3 ms·
Murder is unlawful killing; Whatever you think about this from a moral perspective, it was not unlawful. More to the point, Personally? I think the 17 year o
by lsc 14y ago
Murder is unlawful killing; Whatever you think about this from a moral perspective, it was not unlawful.
More to the point, Personally? I think the 17 year olds we throw into actual battle are the least morally culpable of us all. They have to face the physical consequences of an enemy who actively fights back; they have to face the psychological consequences of having killed another human.
And they have to make the decision (the decision to become part of the military machine or not) usually at an age where none of us are equipped to make that sort of decision.
You and I? we're paying for it. If our government is right (and I don't know that they are) we are benefiting from it.
I think that you and I, assuming you are a tax paying US citizen like I am, are in many ways more culpable for the unjust killings our country commits than the 17 year olds that actually pull the trigger.
(well, that, and while the war in Iraq looks completely unjustified from my perspective, with the information I have, killing bin laden, well, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do, but it certainly has more justification than invading Iraq.)
- dopamean 14y agoI agree with everything you've said here. But just for the sake of argument...unlawful is sort of subjective isnt it? Might the unannounced raid and killing of a man on Pakistani soil be considered unlawful in Pakistan?
- lsc 14y ago"lawful" certainly depends on what laws you follow. I am, of course, speaking as an American. I think that everyone would agree that the soldier in question was also an American, working under US law. I mean, yes, I'd bet a Pakistani would see the matter differently; But usually, to charge someone with a crime like murder, you need something of a "Mens rea" - the state of mind of the person doing the killing matters quite a lot. In this case, the soldier could reasonably have thought he was acting lawfully under US law, and was reasonably justified in believing that US law was what he had a responsibility to follow. How should conflicts of law be resolved between countries? I don't know. Usually, it seems, the laws of the more powerful country prevails, which obviously has little to do with justice. But personally, I think that if blame is to be assigned, blame ought to be pointed at our government (or, at the very least, higher ups in our government; not the kid who actually had to pull the trigger.)
- lazyjones 14y ago> Whatever you think about this from a moral perspective, it was not unlawful. Because you say so? Because your president thinks so? That doesn't make it any more legal. In short, killing people without trial is 100% unlawful, except in a declared war (and that means between countries, not "against terrorism" or "against drugs") or in self defense. As far as I know, Osama bin Laden has never been tried before a regular court of justice and even if he had been, breaking into his house and shooting him would likely not have been a proper execution of the death sentence.
- flyinRyan 14y ago>Murder is unlawful killing; Whatever you think about this from a moral perspective, it was not unlawful. Uh... wtf? Are you under the impression that the laws the US makes apply to the entire planet? Some group of people claimed they had the right to kill someone, then they went into a foreign country (in violation of numerous laws, etc.) and killed someone. That's very clearly murder, among other crimes. If you think it's ok because you country made some decision that said it's ok then I guess my country can do that too? I think I'm going to lobby for a law that says I can legally go to your country and take lots of money by force.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]