--- Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
> > That'll do. I really think it matters morally if
> these
> > deaths are due to deliberate intent to kill or
> just to
> > deliberate indifference -- not caring whether the
> > policies kill.
>
> Here's the full quote from Albright's interview: "I
> think this is a very
> hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is
> worth it." I hardly see
> how it reveals any intent to kill.
Deliberate indifference, which is what I claimed made no moral difference. In fact, more than D.I. In law, knowledge that your action is substantially likely to result in taking human life is equivalent to intent. The statutes typically read "knowingly or purposefully." So the law is with my moral intuitions on this one.
Surely the
> adminstration was aware that
> sanctions would claim many lives--but that wasn't
> the end desired by those
> who implemented them.
Machts nichts here.
>
> > Wouldn't you describe the Iraqi sanctions policies
> as murderous?
>
> No. But that doesn't preclude them from actually
> being worse than policies
> that might more aptly be called "murderous" (e.g.
> ethnic cleansing in the
> Balkans).
Well, you can defend Halfbrighta nd the US foreignb policy crew before God's great judgment seat. "Lord, it's true they knew theyw ere killing millions. But they didn't strictly intend to do it. If they could have kept their money and power without the deaths, they'd rather have done it that way. But they couldn't. Surely that's worth something. They were better in their hears than Osama bin Laden and Slodoban Milosovic, don't you agree Lord, even if what they did was worse?
>
> > I never said that. If diplomatic efforts and
> police
> > methods, seriously attempted, failed, and the
> threat
> > remained real, and other requirements for a just
> use
> > of force were met (proportionatility, etc.), it
> might
> > be OK, Of course this is wholly speculative.
>
> Again, our difference here is that I believe
> diplomatic efforts and police
> methods alone were bound to fail.
Because?
>
> > By leading to the capture and arrest of its
> leadership, duh.
>
> An unlikely consequence to my mind.
Maybe worth trying as opposed to war, destruction of civil liberties, etc. Or am I too much a boring old fashioned rule of law liberal? I can't wrap my head around this new fangled liberalism that concedes to the enemies of freedom every point that we have won from them over 500 years of struggle.
>
> > You might as well say the same thing
> > about the Mafia. Are they too big for police
> methods?
> > Shall we bomb Nevada? Sheesh. (Btw the Mafia's
> average
> > _intentional_ annual body count is probably way
> above
> > al Qaida's.
>
> It all depends on how large you believe the threat
> once posed by Al Qaeda
> was. They nearly did manage to take out 40,000
> people in a single day, but
> perhaps they just got lucky.
>
Why assume that? Maybe they did not seek to maximize casualties,a s they might have by striking a few hours later. On the assumprtion that people have reasons for what they do, maybe they sought to kill the minimum number of people consistent with their goals. I'm not saying so. But it's a more rational assumption than gauging the threat by what might have happened but didn't.
jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com