I've been having, per normal, some of THOSE types of conversations around a few places.
You know, the ones about war and peace and communism and terrorism and traitors and good guys and bad guys. Some of THOSE type of conversations.
I was trying to understand where those who disagreed with me were coming from. Did they think the US ought NOT obey its own rules? Is it okay to commit what our laws would define as war crimes at times? Who would make that sort of decision? Based on what?
Perhaps it's all a matter of coming from different paradigms and having troubles understanding one another. The conversations would careen around wildly whilst I was just looking for some answers to a few basic questions. (By the way, at least one of these conversations began when someone raised the question of what we should do about Iran and, more generally, is it okay to bomb a nation based on the possibility that they might be a threat eventually to someone.)
After doing what felt like pulling teeth in a few different conversations in a few different places, this is what it sounds like at least SOME folk on the right are advocating. At least, to the best of my ability to understand their views...
1. The US OUGHT to obey US rules.
2. But sometimes, we ought NOT obey US rules (if a country might be a threat to us or Israel, for instance).
3. The US ought NOT obey international rules.
4. Other nations ought to obey international rules.
5. When someone (I never could get a clear answer - the president and the Southern Baptist Convention, maybe?) SOMEONE decides that some nation is a rogue nation, then we are obliged to obey no rules. We may drop nukes, torture, whatever. Once we've (we who? not sure) have established that a nation is rogue, then we are no longer obliged to obey any of our rules.
6. But, of course, torture and dropping nukes by the bad guys is always wrong.
7. And it's usually wrong for us to do it, UNLESS we're dealing with a "rogue nation," then it is good and acceptable for us to engage in such activity.
8. The way we know a nation is a rogue nation is if they do not "play by the rules established by the majority."
9. What that means is, if a nation:
a. sells or gives arms/military support to a "bad" country or leader
b. makes threats to other nations
c. provide training space for soldiers/terrorists from other nations
d. If they "behave like" a rogue nation, then they are a rogue nation
10. But if the US does not play by those rules or if the US behaves in some of these same ways, well, that's good because international laws don't apply to us...
Add to the mix is the notion that "the lesser of two evils is a good," as has been quantified as a value some believe in. What that means is that it is evil to bomb Hiroshima, but it would be MORE evil (they say) NOT to bomb Hiroshima (because this would, they presume, cost more lives ultimately). Therefore, it is NOT evil in that circumstance to bomb Hiroshima, but a good.
======
Phew! That's the best I can make of their position, which, as you can see, is not entirely consistent or clear on who's making what decisions based on which criteria. I have asked them about it using nearly exactly the same words I have above, and they have not said, "No! That's not what I mean..." and their clarifications have tended to be of the sort, "Dan, what you're advocating is not practical in the real world because..." etc. In other words, they have not directly answered questions or directly dealt with my understanding of their criteria, so it's hard to say for sure if this is their position or not.
It's my understanding of their position.
If I were to engage in a little analysis, I would think they are reluctant to come out and directly answer questions or points because:
1. They want to retain the ability to commit actions that our laws call "war crimes" or illegal
2. They think that our laws make us weaker against those who are not wanting to obey our laws (and you can sort of understand the reasoning - if they're not going to fight by our rules and we insist on fighting by our rules, we are at a disadvantage - I disagree, but you can understand the point)
3. They don't want to subject the US to international laws
4. BUT, if there are no international laws, then there is no real basis on which to hold countries accountable
5. And so their position seems to be lacking in internal logic - it just doesn't hold up to reason - and so they are reluctant to fully analyze their position because it is not especially defensible logically
6. They want to give a president/the US the power to break our laws if we're dealing with a "bad guy" but if a president/the US were to use those same powers to attack, for instance, Israel, well then, they DON'T want to give the president that power; in other words, they want to be able to pick and choose when to obey our rules and not, and they want to pick and choose based on a very loose, subjective criteria (if a nation is a "rogue nation," then it's okay)
You reckon I've understood the position of some on the Right correctly? You reckon I'm getting their reasoning as to why they're reluctant to spell out what rules they wish to live by correctly?
regarding this:
ReplyDelete"9. What that means is, if a nation:
a. sells or gives arms/military support to a "bad" country or leader
b. makes threats to other nations
c. provide training space for soldiers/terrorists from other nations
d. If they "behave like" a rogue nation, then they are a rogue nation"
You forgot to add that how we deal with such rogue nations should not be based on fundamental ideas of what's right and wrong, but on political and economic expediency. Thus some rogue nations (Iran) are "roguer" than others (N. Korea.)
Good point.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps, sometimes they can get "so rogue" that the rules for rogue nations no longer apply to them?
But of course, there are no rules...
I'm getting confused.
Oh, and because we're at war with an idea (islamofascism) instead of a nation, that means the rules of war are all different. Except for our rules about who we do and do not talk to, because in those cases, we only talk to nations, not individual groups, because the rules haven't changed. Unless we don't talk to them because just talking to people would be "appeasement."
ReplyDeleteNice appeasing with you, Dan. Hope we can appease again sometime. :)
what are these "rules" that you speak of?
ReplyDeleteWell, to begin with:
ReplyDeleteThe U.N. Charter, which is a treaty the US has signed and has the power of law for us. The charter:
"clearly and specifically forbids violations of the sovereignty of any state by any other state, except in immediate self-defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51)."
Also, initiating an unprovoked war was formally outlawed in 1945 by the Nuremberg Charter (Article VI(a)), a treaty signed and largely written by the United States.
And it's simply not a "provoked war" if we think a nation might be a threat to someone at some point in the future. That does NOT reach the level of self-defense.
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. ... Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”
From the Nuremberg Charter.
As noted, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution includes the Supremacy Clause which makes all treaties signed and ratified by the U.S. the “supreme law of the land.”
Therefore, it would be a violation of these two treaties - the Law of our land - to start a war unprovoked. For starters.
Additionally, there are behaviors that we can and can't engage in as detailed in the Geneva Convention, again, a treaty with the force of Law for the US. The people I've been talking with have been advocating "no rules for us if we're dealing with a rogue nation" or, in other words, we can break the laws of invasion and of the Geneva Convention if we wish. That's what I'm hearing these people say.
I disagree with such lawlessness and opposition to US ideals and values.
Those are the "rules" of which I speak, Edwin. Do you stand with me in supporting the US in obeying our own laws and honoring our deepest American values?
ReplyDeleteEdwin, you might think what Dan quotes above is from the U.N. charter. It's not, it's from this, an article in which a machinist named Edwin Dwyer compares Bush to Nazis and argues that he should be impeached, removed from office and arrested. The writer describes the U.S. invasion of Iraq as unprovoked agression, despite Iraq's numerous violations of the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War, which Iraq started when it invaded Kuwait.
ReplyDeleteThis is what Dan quotes (and frankly plaguerizes) as the "rules" of which he speaks. I wasn't aware that the U.S. government had ratified as an international treaty this unhinged nobody's opinion piece.
In what court do you try international law?
ReplyDeletebubba your just using facts and history to distract for the issues. You are so divisive.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, I thought that quote was from the Treaty. It was from the words of the court at Nuremberg, my mistake. And an honest one.
ReplyDeleteBut the words were NOT from Mr. Dwyer, as bubba seems to be implying. They, according to the article bubba referenced, are from the judge at Nuremberg.
[Mr. Dwyer writing here:]
And although the Nuremberg Charter was formed for the specific purpose of trying Nazi war criminals, the words of the judgment make clear the intent of the court that the Nuremberg principles must apply to all nations and for all time.
[Then the judge's words start here:]
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. ... Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”
No plagiarism there, an honest mistake. But it appears that Bubba is not interested in honesty, perhaps? But rather trying to push false charges and offer excuses to distract from why he thinks (apparently) sometimes we ought to break our own laws and commit war crimes.
The ignored and unanswered question is: Shall we obey OUR OWN laws or shall we ignore them at our pleasure? AND, IF we are going to break our own laws because we don't like what another country is doing, on what grounds shall we do so?
These are the questions that, even now, Bubba is ignoring, in favor of false charges and fact twisting.
So, Bubba, are you calling the judge at Nuremberg "unhinged" because they were apparently HIS words I quoted. Is that what you think of the Nuremberg trials?
(And I DO apologize for mistakenly attributing them to the actual treaty. My bad.)
Now, bubba, that I have apologized for my oversight, I will welcome your apology for twisting reality in your partisan efforts to ignore the questions asked and for maligning what I assume was a respected judge who served at the Nuremberg trials.
ReplyDeleteEdwin asked:
ReplyDeleteIn what court do you try international law?
In a World Court. Although my question to you, Edwin, was do you support obeying our US laws.
It's relatively simple. You can say, "Yes, I do support obeying our laws and I further support holding accountable anyone who would dare to break our US laws."
Or you can say, "No. I think there are times where we need to ignore our laws - even commit what is normally war crimes and support terrorists if we have to if we're dealing with a rogue nation. I think 'having' to obey our own laws sometimes makes us weak."
That's the topic, Edwin. Do you have something to contribute?
Im sorry Dan the world court is a little vague. Do you mean the Permanent Court of International Justice, The International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court?
ReplyDeleteyou may think Im off topic but you mention "the rules" 13 times and law(s) 8. I am curious why they cannot be more clearly defined in there enforcement. Judging from your post "the rules" are being ignored by everyone in the world and I am curious why.
ReplyDeleteDan, unless that judge was citing a law or rule ratified by the United States of America, it is his own opinion. Even then it is still an opinion unless he cited it word for word from a specific code of law.
ReplyDeleteJudges give opinions, Dan. What law was he basing his opinion on? Who made the rule? Who ratified it? Could it be that this was nothing more than a verbal expression of disgust for the Nazi regime, and the wholesale crimes Nazi Germany committed?
That judge's opinion was not codified law.
A disturbing trend exists in this country wherein the opinions of judges are believed by the average Joe to carry the weight of law. In a sense I guess they do in that their opinions are an interpretation of law, and they are binding in those case each opinion specifically addresses ... but they are not law. They are opinions. The Supreme Court's rulings reflect the justice's opinions on what the Constitution has to say, or how it is applicable to a specific sets of circumstances. But judges-- and Justices --are not lawmakers.
Furthermore, you've mischaracterized the entire "off-site" discussion. It is not mine or anyone else's fault if you cannot derive meaning from simple English strung together in coherent sentences to express specific and implied meanings. Our answers have been quite clear to everyone but you.
If I've mischaracterized it, all they have to do is let me know. I have, for the most part, used their words and ideas (with a couple of snarky comments thrown in for fun). I believe that this is what they believe.
ReplyDeleteIt IS a little difficult when people don't answer direct questions, though, so I could be wrong. I don't think so, but they are free to let me know. Lord knows I've asked them enough about it.
Like you, for instance, I've asked you directly some, what? eight times these two questions (in one version or another):
1. Ought we obey US laws?
2. If we want to hold other nations accountable, to what laws are we going to hold them accountable?
And I don't believe you have answered directly. I'm seriously curious: What is the deal with that? My guess is that the position they (and maybe you) hold is not logically defensible, therefore you don't want to answer the questions directly (nor does Drood, here).
But that's just a guess. When people don't communicate directly, preferring, instead, to make assumptions and angry accusations, it makes understanding difficult.
That judge's opinion was not codified law.
ReplyDeleteOnce I realized my misunderstanding, I never suggested otherwise, bro.
Our answers have been quite clear to everyone but you.
I apologize, then, for my obtuseness. Help a brother out and fill in the blanks for me:
1. I believe the US should obey our own US laws. (Yes/No) [circle one]
2. Other nations should be accountable to ___________ law. If they are misbehaving, according to this law/rule/code, then they can be held accountable for the penalties described within ___________ law.
How about it? Two simple questions. Can you give a simple answer?
Edwin said (as he didn't answer the questions, yet again):
ReplyDeleteIm sorry Dan the world court is a little vague.
You don't need to know what world court in order to answer the questions. The questions, once again:
1. Do you, Edwin Drood, believe the USA should obey our own US Laws?
("world court" is not in the question, so you see, all you have to do is answer the question as asked.)
2. If you want to "hold accountable" other nations, by what rules/laws are you going to hold them accountable?
("world court" is not in the question, so you see, all you have to do is answer the question as asked.)
Answer on topic, or go away.
plurium interrogationum Dan
ReplyDeleteAre you still beating your dog? Never mind the premise of the question just answer it.
Your questions as well as this post are based on a Bare assertion fallacy or "false premise" I was trying to point that out with follow up questions.
You claim laws are being broken and they should not, but at the same time you cannot give the judicial body who enforces your laws.
World Court? What’s next the Justice League?
I had to go to college to learn about this stuff. All you have to do is visit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Dan, there are times when your writing is so off-base that I cannot conceive how it could be accidental.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, I thought that quote was from the Treaty. It was from the words of the court at Nuremberg, my mistake. And an honest one.
But the words were NOT from Mr. Dwyer, as bubba seems to be implying. They, according to the article bubba referenced, are from the judge at Nuremberg.
You seem to think the issue was the Nuremberg Charter, when I explicitly mentioned the UNITED NATIONS charter: "Edwin, you might think what Dan quotes above is from the U.N. charter. It's not..."
This is what you wrote that I find objectionable as a matter of accuracy:
The U.N. Charter, which is a treaty the US has signed and has the power of law for us. The charter:
"clearly and specifically forbids violations of the sovereignty of any state by any other state, except in immediate self-defense (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51)."
By not explaining the source of THIS quote about what the UNITED NATIONS CHARTER "clearly and specifically forbids," you give the impression that you're quoting the UNITED NATIONS CHARTER.
You have a lot of nerve of accusing me of false charges and fact twisting, and suggesting that I'm not interested in honesty, when you respond to my comment regarding the U.N. charter by writing at length about a wholly different charter.
This is to say nothing of your suggesting I think the Nuremberg judge is "unhinged" when I very clearly used that adjective to describe Dyer, for reasons I briefly outlined, including his comparison of Bush to the Nazis and his call for Bush's arrest.
I reference your misleading quote regarding the U.N. charter, and you blather on about the Nuremberg charter in order to accuse me of "twisting reality".
I call Peter Dyer (I miswrote when I said his name was Edwin Dwyer) "unhinged", and you accuse me of maligning the Nuremberg court.
"Edwin, you might think what Dan quotes above is from the U.N. charter."
There is a significant difference between the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg Charter. I referenced the former, not the latter.
"I wasn't aware that the U.S. government had ratified as an international treaty this unhinged nobody's opinion piece."
There is a significant difference between an opinion piece and the Nuremberg judgment. I referenced the former and not the latter, and I believe the author of the former is unhinged, not the author(s) of the latter.
With the exception of miswriting Dyer's name, I will apologize for nothing, because I have written nothing that requires an apology.
Instead, I think I am owed an apology for your accusations, but I hardly see the point of asking for one.
You claim laws are being broken and they should not, but at the same time you cannot give the judicial body who enforces your laws.
ReplyDeleteOh? I have? Do me a favor, pal, and show me where I have made claims.
What I have done, Edwin, is to ask two simple questions, which you appear unable to answer. I'm guessing that the reason is because your answers do not hold up to basic logical soundness.
But that's a guess, I can't say for sure since you have not answered.
Ok Ill bite
ReplyDelete1. Do you, Edwin Drood, believe the USA should obey our own US Laws?
yes
2. If you want to "hold accountable" other nations, by what rules/laws are you going to hold them accountable?
our own standards that we make up
tit-for-tat Dan now answer my question?
1) in which International Court was the US aquited of war crimes
2) what is a U.S. Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs)
The answer to both questions prove that the US has broken no "rules"
Thanks for the answers. I'm glad you are supportive of the US obeying our own laws. I suppose that means you'd support prosecution of any leaders who break our own laws as it relates to war crimes?
ReplyDeleteAs to your questions:
1) in which International Court was the US aquitted of war crimes?,
I don't know, in which Int'l Court was the US acquitted of war crimes? I do know that the World Court (the International Court of Justice at the Hague, in the Netherlands) in 1984 found the US guilty of war crimes for their actions in Nicaragua.
2) what is a U.S. Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs)
BIAs "is" agreements that the US has tried to pressure other nations in to so that we can't be held accountable for war crimes by the new ICC. It's an end run around the legal system and a mockery of justice.
Edwin went on to say:
The answer to both questions prove that the US has broken no "rules"
? How so?
Our US laws state that we can't invade a country unprovoked. How
does the US acquiring a BIA or an acquittal of some past action "prove" that we have broken no rules?
I don't think that word ("prove") means what you think it does.
As to Edwin's more amazing second answer (by what rules shall countries be held accountable?), Edwin responded (quite honestly, I believe):
ReplyDeleteour own standards that we make up
We should hold other nations accountable, Edwin says, by our own standards that we make up.
So, if that rule were the universal rule, applied to all nations, then the US would be held accountable by the standards that some other nation makes up.
I'm asking what universal rule (and I apologize if I was not clear on this point) ought there be that nations are held accountable to.
Most folk, I believe, would agree that there are some basic rules that ought to be wrong in EVERY nation.
No nation ought invade another nation unprovoked.
No nation has a right to overthrow a sovereign democratic nation's gov't. Those leaders are elected by their people and it is wrong for any nation to decide, "We don't like your leader, therefore, we'll overthrow him/her."
Nations ought not engage in the targeting of civilians for death and destruction, in assassinations, in massacres, in torture.
These are rules that I believe the vast majority of the world's people are agreeable to. They are the LAWS that the US created for ourselves as to how we behave towards other nations.
Now, if Botswana's leader decided that it ought to be universally a crime to eat meat, ought every nation bend to Botswana's will? No. Of course not.
So, Edwin, to clarify my question: What rule should there be that can be universally applied as to how nations ought behave?
I believe your answer would remain the same: Whatever rules we make up on our own, with "we" being the US.
The problem with this approach is it is not universally applied. Edwin does not want us to bow to whatever rules Botswana makes up. It's not a logically applicable rule for national dealings with one another.
Do you want to try some other answer, now that I've clarified my meaning, or do you wish to stick to the same answer?
I never grow tired of your unique blogging style. Create a post then grill your readers to no end. But I digress. . .
ReplyDeleteI believe he had this argument before. We have the guns so we make the rules. We are not constrained by any group or international thing on how we want to apply the rules. We apply the rules in a way that best suites us. It would be irresponsible or our government to place the safety of others over its own citizens. It is a very selfish system that is not fair but then again "fair" is a game that children create to share toys, it does not apply to real life.
Now should Botswana's leader decided that it ought to be universally a crime to eat meat AND he has a military that could enforce that then we would all be vegetarians.
So, you are an advocate of Might Makes Right school of lawlessness?
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that on the day that your favorite group is no longer the mightiest, or when the rest of the world decides not to put up with a rogue superpower.
Dan, I notice that you haven't written a single word in response to my dismantling of your ridiculous rant about me.
ReplyDeleteYou've made assumptions about others based on their silence, so I do wonder what assumptions I should draw from yours.
About the substance of this particular discussion, I believe that, like me, Edwin does not believe that "might makes right."
I don't believe might makes right. Instead, I simply acknowledge that might is the best defense of what's already right.
It's not an invincible defense, as the military might of Western democracies could conceivably be overcome by those of their enemies, but it is a far better defense than appeals to imaginary institutions.
Most folk, I believe, would agree that there are some basic rules that ought to be wrong in EVERY nation.
No nation ought invade another nation unprovoked...
Nations ought not engage in the targeting of civilians for death and destruction, in assassinations, in massacres, in torture. [emphasis mine]
Let's concede that all these are largely true, while noting that people can disagree on thinks like what precisely constitutes a legitimate provocation to a military response, etc.
"There ought to be rules."
The problem with your approach is that rules require rule-makers and referees, and there is NO legitimate manmade governing body that has both the authority to write those rules and the ability to enforce them at the global level. No such worldwide body could have truly global authority without the unanimous participation of every state, and that authority cannot have true legitimacy unless those governments all recognize the rule of law and the consent of the governed.
In brief, there can be no governing body that has the legitimate authority to write and enforce the rules that you think ought to exist until the entire world is governed by Western-style democracies.
Until then, it is an extremely dangerous form of literally wishful thinking to assert that we should pretend that such a governing body exists -- or to pretend that the U.N. is a close-enough facsimile that we should surrender to it our sovereignty regarding our own defense.
Since your alternative approach is wholly unrealistic, it remains safer to entrust the United States Marine Corps with the defense of human liberty.
In brief, there can be no governing body that has the legitimate authority to write and enforce the rules that you think ought to exist until the entire world is governed by Western-style democracies.
ReplyDeleteAnd your alternative is the US makes the rules for everyone? I'll let you know two things right off:
1. "Everyone" else is not buying it.
2. Not even the US is buying it. True conservative and progressive patriots who love and esteem US values don't WANT to make the calls for the rest of the world, to decide which countries "get" to have their leaders deposed by us and which ones "get" to keep theirs (or decide for themselves to get rid of them).
My solution may be awkward and tend to fail, but yours is guaranteed to fail and its immoral, to boot. The US is not a god. We are not the final arbiters and what is right and wrong.
Better that we remove the splinter from our own eye and then, maybe, we can help remove planks from the eyes of others.
Dan, I notice that you haven't written a single word in response to my dismantling of your ridiculous rant about me.
ReplyDeleteWell, I do have a life, a job, a kid who has a birthday today and other responsibilities so no, I have not responded to you yet in these few hours since you posted. My apologies for not jumping on it sooner.
And my apologies for misunderstanding you, that's what happens when you're zipping quick responses between other responsibilities. I'm attacked so often without a basis that I just assumed this was another of those.
But lo and behold, I made (at least) two mistakes in referencing the treaties mentioned, as you so deftly caught. Thank you for bringing that to my attention and my apologies for making TWO mistakes.
I'll correct it when I have a chance.
Thanks.
To everyone else, let it be known that I humbly and sincerely apologize to bubba for thinking he was twisting my words, when in fact, it was my mistake. Sorry. I'll try to do better in the future.
I don't think there is any such thing as a "rogue nation". Only the leaders of nations can be rogues. People are the same everywhere. All people, everywhere, in every nation, want to live in peace and have a safe place for their children to grow. But rogue leaders can instigate strife and stir up the people to behave in ways they might not otherwise. I believe we have a world full of rogue leaders, including the U.S.
ReplyDeleteDan, I accept and appreciate the apology.
ReplyDeleteAn analogy might explain my position better. Suppose I believe the following, which is accurate in this case:
"I have the right to bear arms. I have the right to use violent force to defend myself, including the right to use lethal force."
If you reacted the same way to this position as you do to my position on foreign policy, your response would be something like outrage and the claim that I believe I have the right to decide who lives and who dies.
That would only be true if I believe that I alone have the right to defend myself through violent and even lethal force. I don't. I believe all people have that right.
Likewise, I believe the United States has the sovereign right to keep a military force and to determine when to use that force -- even when to engage in wars where with the aim of unconditional surrender and regime change.
But I believe that all sovereign states retain that right, and I believe that our enemies will claim that right and occasionally exercise it against us and our allies, so it's foolish for us to cede that right in the utopian wish that there is a legitimate "world body" that will protect us: no such body exists.
It's not that the United States is the final arbiter of what's right and wrong: it's that there is no human institution that has the legitimate authority to impose upon the United States its rules of what's right and wrong. In lieu of such an authority, we do and should retain the right to exercise the use of military force to our best judgment.
"I have the right to bear arms. I have the right to use violent force to defend myself, including the right to use lethal force."
ReplyDeleteIf you reacted the same way to this position as you do to my position on foreign policy, your response would be something like outrage and the claim that I believe I have the right to decide who lives and who dies.
That IS a very good analogy but the reason breaks down because you left out a portion.
1. I have the right to bear arms.
2. I have the right to use violent force to defend myself, including the right to use lethal force.
3. However, you don't have the right to use that violence indiscriminately or excessively - particularly as it relates to innocent bystanders.
That is, you have the right to defend yourself - even with lethal violence - BUT you don't have the right to do so in such a way that endangers others.
You can shoot at a fellow who is shooting at you.
You can't drop a bomb in his general vicinity, though, as that endangers others. You can't freely even shoot in his general direction if bystanders are around. Your right to defense is superceded by your obligation (legal, I believe) to not endanger others.
And so, I am not outraged at your choosing lethal defense against an enemy. I'm outraged at the suggestion that there are no limits to that defense, and that someone would claim that this self-defense includes the "right" to endanger or kill others.
Or, yet another legally correct way of looking at this is...
ReplyDelete1. You have the right to bear arms
2. You have the right to shoot and kill someone who is endangering your life deliberately (ie, shooting at you)
3. You do NOT have the right to shoot someone who you think MIGHT be a threat to you eventually. Even if they have threatened to kill you, that does not give you the right to kill them pre-emptively.
Very good analogy, Bubba. Thanks.
"3. You do NOT have the right to shoot someone who you think MIGHT be a threat to you eventually. Even if they have threatened to kill you, that does not give you the right to kill them pre-emptively."
ReplyDeleteWe can agree on this as a rule of thumb. But in real life, in a real situation, this rule might endanger me or a loved one. You can't know what I know about a given antagonist who's making my life unbearable. Only the law requires a smoking gun. Threats justify defensive action. Repeated threats justify the ultimate defensive action.
The same holds true on a global scale. Ahmadinijad makes threats on a repeated basis. Look at the heat Bush has taken for what has been said to have been forewarning of 9/11. And now he's considered a warmonger for taking measures in preparation for engagement with Iran? But you'd prefer he just sit back and wait for the worst to happen before acting. Israel took out Hussein's nuclear facility. You think they should be tried for that? They just took one out in Syria, I think it was, which was supported by N Korea. Now if they took out France's facilities, I'd be right with ya. But France has made no threatening moves of any kind. Israel would not be justified. They were in the two cases stated because they KNOW the threats are/were real. They'd be stupid to wait for an attack because they know what happens when they try to adhere to "rules".
For Marty,
I agree with your position regarding rogue leaders. But we have laws against assassination, so Dan would balk at any attempt to take out a rogue leader as well. The law is a bad one. However, taking out a rogue leader usually results in another just like him taking over.
Threats justify defensive action. Repeated threats justify the ultimate defensive action.
ReplyDeleteUnless I'm mistaken, threats do not legally justify a killing.
If a police officer came to your door and asked if you went across the street and shot your neighbor and you said, "Yes, he threatened me. Repeatedly. I was sure he was going to follow through on it so I went over last night and shot him," you would be arrested.
Pre-emptive attacks are immoral and illegal - according to OUR law.
And certainly, if an officer came to your door and asked you if you repeatedly shot across the street, killing your neighbor, the guy next door and wounding three children and you admitted doing it because he had threatened you and you felt this was the safest response - but that you were really sorry about the "collateral damage," that was not your intent, but rather just the cost of living safely in this neighborhood, you would be arrested.
ReplyDelete"Pre-emptive attacks are immoral and illegal - according to OUR law."
ReplyDeleteUntrue. Show me the wording of the law where it says "immoral". some laws might be based on some notion of morality, but not all. I'd also question your notion that any law speaks to "pre-emptive attacks" rather than simply murder or manslaughter. So for me to kill the antagonist that has threatened me repeatedly, has demonstrated a history that any reasonable person would agree makes it likely he'd follow through on his threats, sure, I'd be arrested for it. But I've protected my life and/or loved ones who no longer live in fear. I'll take my chances in court and hope numbskulls aren't in the jury box.
As to your final comment, that's just stupid. For one, it changes the dynamics of the hypothetical to favor your goofy position that law equals morality and is therefor sancrosanct, damn the consequences. For another, it's not how I would handle the situation. Shooting across the street my ass. And finally, as your idea of a fair analogy regarding pre-emptive attacks on Iran's nuclear facilties, it's just too goofy. Mahmoud's threats have been clear. Those who would die in the attack would be those who work at the facility. Whether by choice or by force, they are complicit in the creation of weapons to be used against us or our allies. Plus, you assume that the strike would automatically take place when the likelihood of the most employees present is high. Chances are, the strike would occur when the fewest people are present since the point is to destroy the weapons. But then, your opinion of your own people is so low, I'm not surprised you'd never consider that.
Dan, you have so much more patience with these ethical relativists ("It's ok if my country, my church, or my political party does it, but not if anyone else does it.") than I do. However, I will note that on one part of this issue, the morality of torture, there will be a national summit on "Religious Faith, Torture, and the State of Our National Soul" in Atlanta in Sept. See http://levellers.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/national-summit-on-torture/
ReplyDeletefor more details.
Things have certainly changed since I was a teen. Then, the churches, whether conservative or liberal, condemned the ethical relativism of the James Bond movies. (One famous evangelical, Bernard Ramm, actually wrote a book against them called "James Bond's World of Values.") Now, fundamentalist churches and the political candidates they support cheer on the even greater moral relativism of Jack Bauer of "24."
A large section of American Christianity has become culturally captive--idolatrously worshipping the nation-state and the ideology of Neo-conservatism. Sad. When this happened in South Africa--with white South African churches supporting Apartheid--the global Christian community responded with condemnation. In fact, several denominations in South Africa were suspended from their global counterparts for the heresy of supporting apartheid and theologically justifying racism.
I keep waiting for the global Christian community to do the same thing with American churches that support torture and preemptive war.
I suspect it will come soon if this continues past the current year.
Then, the churches, whether conservative or liberal, condemned the ethical relativism of the James Bond movies... Now, fundamentalist churches and the political candidates they support cheer on the even greater moral relativism of Jack Bauer of "24."
ReplyDeleteGreat insights, Michael. I wish we could have more of that sort of genuine conservatism make a return to the Republican AND Democrat parties.
And your link got cut off so I've fixed it here.
I think I've said all that I'm really interested in saying in this particular venue, but I'll bow out by noting that, while moral relativism can involve treating similar things as different, it can also involve treating different things as similar.
ReplyDeleteThe very people here who seem the quickest to criticize moral relativism are also prone to their own forms of relativism. When they condemn civilian casualties without any recognition of efforts to minimize those casualties, they minimize the differences between those who spend literally billions of dollars to limit civilian casualties and those who seek to kill as many civilians as possible. And when they appeal to world bodies that give all governments an equal footing, they minimize the differences between democracies that respect the rule of law and the consent of the governed, and despots that don't.
Bubba claimed:
ReplyDeleteThe very people here who seem the quickest to criticize moral relativism are also prone to their own forms of relativism.
1. While I'm no expert on philosophy, I believe moral relativism is defined loosely as suggesting that truths/morals are subjective - that some things might be "Right" sometimes and those same actions might be "Wrong" other times.
2. What I believe Bubba is referring to is Moral Equivelancy, which suggests that you could compare two unequal parties and say they are the same and should have the same rules applied to them (usually with the implication that such equivelancy is wrong).
3. I, nor anyone here, has advocated Moral Equivelancy. I have not said that the US is comparable to Iran and therefore should have the same rules apply to them.
4. What I HAVE said is that some actions are always wrong and thus should be always opposed.
5. Therefore, Bubba's excellent analogy (which he began but did not finish), makes great sense...
a. I have the right to bear arms.
b. I have the right to use violent force to defend myself, including the right to use lethal force.
c. However, you don't have the right to use that violence indiscriminately or excessively - particularly as it relates to innocent bystanders.
d. Nor do you have the right to use your arms to kill someone preemptively based on your belief that they may do you harm eventually.
This would be an example of Moral Absolutism (the opposite, I believe of Moral Relativism) which I advocate as it relates to the worst of actions.
Dan, I have named this as a "Blog That Makes My Day." See
ReplyDeletehttp://levellers.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/blogs-that-make-my-day/
Enjoy the award and keep up the good work.
I'd like to thank the Academy, my mom, God and my family for being there for me. snif!
ReplyDeleteThanks!
[When does my check arrive?]