that OBL is innocent of being a material player in worldwide attrocities going back as far as the early 1990s is just plain silly, hence the tin hat.
does that satisfy?
So you are changing the topic? I agreed on this blog that the guy is not innocent of all crimes and never said any differently. I only said he was never charged with 9/11, didn’t take responsibility, and the government hasn’t made a case that he is responsible.
I find it funny that you have brought up 9/11 repeatedly in connection with OBL. When I challenge that assumption your response is to say tin hat and imply I’m saying something different than what I actually wrote. Coming from a guy that likes to cry out ad hominem, like it is forever your word of the day, that is comical.
“I think it’s more disturbing to hear about people who are not joyful when justice is done. A persons emotional reaction is a reflection of their values and the stronger the emotion the higher the value.”
So what does that say of the indifference to the death of innocent foreigners?
“So what does that say of the indifference to the death of innocent foreigners?”
EXACTLY.
The loss of innocent life is regretable certainly, but the moral fault lies with the criminal and those who harbor him. It boils down to which innocents our government is reponsible to protect first, its own citizens or every else. If our government is in fact our government then its primary responsibility lies with us.
We’re not talking about fault here. We’re talking about what a person’s reaction to something says about their character and morals. Your assertion is that people with a reaction to justice that “is banal at best or aversion at worst ” must not hold justice highly in their morals.
The logical conclusion is that people that have a reaction to murder of innocents that “is banal at best or aversion at worst ” must not hold murder of innocents to be very reprehensible.
Im sorry, who exactly were you referring to as being “indifferent” to the death of innocents and in what context?
I never, outside of extremely progressive (the mainstream left is pretty bloodthirsty now that Obama is in charge) or libertarian blogospheres , hear anyone deride the deaths of innocents. You yourself, just a couple of posts up, put the fault on the innocents for simply being in the same geographical area as terrorists.
No, I put the fault with the terrorists, not with their victims.
You are deliberatly misrepresenting what I wrote. Go back and read it again, after you get off of your mountain.
Your insanity springs from your belief that government is an instrument of protection.
ad hominem is not an argument
Ad hominem, wasn’t that a Foghorn Leghorn cartoon?
I don’t know, being excited over a murder strikes me as a bit insane no matter how many psychos agree with you.
ahh, here it is. OBL was “murdered” was he? if so, then by the same reasoning, any act of self defense is murder. so the act of defending oneself is defacto murder and, by this premise, in order to avoid murder one should submit to being murdered.
sound about right?
who is the insane one here?
I think you mean self deluded.
I’m just poking you with a stick.
I was you just a few years ago. Losing my worship of the military was the most difficult task I had, but hopefully one day soon it will click for you too.
You can find a lot of good info here, but I found mises.org had the most to offer during my early learning stages.
Check out Hoppe, he tends to have the most powerful yet easily understood writings.
“The fact that such an act involved the killing of an evil person not only serves to illustrate just how necessary and important justice is to a civilized society…”
No offense, RS, but I stopped reading your comment right there.
your loss then 😉
Judging from the other ridiculous comments you’ve made in this thread, I’ll have to disagree.
…as I am sure anyone who witnessed (or survived) 9/11 will surely tell you.
I was going to NYU at the time. From my apartment in New Jersey I watched the second tower go down with my own eyes (i.e. not on TV). My roommate was going to work in the financial district and had debris from the second plane collision fall on his back as he ran away from the Twin Towers.
So as someone who witnessed 9/11 with my own eyes, I will surely tell you I get no satisfaction that the president apparently ordered his employees to purposely go kill somebody.
even if that someone was the perpetrator to what you, personally, witnessed?
does that mean that you think the victims of 9/11, yourself being one of them, are morally equal to OBL? did they deserve what was done to them? did you, personally, derserve that?
Of course not.
ok, then if no one deserved it and OBL is evil and his victims are not then it must be true that what he did is a threat to good people everywhere so if his death is what is required to remove that threat then its execution in fact can only be a positive, a removal of a dangerious threat against good people.
So then how can you honestly say that such an act gives you NO satisfaction? Is it not true that the world is a better place with him not in it? if so, then why would an “improvement” over the current state of affairs NOT be met with some kind of positive emotion?
Answer me that?
Some people just don’t get satisfaction from murder. I know that is strange to you since you find so much satisfaction in people you believe to be evil being murdered.
News alert: Dr. Robert Murphy is a Christian and a pacifist. Have you ever heard the saying from Jesus about turning the other cheek. You know, some people actually believe that.
hmmm. murder again. did you read my other post on murder Dan?
apparently OBL was murdered. is this another newsflash? was he innocent of 9/11? do you have evidence exonerating him for his crimes?
Yeah I read it and found it just as bad as everything else you have had to say on this issue.
RS and Dan: I think this is a very important conversation, and I’d like to write a blog piece that posts all three of our comments to elicit responses from my readers. This is a significant event, to say the least, and I think the “reaction” component is fascinating. May I have your permission to reprint your comments? Or, if you would prefer an opportunity to refine your statements, would you be willing to give me a paragraph or two summarizing your opinions?
Sure, I don’t mind. So long as you don’t take my comments out of the context in which they were stated. Justice, as I am using the term, is about treating people as they deserve, according to some moral principle. In my view the principle is the sanctity of life and individual rights so “justice” means that one treats a destroyer of life differently than one treats a preserver of life, to the extent that they both deserve.
RS, I absolutely, positively do NOT want to take your comments out of context. In this case, it is my job to explain the context as accurately as possible, because, as the long string of comments suggests, this is a fascinating debate. The post will essentially be a brief description of RPM’s post, followed bvy our three comments, and then ask folks if they have anything to say or add.
@country thinker
I hope you got the sarcasm from my comment above. I’m in line with your comments other than the respect for the servicemen. I don’t find what they are doing in the middle east respectable in the slightest.
point taken, but they’re not choosing their mission.
RS & Dan, the post is up at http://www.countrythinker.com. I pretty much put our three comments in without any commentary. Let me know if you have any issues with how I’ve presented the material.
“But it really disturbs me how joyful Americans are over this.”
Agreed
I think I agree with Country Thinker. Was I proud of the servicemen and the job that they did? Yes. Did obl get what he deserved? Yes. Did his death bring me joy? No.
Those who are celebrating rejoice at the death of obl because he caused the death of innocent people. So, what should the celebrants do about Gadaffi’s three grandchildren who were killed by a NATO missile?
Oh, I forgot: NATO was not shooting at Gadaffi because the stated position is that NATO is there to level the playing field, not kill Gadaffi. I also forgot that the US has taken a back-seat in the NATO operation and that NATO decisions were/are made completely without US influence.
Both of the above-mentioned things MUST be true, because if they were false, then the US could also be accused of killing innocents.
Servicemen sounds so much nicer than psychotic mercenaries.
RG don’t you know you HAVE to support the troops. They are responsible for your freedom. (sarcasm)
Defending freedom…while receiving stolen property.
But without them, GDP would disintegrate (sarcasm)
I think we’re in agreement that justice does not necessarily equate to joy.
Just a few years back I would have been waving a flag and praising this killing. My reflection fills me with regret and a bit of disgust.
I urge anyone that feels good, or triumphant, or justified about this episode to re-examine liberty. Re-examine economics. Re-examine yourself.
The world is much clearer when you lift the state’s veil.
your “clarity” is my confusion.
Indeed.
I felt the rejoicing was wrong, in fact, it was disgusting. The dancing I saw in the streets of DC put me in mind of the Somalis who tap danced on the Rangers corpses in Mogadishu. We did not do this when Hitler killed himself, or when we nuked Japanese cities, or when islands in the Pacific or cities in Europe fell. We may have been pleased with the progress, if we saw it as that, we tended to view it as a nasty job to be done. That we rejoice in such things says something about what we are becoming.
Busting into Laden’s home may be viewed as wrong, but at least we didn’t fly a couple of planes loaded with a couple of hundred people into it. Matt 26:52 “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” Like the song says, “Lay that pistol down babe, lay that pistol down. Pistol packin’ mama, lay that pistol down.”
JimS
Bob,
I read your old articles about pacifism the other day and have a few comments, but I don’t want to threadjack. If you’re so inclined, I would be interested in a post explaining why you are a pacifist (which need not be any more elaborate than linking to your prior articles).
OK I’ll do that. If I forget feel free to remind me.
Looking forward to that post. I was kind of surprised to read that you are a pacifist.
Seeing as the killing of OBL (for his common practice of planning, financing and ordering killings) was so outrageous and uncalled for, I must conclude that planning, financing, and ordering killings is not a particularly grave set of crimes:
Thus, I am not inclined to go over-hard on the US government for planning, financing and ordering the killing of OBL.
Thank you very much Cody!
…for very eloquently pointing out the blatant hypocrisy and double standards of many of the people on this post (RG and DAN) who cannot seem to tell the difference between murder and self-defense.
I’m pretty sure breaking into someone’s home and shooting them in the face while unarmed is murder.
I’m certain you see the people killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center as murder victims, but OBL saw it as self defense.
Right. So RG explicitly asserts that the vicitims of 9/11 are not really victims but rather they were the perpetrators who deserved to die because OBL was defending himself from them.
Who else but RG and Dan would agree with this?
“Uran antimairkin, sanniggra lubber!”
Of course the people in the WTC attaks were murdered. But I don’t believe the proper response is to support destroying tens of thousands of additional families on the other side of the world. That’s not justice, that’s psychotic.
its pointless to argue with someone who changes tunes as much as you do. try talking out of only one side of your mouth, perhaps you may even come to understand yourself.
this post began with the killing of OBL and the reaction to it, NOT with “tens of thousands of additional families on the other side of the world”.
“Uran antimairkin, sanniggra lubber!”
more ad hominem from RG, childish and apparently meant to copensate for a complete lack of a cohesive argument.
I think RS is making a deeper point that is being missed because of the politics surrounding our actions in the Middle East. I’m going to use a less emotional example. Let’s assume that we have a murderer. He is guilty and he is found guilty. He is sentenced to life in prison. Does that news bring you joy? From these comments I would assume that, for most of you, it would not.
You could respond by saying that, as a libertarian and a lover of freedom, you could never be happy watching another human being be denied any and all liberty for the rest of his life. However, you would be guilty of RS’s accusation — that seeing justice done does not bring you joy.
Personally, I would fight the implication of that accusation rather than get into the banalities of “international law” when it comes to a particularly evil mass murderer.
Thank you Scott! Its nice to know Im not the only one trying to bring a different perspective here.
Ill restate what I put to Dr. Murphey in a post above. An act of justice is fundamentally about improving things, like adding value or as the Austrians like to say “removing discomfort or dissatisfaction” (a glass half emplty way of looking at things btw) so removing a threat to peace and order, by killing if necessary, is an improvement over the current state of affairs. In OBL case it means that he can no longer be the CAUSE of any FUTURE deaths.
I will put it to anyone in this post that THAT is a reason to feel good.
who is going to disagree and on what grounds?
It is a certainty that RS’s counterpart living in Saudia Arabia believes that the 9/11 deaths were justified as well.
Thanks RG, for restating your position on the moral status of the 9/11 victims…or should I now say perpetrators as you seem to think?
I believe they were murdered as well.
so they were both murdered and murderers?!? which side of your mouth shold I respond to first?
I’m not a Blood or a Crip, but I can say without question that they’ve murdered each other and their behavior proves their insanity.
ah, I see. again the comparison and equivication of the 9/11 victims to their murderers. those who died are no better than thugs who deserved what they got?
you just keep repeating and rehashing the same old tune, first one way, then another.
Don’t worry RG, I think most people reading, including myself, are not so dense to not see the bloods and crips as US government and OBL in your post. A rational person can see that it would be idiotic to stretch your statement into meaning you hate the 9/11 victims. Some people just don’t like an intellectually honest debate.
Oh I see it, I just dont agree with the comparison. Conflating the actions of the US and the actions of UBL is the same as conflating the actions of a criminal and a victim, it erases any differnence between the two.
I find it highly hypocritical that people who think as you do shout from the mountaintops that violence is bad and then proceed to rip everyone, murderer and victim alike, for doing violence, never once applying any rational standard to who is doing violence to whom and why. violence is violence is violence so it is bad bad bad.
your words are as empty as your heads.
“From these comments I would assume that, for most of you, it would not.”
Two points:
There is a difference (subtle as it may be) between vengeance and justice. We can find relief in order being restored, but the fact that it was put into disarray by someone, and the fact that we must now employ some kind of reciprocal violence upon another to restore that are both regretful; they are costly.
In other words, I may be happy that open-heart surgery saved my life. But I’m not happy that they had to crack my sternum. The fact that I’m afflicted and that there’s a costly remedy is regretful.
Which brings me to my second point….
It’s not clear to me precisely what killing (as opposed to detaining) bin Laden has done for us. I’m not even sure the net effect is positive. But I doubt it will stop terror; it’s not clear that he even played an important role as of late. His death, on the other hand, may….
This is where I can see the division between vengeance and justice. I don’t know what order has been restored by his death. His killing cannot bring back what was lost. And I can think of no future harm that could have not been avoided via detainment. And, ultimately, at what cost should we NOT pursue such a criminal? Surely there must be a line. Did we pass it? Some of us think so.
As Will Wilkinson noted, killing him at this point is like watching a losing basket-ball team shooting three-pointers in an empty arena for 2 hours after a lost game until they score the would-have-been winning shot. There was perhaps a time when the costs of his apprehension were more palatable. That time passed quite a long time ago for many of us. You can revel in the post-game shot you sunk but…
Spilled milk….
Water under the bridge….
Blue on black….
Etc.
“The fact that I’m afflicted and that there’s a costly remedy is regretful.”
ok, now drop the myopic pretense and short sightedness and realize that you will live to see another day and..what? dont you feel any better? is it not “good” to live another day?
If you have a mouthful of cavities and have to endure 24 hours of pain at the dentist, isnt it better after, knowing that you will have the use of your teeth for a few more years?
same thing with justice.
If you dont see the killing of OBL as justice and as a positive then you are not looking ahead, you are fixated on the tree in front of you.
standing aside and letting acts of destruction go by unpunished encourages future acts of destruction.
it takes a bit more thought foresight to see how people who choose to participate in acts of destruction will view your lack of action and take that as tacit approval to go ahead and make those choices.
OBL may not have been a direct threat to anyone anylonger, a very debatable argument, but he most certainly was an indirect threat to all as long as he remained alive and unpunished for his actions.
” is it not “good” to live another day?”
This is the whole point I’m making – which you apparently missed. There’s a difference between being happy that you’ve circumvented loss (which, by the way, isn’t clear what we did by killing OBL) and rejoicing in the death of a person. It’s the difference between rejoicing in your sternum being cracked open and being happy that you’ll live a bit longer. I don’t see people rejoicing that there is some end to terrorism (there isn’t). I see people literally celebrating the killing of another human being. It’s joy in vengeance…not justice.
“If you have a mouthful of cavities and have to endure 24 hours of pain at the dentist, isnt it better after, knowing that you will have the use of your teeth for a few more years?”
Again, there’s a difference in being relieved that you, once more, have use of your teeth and being delighted in the dentist taking a drill to your head.
And I’ll point out again, that in the case of OBL it’s not even clear that we circumvented anything…..I was being generous with my analogy in order to separate a celebration of means from the celebration of ends (which, apparently, people have a hard time making a distinction between).
“f you dont see the killing of OBL as justice and as a positive then you are not looking ahead, you are fixated on the tree in front of you.”
Firstly, it’s not clear that this is justice. And, even if it is, it’s not clear that there aren’t better paths to justice. That being said, even if we take the assumption at face value, there’s nothing in the action itself that is worth celebrating – which is precisely what people are doing. If people were flooding the streets in celebration – exclaiming their joy that we now terrorism has been circumvented – then you would have a point and I wouldn’t be having this conversation. But that’s not what’s happening for the most part. When people sing and chant about his death, lorn for pictures of his dead body purely for satisfaction, want to see his body paraded through the streets, dropped off a building, etc., etc., etc.; this has nothing to do with “justice.” It has everything to do with an emotional and visceral reaction – vengeance.
“will view your lack of action”
Although several people have dismissed this summarily, you still bring up a strawman. I don’t think anyone here suggested we do nothing. We can even put aside the disagreement over whether killing him or detaining him was prudent. What many point out, and what I’ve been arguing, is that celebration of his death, in and of itself, has NOTHING to do with actual justice. You can keep telling yourself that making such an insight means I think we should have done nothing, but that doesn’t make it so. I’ve never said that. And, I’m pretty sure, no one else has said that.
“OBL may not have been a direct threat to anyone anylonger, a very debatable argument, but he most certainly was an indirect threat to all as long as he remained alive and unpunished for his actions.”
So it’s debatable that he was still a threat….but it’s not debatable that he was a threat….unless he was punished. Unless the “threat” you speak of is the “threat of not being punished”, which would be fairly inconsequential in terms of danger posed, then these two statements make no sense. I’m not trying to nit-pick. I’m not going to say flat-out that he wasn’t a threat….there’s room for argument. But you can’t conclude that it’s a plausible argument and then that it’s not.
“I see people literally celebrating the killing of another human being.”
“there’s nothing in the action itself that is worth celebrating – which is precisely what people are doing.”
How do you know this? Have you interviewed everyone personally? Are you psychoanalizing the entire population from the pictures broadcast on the TV?
The fact is that you are painting with a very broad brush and you are using paint taken from your own ideological bias that whatever government does is bad regardless of any context or circumstance.
You see these people rejoicing at a death, I see them rejoicing at life. You see people rejoicing at having their sternum cracked open, I see them rejoicing at living another day.
Your pessimism and hatred of government has blinded you to your own biases.
“is that celebration of his death, in and of itself, has NOTHING to do with actual justice.”
“Again, there’s a difference in being relieved that you, once more, have use of your teeth and being delighted in the dentist taking a drill to your head.”
And this is the difference I have been posting about from the very first.
I find it disturbing, this being a mostly libertarian blog, that you would GRANT the distinction but you reject that people can make it.
You accept the fact that YOU yourself can make the distinction, and that perhaps only fellow libertarians can make the distinction but that judgment is apparently only a privelage you will bestow only to fellow libertines, NOT to the American people in general, not to our government and certainly NOT to one like me who was impudent enough to point it out.
why? what make you a so privelaged elite intellectual smart enought to make the call but the rest of America just ignorant savages?
“How do you know this? Have you interviewed everyone personally? Are you psychoanalizing the entire population from the pictures broadcast on the TV?”
RS – your arguments are starting to come pedantic. My claim is not that every single person in America is praising his death. I’m talking specifically about the people I see and hear doing so.
“The fact is that you are painting with a very broad brush and you are using paint taken from your own ideological bias that whatever government does is bad regardless of any context or circumstance.”
No. Again, I’m not painting everyone with this brush. I’ve already qualified the people I’m talking about by their actions. I’m not talking about EVERYONE.
As to your second point, I’d never contend that everything the government does is wrong….and neither would pretty much anyone who comments on this site. I agree with the means by which government often does things. But there are many legitimate things government does by legitimate means. As a Rothbardian, I don’t have a problem separating the two. So while warning me about painting people with broad brushes, you might want to reserve your accusations unless you really know what I think or feel…or anyone else for that matter.
“You see these people rejoicing at a death, I see them rejoicing at life. You see people rejoicing at having their sternum cracked open, I see them rejoicing at living another day.”
Again, it’s the distinction between rejoicing in the cracked sternum and rejoicing in living another day that you’re missing. As I pointed out, quite clearly, I’m not talking about anyone who feels relief in that any future attacks from this man won’t occur (even if we presume more such attacks were coming). I’m talking about people that are rejoicing in his death, literally celebrating the violence of it…the payback…the revenge. I don’t know how to make that any more clear to you.
“Your pessimism and hatred of government has blinded you to your own biases.”
Ad hominem proves nothing. But, to be sure, I’m pessimistic about government for sure (after all, do you believe 9-11 would have happened absent previous government involvement in the Middle East???). Hatred is another thing altogether. I can’t think of many people I hate….government or otherwise. Disagreeing with someone or finding what they are doing to be immoral is not enough to invoke hatred. And given your view on this particular subject, I’d watch the accusations you throw out about others being blinded by their hatred and bias.
“that you would GRANT the distinction but you reject that people can make it.”
I don’t reject that people CAN make it. I HAVE made it. Several other commenters here HAVE made it. Many, many Americans HAVE made it. I’m talking about the people who aren’t….specifically. I’m not sure how you keep glossing over this.
“but that judgment is apparently only a privelage you will bestow only to fellow libertines”
If I believe that, then what would justify my condemnation? It would be like getting mad at a dog for not being able to read. The fact that they are capable, yet unwilling, to make better judgments is precisely the issue. Out of the context of our common capacity for reason there would be no issue.
Also, libertine != libertarian. And, in the context of the ethical claims of libertarians, it would be the people I’m criticizing who are actually far more “libertine” on this matter than I.
“why? what make you a so privelaged elite intellectual smart enought to make the call but the rest of America just ignorant savages?”
Again, I don’t think they all are – which is precisely why I’m saddened by the behavior of many of them. At this point, this conversation is as if I’m pointing out the immorality of someone stealing cable, those people claiming that what they are doing isn’t really technically stealing, me going back and trying to clarify why it is, in fact, stealing, and then you calling me an elitist and claiming that I’m saying I’m the only one who knows what stealing is. Well, no. It’s precisely because I think they DO KNOW what stealing is that I’m trying to press them into understanding that it’s what they’re doing. We can still disagree regarding whatever may constitute stealing, but it doesn’t make me any more or less “elite” for disagreeing with them (nor them disagreeing with me). But, even if you were completely right – that I was some elitist snob – it wouldn’t make my arguments less true. That’s why ad hominem is a logical fallacy to begin with.
Sorry for a couple of typos in there – was typing fast.
“I agree with the means by which government often does things.”
Agree = disagree
“legitimate means.”
Illegitimate….
I always want to kick myself for not proofreading.
“As I pointed out, quite clearly, I’m not talking about anyone who feels relief in that any future attacks from this man won’t occur”
And these are the people I AM talking about.
People are generally glad that UBL is dead because they are relieved he wont be able to effect any future attacks. That is what I see when people in genreral celebrate his death and that is what my very first post was describing.
You now apparently agree with my but are attempting to misrepresent my original intent as representing this group:
“I’m talking about people that are rejoicing in his death, literally celebrating the violence of it…the payback…the revenge”
I never represented this group. I have repeatedly stated that his death, although violent, was a necessary act of justice and that is what people are reacting to by being “joyfull”.
If some people choose celebrate the violence of it then that is their affair although I do think it represents the majority nor was it what I was referrign to even though most on this post chose to see it that way regardless of how many times I stated otherwise.
“And these are the people I AM talking about.”
So why are you arguing against a premise I never made? You can’t defend my opinions about a certain group of people by defending a different group of people. I couldn’t care less about the other group. That’s not who we’re talking about….that’s not who all these comments are primarily directed at.
“People are generally glad that UBL is dead because they are relieved he wont be able to effect any future attacks.”
Firstly, that remains to be seen. He didn’t seem to do very much since 9-11 quite frankly. But, as I said before, you’re only describing SOME people…people that I’m not talking about. You accused me of making a blanket statement that everyone who was happy upon the news of OBL’s death fell under the rubric of what I was criticizing (clearly, they don’t). THEN you make this blanket statement that ALL of the people celebrating as of late are simply celebrating for reasons you find more defensible. How’s that for hypocrisy?
Sorry. No. Not all the people who are celebrating are simply celebrating because they believe some future terrorist acts will not occur. Hence the talk of dragging him through the streets, wanting to see pictures of his mutilated face, wanting to throw him off a NY sky-scraper …etc…etc. These are the people I’m talking about. Their joy is in vengeance, not justice.
“That is what I see when people in genreral celebrate his death and that is what my very first post was describing.”
Then you simply haven’t been paying attention because those aren’t the people we’re generally talking about.
“You now apparently agree with my but are attempting to misrepresent my original intent as representing this group:”
Neither of these are true. You’re throwing everyone under your more defensible banner when we’re talking about people who DO NOT fit that description. Again, this was the whole point….and you keep glossing over it.
“I never represented this group.”
Then why argue with me in defense of them? That’s who I (we) are talking about.
” I have repeatedly stated that his death, although violent, was a necessary act of justice and that is what people are reacting to by being “joyfull”.”
I don’t see anything “necessary” about his death outside of the context of vengeance and retribution. Killing him didn’t bring anyone back, and it doesn’t achieve anything that apprehension wouldn’t have stopped. In either case the focus of the celebration, as it is for some, is the relief in knowing that future acts may have been thwarted, not in the actual death itself – which is what the people we are calling under question are doing.
“f some people choose celebrate the violence of it then that is their affair although I do think it represents the majority”
If I’m criticizing ten people for murder the burden doesn’t shift in acknowledging that they aren’t in the majority. What they’re still doing is wrong. That may be their own affair. And it’s my own affair to call them out for it.
“nor was it what I was referrign to even though most on this post chose to see it that way regardless of how many times I stated otherwise.”
If you’re not defending the people we’re talking about, then why did you comment at all???
Us: Man what that Ted guy did was really horrible.
You: No what he did was justified.
Us: How so?
You:
Us:
You: Why are you acting like I was defending what Ted did/does?
Us: Um, because you argued with us regarding what we said about Ted.
You: I was talking about Bob.
Us: ???
“THEN you make this blanket statement that ALL ”
apparently you do not know the definition of “generally” which was included in my statement. “general” does not equal “all”. look it up
“You’re throwing everyone under your more defensible banner when we’re talking .”
No, my initial statement was a clear description of people celebrating justice. I was one of the first commentators on this post, most everyone jumped on me from there claiming how crazy and insane I was. go back and read the post, you know THE ONE YOU SAID YOU STOPPED READING because you did not like it.
perhaps if you had finished reading it you would know that that is what I have been talking about.
“No, my initial statement was a clear description of people celebrating justice. I was one of the first commentators on this post, most everyone jumped on me from there claiming how crazy and insane I was.”
If that’s true, then there’s no need for you to argue with me or anyone else here. So why you’re posting is beyond me. We’re apparently not making the claim you chose to start arguing against.
“perhaps if you had finished reading it you would know that that is what I have been talking about.”
I did read it. I wasn’t being literal.
By the way, I have to apologize for getting confused in that I thought you were defending people actually celebrating the death of a person as opposed to decreased terrorism or whatever….
“One final note, it is disturbing in the extreme to hear people say that only an “uncivilized” person would celebrate the death of any human being”
Oh….wait a minute….nevermind.
“Oh….wait a minute….nevermind.”
So are you now backtracking and saying that there is NO legitimate reason to celebrate UBL’s death or do you agree that there are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons?
Because, if you read most of posts it appears that most people think there is absolutely NO legitimate reason and anyone who says otherwise is crazy.
My post was to say there is a legitimate reason to celebrate and I stated the reasons for such.
You agreed.
Are you now disagreeing with my reasons or disagreeing that it can be legitimate?
yes? no? which side of the fence are you going to take now?
“So are you now backtracking and saying that there is NO legitimate reason to celebrate UBL’s death or do you agree that there are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons?”
Wow…just….wow.
No….there is no legitimate reason to celebrate his death out of the context of vengeance. There is reason to celebrate, perhaps, any future protection we may have been afforded by his death (speculative as that is). Why is it that you have such a hard time separating the two. I’ve made the differentiation SEVERAL times now, and still you don’t seem to even understand what I’m saying. If you need me to clarify something, then simply ask me to do so. It would be more fruitful than arguing against whatever you apparently imagine I’m saying. It’s a little baffling that you’ve been arguing all this time against our stance and yet you seem to have no clue regarding the distinction we’d made from the word GO.
wow cody, you totally understood all the arguments for extra rendition murder. thanks for painting everyone else as bin laden sympathizers. stellar contribution!
there are two main objections against popular reactions to the killing: the means and the ends. the former believe that our criminal justice system should have no problem with the guilty or evil, or else why else do we have it in the first place? senior white house officials,according to reuters, report that this was a kill operation and that its uncertain whether bin laden was armed, so many of those dispute he was killed in self defense. the second argue a more general case against capital punishment and the loss of any human life. both sides are mixed within this blog, but at least try to understand there are differences. please try to confront a particular argument before suggesting that the author and commentators brush off the murder of 3,000 plus innocent human beings as inconsequential. whether you meant to or not, its pretty insulting to those that have felt the tragedies brought on by 911. i do look forward to future, constructive contributions to this blog, however.
There’s no uncertainty. The White House is completely backing down from the opening propaganda.
“Carney read a statement to reporters Tuesday seeking to clarify discrepancies. He said bin Laden “was not armed.” When a U.S. “assaulter” approached bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leader’s “wife” rushed the assaulter. That woman was shot but not killed, Carney said.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html
It surprises me how many people can hate a complete stranger just because of some rumors they heard about him. How many people can claim that they *know* Osama did this or that Osama did that. I am not saying he did or didn’t or anything but how many people actually know, how many actually looked at all the evidence and said yeah there’s no denying things happened this way. How many of these people celebrating his death listened to his side of the story? How many had even ever heard his voice.
I hate that so much cause anyone could be next. If someone important thinks you are a nuisance they can just get all these people to say how you eat children, rape little girls and puppies and so on and no one would even bother to hear what you have to say to do that, and when they kill you they will celebrate your death.
Its just disgusting.
except that OBL and his cronies addmitted to all of it themselves, not to mention all of the evidence our government has collected on its own. now you can argue if it was fabricated or not but thats a different issue. if you accept the possibility that the evidence exists then OBLs own proclomations taking credit for the attack corroborate our own conclusions.
OBL denied that he had anything to do with it. The CIA even translated the message and it is available for everyone to see. I posted the statement above in a response to blackadder. The FBI charged him with many crimes but not 9/11 because there is no evidence to support that. I find it sad you take joy in OBL’s death as some kind of justice for 9/11.
I do not see where I implied that anyone here advocated the murder of innocents, or that they thought Bin Laden was a solid dude.
If the argument against being vengeful and rejoicing on the death of my perceived enemy has really convinced me, I don’t see why I would then be so judgemental, so fired up about of the actions of the POTUS et al. I must rather forgive them, no? Before the cycle of retaliated wrongs begins again?
I will say it outright: killing Osama Bin Laden was bad.
However, since I am convinced vengeance is evil, I refuse to call for retaliation on his murderers. Let’s end the cycle right here.
vengence, no. justice, yes. there is a very big difference.
It is obvious you are in favor of a military financed by taxation – a Socialised government defense system.
It is also obvious that you identify yourself as an American and Al Qaeda (and probably me too) as anti-American. This confirms your Nationalism.
I’d wager that you have uttered the phrase “turn that area into glass” or “kill ’em all” while discussing the Middle East with your comrades.
You are a National Socialist that can personally justify genocide.
hah! now thats funny. thanks for a good laugh.
That’s pretty creepy.
Not to you.
Really, I just liked the idea of being the 125th comment.
@crossofcrimson (To continue this thread from above)
“Oh sweet. That’s pretty convenient for us. So is there a number of dead non-Americans that might equal, ethically speaking, a dead American or is it just a total and blatant disregard for rights altogether?”
That would depend on the context, a military matter to be decided by those who are experienced in such matters.
Ill turn the question around.
Hamas routinely fires rockets into Israel, is there a number of Israeli civilian deaths required before it is allowed to take actions of self defense and destory those who are shooting the rockets?
“That would depend on the context, a military matter to be decided by those who are experienced in such matters.”
Really? So the value of a human being and their rights are whatever military leaders tell us it is? This is sounding better by the minute.
“Hamas routinely fires rockets into Israel, is there a number of Israeli civilian deaths required before it is allowed to take actions of self defense and destory those who are shooting the rockets?”
Not sure how this is turning the question around at all. We’re asking two different questions (although you don’t, apparently, see it). One death is all it takes to allow for self defense. I never questioned that or said anything that should make you think otherwise.
Killing innocent people in the process, however, is what’s not as defensible – as you so clearly stated in the “napalming the neighborhood” analogy. You clearly understood why there is a moral presumption against killing people (unintentionally) in the pursuit of a criminal or aggressor. You also claimed that this respect for human rights changes simply when we talk about people who live in another geographic boundary. So, I’ve been asking you, essentially, to defend why people born on one tract of soil somehow have less rights than those born on another. And I’ve yet to hear a clear response.
“defend why people born on one tract of soil somehow have less rights than those born on another. And I’ve yet to hear a clear response”
Thats because you treat “respect for human rights” as a floating abstraction cutoff from any one individual. respect for human rights starts with a pesons right to life, which is a right to self defense, which is a right to take any action necessary to preserve ones life. the key here is “any action necessary”, which you dont recognize. you put conditions on it that abdicate a persons right to life at the root.
“One death is all it takes to allow for self defense. I never questioned that or said anything that should make you think otherwise.”
yes, you have implied it although you do not see it. actions in self defense are justified, we agree. so what if that action would unavoidably result in the death of innocents? is it still justified? my respons is yes, you implied that it is not, one should sacrificially let oneself be killed or maimed in order to prevent the death of others otherwise the action is prohibited. “respect for human rights” you call it but its not it is the sacrifice of oneself for the sake of others because the rights of those innocents are put above ones own right to self defense. why? is the person who is attacked any less innocent than those others who will be hurt? no. (hence my question about Israeli citizens) so then what puts thier claim to innocence above my own? nothing but the so called “respect for human rights” floating abstraction you keep peddling but its really just a plea for self sacrifice and altruism NOT a respect for human rights. respect for human rights starts with respect for oneself as an individual and your demand that that individual sacrifice his innocence for the sake of others is treason to rights and to all innocnets since it cuts off an individuals right to life and right to self defense at the root.
.
“which is a right to take any action necessary to preserve ones life. the key here is “any action necessary”, which you dont recognize. ”
And how exactly do you get from “right to defend one’s life” to “any action necessary”? I won’t even call into question any spectrum of reciprocation here. Do you think my right to attack someone who’s aggressing against me extends to taking out a bunch of innocent people in the process? If that’s the case, why did you contend otherwise in the napalm analogy? How does your right to life trump their right to life? (outside of the fact that they’re un-American….apparently)
“yes, you have implied it although you do not see it.”
No, I didn’t. Show me where I said you have no right to self-defense.
“so what if that action would unavoidably result in the death of innocents? is it still justified? my respons is yes, you implied that it is not”
So how do you derive a consistent philosophy of rights if you believe you can violate everyone else’s rights in the process of protecting your own? What are “rights” at that point?
“one should sacrificially let oneself be killed or maimed in order to prevent the death of others otherwise the action is prohibited.”
I never said anything about letting yourself be killed. I said that you don’t have the right to rob other people of their rights in the process of defending yourself. This is why we don’t simply shoot through hostages or burn down buildings filled with them when trying to stop a murderous criminal.
Again, your recognize this domestically but your ethics change once we get off of American soil.
“is the person who is attacked any less innocent than those others who will be hurt? no”
Right. And they certainly aren’t MORE innocent either. If we’re talking about a true act of self-defense (which, by the way, is a pretty piss-poor analogy for talking about wiping out someone in a foreign land in some mansion ten years after they commit a horrible crime) then no one has the right to harm either of you….that includes the “bad guy” and you.
” nothing but the so called “respect for human rights” floating abstraction you keep peddling but its really just a plea for self sacrifice and altruism NOT a respect for human rights.”
Actually, it’s precisely the opposite. I’m asking you respect everyone’s rights as human beings. You’re essentially asking other innocents to sacrifice themselves in your defense (calling for altruism on their behalf). It’s amazing how you can manage to say something like that .
“respect for human rights starts with respect for oneself as an individual”
And it doesn’t STOP there. That respect you demand for yourself (not hurting innocent people) you have to give to others….otherwise your conception of rights is practically worthless – meaningless.
“your demand that that individual sacrifice his innocence for the sake of others is treason to rights”
How my demand for you to respect other peoples’ rights is “treason to rights” is something you’ll have to work out in your own mind because it’s starting to sound pretty nonsensical.
“nd to all innocnets since it cuts off an individuals right to life and right to self defense at the root.”
Yes, my demand that you not kill innocent people is cutting of individuals’ rights to life. Up is down. Bad is Good. Etc., etc.,etc.
Seriously though, it’s bad enough that your analogizing self-defense with going halfway around the world and finding some guy in his bed and shooting him,. But, even if I excuse all of that and address the analogy specifically, how you brush over everyone else’s rights but yours and conclude that your’s somehow supersedes others is beyond me. The whole notion of rights in the Western World is a negative one….that my rights, by definition, end where yours begin. You may find it personally prudent, practical, whatever – but no…you do not have a “right” to aggress against innocents, even if you believe it’s in self-defense…as dubious as that claim is in this conversation.
All of this is tilting at windmills. “necessary” does not mean “indiscriminate” so your whole rant is unecessary.
All I am saying is that acting to defend onself is necessary part of a persons right to life and as such it necessarily includes those actions required to live, even if harm to innocents is unavoidable. so then this:
“I never said anything about letting yourself be killed. I said that you don’t have the right to rob other people of their rights in the process of defending yourself.”
is saying exactly that. you are blaming the victim. If A shoots at B and B shoots back and kills C who happened to be standing next to A then it is As fault, not Bs. Moroever, B did not violate Cs rights. A did, by shooting at B.
As far as UBL goes, he has demonstrated his willingness and ability to shoot, it does not matter if he did since, we shot back, if Cs die then its UBLs fault, period.
“All of this is tilting at windmills. “necessary” does not mean “indiscriminate” so your whole rant is unecessary.”
My criticisms aren’t qualified by discriminate or indiscriminate. The question(s) remain in either case….
“All I am saying is that acting to defend onself is necessary part of a persons right to life and as such it necessarily includes those actions required to live”
And I don’t disagree.
“even if harm to innocents”
This is where we part. If you’re going to talk up the sanctity of rights and violate them willy-nilly then your conception of such is rooted in convenience and not the rights themselves. Either we have a negatively inalienable right to life or we don’t. If you, even in the face of aggression, aggress against others, then you are a violator of rights as well. Unless your argument is that their rights simply vanish when your’s are being threatened, it’s hard to get around that fact.
“is saying exactly that. you are blaming the victim. If A shoots at B and B shoots back and kills C who happened to be standing next to A then it is As fault, not Bs. ”
No, it is still B’s fault. A did not pull your trigger…regardless of how your rights are in danger of being violated. You can make the argument that your aggression is less egregious based on a comparison in intent. But it doesn’t erase the fact that you pulled the trigger. If the one-to-one ratio is confusing you, start playing with the numbers. Do you have the right to kill two innocent people in “self-defense”? Ten? A thousand? When you find a number suitable, ask yourself how the morality of the situation changed based on the number of innocents involved. Then contemplate exactly what you think rights are and it will become more clear.
“As far as UBL goes, he has demonstrated his willingness and ability to shoot, it does not matter if he did since, we shot back, if Cs die then its UBLs fault, period.”
So once someone does something bad we have license to be violent against them the rest of their life? There might be a reason to suppose UBL poses a present threat, put pointing to something he had a hand in ten years ago isn’t sufficient. Sorry.
“No, it is still B’s fault. A did not pull your trigger…regardless of how your rights are in danger of being violated.”
And this is how you blame the victim and conflate murder with self defense. It is how you can put the blame on the victim for being a victim, condemn him for acting rationally and blank out the criminal who acted irrationally by initiating the whole thing.
The victim, on your premise, is just as guilty as the criminal, and on your grounds can only retain his innocence by dying? And this is what you conceive of as a human rights?
Gee, nice choice you offer.
Live and become a murderer, and perhaps you will be forgiven by the high priest crimsoncross or die innocent and we will let the murderer get away with it because we don’t have the moral authority to administer justice. Perhaps it will all get taken care of in the afterlife right?
Meanwhile, in the real world, rational people realize that criminals don’t offer their victims the convenience of acting in your mystical version of self-defense that is free of any possible secondary consequences. Most rational people understand that those who initiate force are the ones to blame for the greater force necessary to stop it, even if that retaliation has to hurt innocent bystanders.
“And this is how you blame the victim and conflate murder with self defense. It is how you can put the blame on the victim for being a victim”
I certainly don’t put the blame on the victim for being a victim. It’s not his fault that aggressor A has put his life in jeopardy.
The confusion seems to arise in that you only see one single act of aggression when there are clearly two. Even if you were to believe the rights of the SECOND VICTIM are irrelevant under certain conditions (and an argument can certainly be had on that point) it doesn’t change the fact that there are now two acts of aggression explicitly perpetrated by two separate aggressors upon two separate victims. No one (least of all myself) is claiming that victim A is to blame for what aggressor A has done. Victim A, however, is to blame for what he does to victim B – when he pulls the trigger and becomes aggressor B. It’s possible, with multiple parties to both aggress against innocents and to be aggressed against. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
“The victim, on your premise, is just as guilty as the criminal, and on your grounds can only retain his innocence by dying?”
I never said he must retain his innocence by dying. I said if he chooses to shoot another innocent person, he is JUST AS GUILTY (yes) as the person shooting. You can quibble about intent, but it still remains that you have two people which have each, separately, violated the rights of an innocent individual. Whether you believe there are good reasons to violate rights or not is separate from the acknowledgment that you’re guilty of killing an innocent person.
“Gee, nice choice you offer.”
As opposed to the choice you offer of killing some innumerable amount of innocents in order to preserve your life? Forgive me for not succumbing to your attempts to moralize.
“Live and become a murderer, and perhaps you will be forgiven by the high priest crimsoncross or die innocent and we will let the murderer get away with it because we don’t have the moral authority to administer justice. Perhaps it will all get taken care of in the afterlife right?”
Forgiveness and the afterlife have little to nothing to do with this. If the “administration of justice” requires and even greater amount of “injustice” then your thirst for retribution has led you to betray whatever sense of “rights” you had.
Although, it apparently isn’t ubiquitous. After all, even if it was the only way to stop the murderer, you still wouldn’t napalm that neighborhood, right? Of course, if we used the moral logic on display in your previous snide remark, we certainly could.
“Napalm the neighborhood to save yourself and become a murderer, and perhaps you will be forgiven by the high priest (crimsoncross?) or die innocent and we will let the murderer get away with it because we don’t have the moral authority to administer justice.”
On second thought you’re right. Fuck the innocent. Kill’em all. It will all get taken care of the in the afterlife, right? ***Nudge nudge***
“Meanwhile, in the real world, rational people realize that criminals don’t offer their victims the convenience of acting in your mystical version of self-defense that is free of any possible secondary consequences.”
And the inconvenience of the real world turns morality upside down apparently. Again, quite a convenient moral premise you have there.
“Most rational people understand that those who initiate force are the ones to blame for the greater force necessary to stop it, even if that retaliation has to hurt innocent bystanders.”
Right, which is why napalming the neighborhood is squarely on the shoulder of the murderer we’re after. I get it. We’re allowed to violate other peoples’ rights (even by killing them) if our rights are violated by a different person.
About the only thing more outlandish than the sweeping moral insights you’ve provided is your inability to even put constraints on the arbitrariness of your system. I asked and have yet to receive and answer. Presumably you are justified in slaughtering 1,000 innocent people to save your life. I think most “rational” people would say you’re wrong. If you, too, can see that, then walk yourself down number by number until it stops seeming crazy and give me the principle by which you chose to stop and how that differs, morally, from any other number – even one.
Again, making an argument that murder and even lesser violation of rights is prudent under certain circumstances is one thing. Simply pretending as if it’s the person aggressing against you who’s literally pulling your trigger is another thing altogether. This conversation started getting silly quite a while ago. But between you not even understanding the claim(s) which you’re arguing against (tens of posts into the argument no less) and your seeming boundless belief that all innocents crushed in the pursuit of justice is just “dandy”, there really isn’t much point in taking the discussion any further.
You’ve yet to outline any principled reasoning for how the responsibility for your actions get transferred to other individuals. The most we’ve seen is the implication that rights for other individuals disappear when your’s are being threatened. If that’s where your sense of justice and rights are rooted, in some transmutable and shifting moral medium, then count me out of the conversation. There’s no ground to be gained.
In any case, take care. I enjoyed (parts of) this conversation with you.
By the way, just to be clear on the tone, the last portion of my comments are not meant to be ad hominem attacks of any sort. I just wanted to lay out precisely why I’m not going to carry the discussion any further (I just believe it isn’t fruitful based on some obvious fundamental differences).
I think you and I both have contributed to bloating Bob’s post beyond acceptable conversation =)