Bombing and terrorism

[Henry C.K. Liu]

Because the distinction between war and murder is that war is supposed to be
a conflict of over political differences rather than personal disputes.
Soldiers are institutional elements of war and the killing of them,
regardless of heir personal views, are acceptable within the rules of war.
Civilians and hospitals are outside the institutional limits of war and the
destruction of hospitals and killing of patients, regardless of their
personal views, are barbaric acts of murder.
War, as reprehensible as it is, is a human institution.  War is not a
license for mass murder.  For this reason, there are such things as war
crimes.
One would think that everyone with the education and intelligence to
participate on lists such as lbo/pen-l would understand the moral difference
between war and murder.

Henry C.K. Liu

Seth Ackerman wrote:


> Oh my God.
>
> >We treat the
> >killing of a soldier as more legitimate than the bombing of a hospital,
> but
> >if the soldier voted against the regime leading the war, while the
> hospital
> >is full of government partisans, why is killing the soldier a more
> moral
> >act?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Brown [SMTP:CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 4:02 PM
> > To:   lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > Subject:      Re: Bombing and terrorism
> >
> > Nathan,
> >
> > Aren't you in law school ? What about the fact that the U.S. and NATO
> > are violating international law ? Doesn't that impact your reasoning
> > as to what is legitimate or illegitimate use of deadly force ?
> >
> > Charles Brown
> >
> > >>> "Nathan Newman" <nathan.newman at yale.edu> 05/11/99 01:47PM >>>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carl Remick <cremick at rlmnet.com>
> > To: 'lbo-talk at lists.panix.com' <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> >
> >
> > >I'm willing to stand corrected, but, IMO, today's column by Thomas
> > >Friedman of the NY Times is the most obscene thing he has ever
> > written.
> > >He states: We are at war with the Serbian nation, and anyone
> > >hanging around Belgrade needs to understand that. This notion that we
> > >are only at war with one bad guy, Slobodan Milosevic (who was
> > popularly
> > >elected three times), is ludicrous.
> >
> >
> > Let's be clear: the NATO bombing of Belgrade is terrorism, and I say
> > that
> > not as a condemnation but as a description.
> >
> > The logic and morality of terrorism is specific to nations whose
> > leaders are
> > democratically elected or at least obviously legitimated by the
> > majority of
> > the population, so Friedman's point is no more obscene than any other
> > justification of terrorism.  But it is worth evaluating it in those
> > terms,
> > since many NATO critics may argue that the Kosovars have a just cause
> > but
> > this is an illegitimate means - exactly the argument used against
> > terrorism
> > by the PLO, the IRA, the Kurds and many other forces that have used
> > terrorism to greater or lesser success over the years.
> >
> > As with most left interventionists, I think a military intervention
> > was the
> > moral choice, since one of the moral justifications of terrorism is as
> > a
> > tool of those facing military forces that they cannot hope to match -
> > obviously a justification that NATO cannot use.
> >
> > But there are other justifications of terrorism.  There is an argument
> > that
> > citizens voting for a brutal government are more responsible for
> > actions of
> > that government than soldiers drafted to defend that state. We treat
> > the
> > killing of a soldier as more legitimate than the bombing of a
> > hospital, but
> > if the soldier voted against the regime leading the war, while the
> > hospital
> > is full of government partisans, why is killing the soldier a more
> > moral
> > act?
> >
> > One argument against terrorism is that it is indiscriminate and
> > violates the
> > division we make (however arbitrarily) between legitimate spaces for
> > violent
> > conflict and the preservation of civility.  But erasing that division
> > is the
> > point of much terrorism, as the characteristic phrase of terrorism,
> > "no
> > business as usual", indicates.
> >
> > In fact, there is an argument that the very "civility" of war rules
> > can
> > extend war and associated death by allowing protected civilian sectors
> > to
> > keep sending waves of soldiers off to die without facing the
> > consequences
> > themselves.  Sherman's March was an act of war-related terrorism to
> > "bring
> > the war home" to Southern civilians, just as Hiroshima was an act of
> > terrorism that obstensibly was aimed at ending the war early and
> > preventing
> > the deaths of even more soldiers. (We can skip the debate on whether
> > other
> > motives dominated, since the explicit goal was justified in terms that
> > can
> > only be deemed terroristic, and justified as moral on that basis).
> >
> > Terrorism like any other strategy can be condemned for being used for
> > an
> > unjustified cause or being ineffective in a particular situation -
> > different
> > propositions stated by those opposing the bombing - but I find the
> > whole
> > moral condemnation of the act of terror unto itself somewhat
> > hypocritical,
> > since almost everyone will justify versions of terrorism if the side
> > using
> > it has good cause and it is effective.
> >
> > (Note:  One of my favorite Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes was
> > gave
> > a full hearing to justification for use of terrorism by the Bajorans
> > (read
> > PLO) against the Cardasians (read Israel).)
> >
> > --Nathan Newman
> >