Posted on 12/02/2001 5:30:29 PM PST by annalex
If what you say is true -- and it's not -- then your words "constitutional war" is a redundancy.
The perpetrator is not acting rightfully. He may have some mechanical means to compel the government, but if he succeeds, the government actions on his behalf won't be rightful, -- it will be an extension of his crime or a hostage to it. "Empowering" or "powers" as the word is used in the US Constitution connotes a relationship of rightful agency, and that is how I use it.
Why? That would be a cost and benefit analysis, not rights analysis. Besides my actions of shooting the wolf would be rightful or unrightful regardless of whether I have to buy a rifle. The proper rights analysis is to compare the costs of the two violations of rights. The wolf owner violates my rights at the price of the fence. I violate his rights at the price of the wolf. Of course, there are intangibles that I purposely excluded, reducing pet ownership to mere money, etc.
Libertarianism is a theory more than it is a casuistry. In theory we deal with hundred dollar wolves. In casuistry we deal with the recent helicopter attack on Arafat's headquarters. One can't understand the latter without the former.
Says who? The prosector must present enough credible evidence to show that he's a legitimate suspect. The prosecutor(The U.S.) must respect the soverignty of the nation just as he must respect the soverignty of any home in America. He cannot enter without enough evidence to convince a judge that he has a resonable belief that he has the right person.
He may not kill the family for demanding that the evidence be presented, nor may the government prosecute a war killing the man's countrymen without due process.
By bombing and killing Afghanis other than bin Laden, we are unjustly denying them due process. That is as far from libertarian as it gets and I am disgusted that you want to justify such behavior.
I thought I recall you attributing the source of natural rights to God...:)
But anyways, we hold in abeyance the rights of children to vote, drink etc. b/c they're not rationally fit to do so, and likewise with criminals and the insane. I guess the point boils down to, can someone who wishes to kill themselves be thought rationally competent to decide such a thing? Of course, this brings up the interesting point of dying for one's country, which I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts about, given that we are only obligated to save someone if it places us in no danger--or are there special wartime clauses in individualism?
Q: If one's culture (or one's regime) is threatened with extinction or a change that would be equivalent to it, would one be justified in breaking "rules of conduct?" Likewise, what are two incompatible cultures to do if there are no rules of conduct in place?
Says Reason. Your post, when it talks of prosecutors presenting evidence, commits the fallacy of placing jurisprudence before the natural law. The reverse is true: natural rights exist regardless of the judicial superstructure to enforce them. When the matter falls outside of a single jurisdiction, as is the case with any war, the justice of the war would depend on the tenets of the natural law as we interpret it in our minds.
In this task, bin Laden's case presents no difficulty unless you warp the matter with enough pointless references to "sovereignty". Bin Laden caused a massacre to happen and he took the country og Afghanistan hostage so that he and his leutenants escape justice. Individuals who are victimized by that and fear another attack (which bin Laden promised on television) deputized the US military to destroy his network. When civilians are placed, or place themselves in the way of our retaliation, which is directed at Al Qaeda, they will be harmed. We have just cause, just "sovereign" (government) and just methods.
Children and other incompetents do have the same natural rights, but they are not capable of evaluating them, so that job is delegated to adults. A suicide is rightful if it harms no others in comparison to the pain to self the suicide seeks to stop. Its rightfullness is independent from the suicidal man's ability to evaluate it.
Symmetrically, acts of valor should not be confused with duty. The duty to rescue appears when the injury to the resucer is negligible, but it is valorous to come to the rescue selflessly.
A dying culture gains no extra "rights". Thus, the dying Arab Warrior culture, by rights, is not entitled to go out and bomb buildings, but they would be wholly justified to confine their struggle to the cultural or economic sphere. I suggest they breed horses and start martial art studios.
You still haven't shown that there is evidence which warrants these actions. A white paper by Tony Blair who does not have the U.S. best interests at heart (nor the constitution) is not sufficient.
Where's the beef? They won't even show the American people this evidence. That in itself makes it suspect apart from the fact that they won't declare war. They can't because Afghanistan hasn't done anything to the U.S. which warrants a war.
Nice in practice, but we're still faced with the fact that 9 out of 10 suicides would have to be thought of as not capable of evaluating the rightfulness of their suicide...though I'm sure one could argue reasonably for elderly/terminal assisted suicide on your grounds (which, by the way, happens nearly every day where a relative o' mine works via morphine). Still,
Its rightfullness is independent from the suicidal man's ability to evaluate it
You got that right.
The duty to rescue appears when the injury to the resucer is negligible, but it is valorous to come to the rescue selflessly
I suppose we can't prudently expect people to be heroes, but I just can't get this quote out of my head reading your treatment of valor:
"No matter whether a man is highborn or low, if he has not put his life on the line at least once he has cause for shame." --Nabeshima Naoshige, Ideals of the Samurai
they would be wholly justified to confine their struggle to the cultural or economic sphere
Here's something I never understood about the Lockean system, I'd be grateful if you'd explain it to me: these guys didn't agree to play by any rules, so why is it "unrightful" for them to use any means necessary if they're going to die? No deal exists that would enable them to coexist and maintain their full sets of...rights...other civilizations, property rights are something that is determined in a fight.
I suggest they breed horses and start martial art studios.
If I had the loot and the land, that's what I'd be doing right now (along with FReeping and philosophizing, of course).
Er...make that theory.
I may assume that the intelligence evidence is compelling without being shown it, but I understand that it can't be released to the general public. It has been released to the British, hence the significance of the British government and not ours publishing the White Paper. I know that it is just to kill civilians in Afghanistan under the circumstances explained in the article.
Here are the preface and the conclusion of the White Paper; the entire text is here: RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TERRORIST ATROCITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 - AN UPDATED ACCOUNT.
This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TERRORIST ATROCITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 - AN UPDATED ACCOUNT
INTRODUCTION
1. The clear conclusions reached by the government are:
- Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001;
- Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida retain the will and resources to carry out further atrocities;
- the United Kingdom, and United Kingdom nationals are potential targets; and
- Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida were able to commit these atrocities because of their close alliance with the Taleban regime, which allowed them to operate with impunity in pursuing their terrorist activity.
2. The material in respect of 1998 and the USS Cole comes from indictments and intelligence sources. The material in respect of 11 September comes from intelligence and the criminal investigation to date. The details of some aspects cannot be given, but the facts are clear from the intelligence.
3. The document does not contain the totality of the material known to HMG, given the continuing and absolute need to protect intelligence sources.
[...]
Conclusion
74. The attacks of the 11 September 2001 were planned and carried out by Al Qaida, an organisation whose head is Usama Bin Laden. That organisation has the will, and the resources, to execute further attacks of similar scale. Both the United States and its close allies are targets for such attacks. The attack could not have occurred without the alliance between the Taleban and Usama Bin Laden, which allowed Bin Laden to operate freely in Afghanistan, promoting, planning and executing terrorist activity.
While not sufficient as a prosecutorial case (for same imaginary world government jurisdiction), it meets the standard of reasonableness, necessary to show just cause.
I thought we were talking of a dying culture, not a dying human being. That is when I said that the dying Arab Warrior culture, which bin Laden defends, would rightly defend itself with economic or cultural means. If they were threatened physically, then it would have been rightful for them to respond physically, provided the codicils of just war are satisfied. As it stands, the Twin Tower massacre and the bombings in Israel violated every single one of them.
I know that it is just to kill civilians in Afghanistan under the circumstances explained in the article.
No you don't. Civilians are not responsible for what a Saudi National planned while inside their borders (if in fact he really did).
From the White Paper:
62. From intelligence sources, the following facts have been established subsequent to 11 September; for intelligence reasons, the names of associates, though known, are not given.
Civilians are not responsible
Some are and some, perhaps, most, are not. Quoting myself:
As we've seen, strikes against civilians are nearly always unjust. However, in the context of an overall just war, tactical strikes against civilian population are permissible whenever the enemy forces mingle with it. In such case, the victimization is initiated by the enemy's soldiers who, in effect, take civilians as hostages. The combatants on the just side may strike at civilians as long as the primary target is the enemy combatants. The difference between this situation and a criminal hostage crisis being resolved by police is that the police has a contractual responsibility to protect the hostage, and the soldier's don't have any special responsibilities toward the enemy's civilians.
Not good enough in my book. Certainly not good enough to deny Afghan civilians their right to due process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.