"Justified Terrorist Acts" Re: Al-Q Honcho Hit

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>So, Dennis, you're in favor of CIA assassinations in
>the time-honored manner of the Mossad? A new depth,
>even for you. jks

In September, Brad DeLong defended here the atomic bombings of 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "justified terrorist acts":

*****   Re: Christian scholars say no war

From: Brad DeLong (delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU)
Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 14:48:33 EDT

>  > Chronicle of Higher Education - web daily - September 23, 2002
>>
>>  In February, for example, 60 scholars issued a statement arguing that
>>  military action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda qualified as just war.
>
>Just out of curiousity, have the Walzer 60 piped up with anything specific
>about Iraq?
>
>Also, now that I think about it -- Walzer's overriding criteria for
>distinguishing just from unjust war is that intentionally killing
>civilians is wrong, even for the purpose of deterring aggressors. He is
>not deterred by unintentional collateral damage because if you rule that
>out, you rule out war, and then you're a pacifist and not a just war
>theorist. But how, I wonder, does he justify sanctions of mass
>destruction? Because those are effectively targeted only at civilians,
>and precisely with the aim of harming aggressors through their suffering.
>
>Michael

Walzer has a real problem with nuclear deterrence, but I think the 
problem is inherent in the strategy and the weapons systems--not a 
flaw in his philosophy.

The U.S. nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much terrorist 
acts as anything else. I think they were justified terrorist 
acts--they succeeded in bringing an end to the Japanese militarist 
government, and did so with a much lower butcher's bill than any 
conceivable invasion of Honshu. But that doesn't change their 
character...

Brad DeLong

<http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0209/1917.html>   *****

On the right edge of LBO-talk, there is *no limit* to justification 
of *any means* -- including nukes -- used by the US government.  If 
the US government resorts to using a nuke, legalizing torture, etc. 
in the near future, no doubt we will see some LBO-talkers defending 
them, provided they are used "judiciously," dismissing objections as 
mere "legalistic hand-wringing."  Sometimes, I just have to wonder 
what's an "L" doing in LBO-talk.  Quite often, the list would be more 
fittingly titled BO-talk, as in Belligerent Observer-talk.
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>
* Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html>
* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>