A most interesting ethical challenge is found in the story of the death of one Fred Hamilton... a charismatic and very effective black community organizer in the USA.

Hampton was a member of the Black Panthers. (leader)

Here is a video showing his style and ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UstROPm3Ezw&feature=related

The death was in an FBI/CHICAGO POLICE dept RAID...on December the 4th, 1969.

There is no question that the FBI arranged for him to be sedated during the raid..and no doubt that they made sure he was dead.

According to the left, this was premeditated murder.

The question which I want to discuss though, is not exactly the Hampton death, but the Weathermen actions which followed it.
The Weather underground then went on a bombing rampage. My question is this, if... the FBI or police found the location of the Weathermen, and deliberately decided to 'terminate' them if they were found, would that be 'Murder' or.. lawful killing in the defense of the state?

There is an important point which sheds light on the morality of such a killing.. I wonder if anyone can pick it up.. from the easily available information.

This vid will help open up that particular issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbpTvkpZluk

We can develop the discussion from there.

"Murder or... lawful summary execution"

Might provide my input in general if I may?. Don't know the specifics of that particular case.

Personally, I think 'the State' needs to make examples of certain individuals of various intent. It's considered wrong by the majority but it's a necessary evil. The problem I have with it is when it goes from taking out domestic bombers - or such - to taking out people who pose merely a political threat. That happens too.

It's like with Iraq where State sanctioned 'hits' happen all the time for various reasons. Usually to make a point of some sort. Israel do it too, as does various States that are 'our' current enemies. Iran and China are notorious at it. I guess most countries do.

Domestically it's a REAL touchy area where you're potentially - or are - taking out people who you - as the State - have a moral obligation to show restraint. Sometimes though, that restraint is seen as a weakness.

Murder of course.

When the state sanctions murder, either via illegal war or illegally via law enforcement, we should all be concerned. We condemn facist dictators taking the law into their own hands and making judgements on who lives and who dies.

We have a legal system for a reason and that is to bring criminals to justice. The Weather Underground if acting illegally, are criminals and should be treated as such. For governments to go about killing off anyone who breaks the law just creates chaos and questions about where to draw the line. The law is the line.

Naturally in some of these cases deaths will occur due to the nature of the arrest, if you are fired upon then naturally the arrest may involve deaths, but this is different to planned killings.

STG.. of course you are welcome to express your view :)

I think you raise an issue of a 'continuum'.. a line with 2 extremes.
At one end, we have the state needing to despatch or terminate those who have determined they will overthrow the state though violence, and at the other end, those who simply express vociforous protest.

Pelly.. glad you have a firm viewpoint on this, as it means we can 'negotiate' a bit :)

Now.. for your sake, let's take the exmaple a bit further and be more specific. (but not completely so)

SITUATION.

War has broken out, (WWII) and America is just recovering it's senses after the Pearl Harbour attack, there is a known cell of Japanese in America, who are 100% 'with' the intentions of the Japanese government. They have said as much.. they have rung a radio station and declared 'We are at war with America' and promise to launch various attacks on symbols of US power in the States.

The FBI locates that cell, and arranges a 'swat' team to

a) Attack and kill them.
b) Attack and arrest them.
c) Visit them and speak harshly to them about compassion, mutual respect and let's all get along ^_0

Murder?

Should they have just arrested them and put them on trial ?

Is America not now at 'war' with Japan ? Under war conditions, does it not involve the forces of one nation/group, seeking to kill as many of the other mob as they can until one side surrenders...whereupon peace can resume ?

Is there a requirement, and if so, under who's 'law'...that enemy combatants on your own soil should be simply 'arrested' rather than fought and killed ?

If they are arrested... under what 'law' would they be tried ?

Perhaps the 'You want to blow us to oblivion , but we are gonna getcha first' law

Al
Mmm...I grant these are complex issues. There were similar complexities in Ireland during the height of IRA activity.

However, if we are at war with a nation and 'soldiers' arrive on our shores, covertly or otherwise, of course there will be skirmishes involving deaths. That is the nature of war. That is an invasion.

If an organisation (not representing any Government) like the WU, involves itself in a gun battle with the FBI then the nature of the skirmish will no doubt include fatalities.

Giving an order to kill all the perpetrators is different if those criminals can be arrested without deaths. Sometimes the reality is that cannot happen due to the nature of the 'battle'. If they were arrested they can be tried under the bevy of US terrorism laws (politically motivated violence), homicide and resisting arrest just for starters. I suspect in the US that would be a life-sentence or death penalty in some States.

In a civilised world some deaths will occur to protect a way of life, but that way of life also includes a fair and just legal system.

Cont/...

Al

If we were to turn this around and were to see a Left Wing Socialist regime bundling dissenters into cars, torturing and killing them on the basis of perceived or real terrorist activities, would you be so predisposed to allowing government sanctioned murder.

Often we are more lenient to those on 'our side' than those who we oppose when it comes to what we might condone - it is human nature. But that said I can see the potential difficulty in some situations, however in most cases the law usually suffices in bringing criminals to justice.

Pelly..interesting point in that last post. I think you're quite right, we do (I do for sure) tend to be more sympathetic to 'our guys' doing the killing/invading etc than the other way around.

What I was hinting at, and leading do, was the Weathermen underground.. and this is what occurred.

'DECLARATION OF WAR' (issued openly and unambiguously) to a radio station, in the aftermath of the killing/(murder) of Fred Hampton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbpTvkpZluk

I put it in the opening post, but didn't mention the specific bit at issue.

So..what do you think here.. the Weathermen have declared war...they backed this up with the following:

1/ June 1970 Bombing of NY city police dept.

outcome?--> On July 23, 1970, a Detroit grand jury indicted 13 Weathermen members on conspiracy to bomb and kill.

2/ Sept 1970 Timothy Leary Prison Breakout.

3/ May 1972 Pentagon Bombing.

Amazingly... in 1973... Charges were DROPPED! Why? aaah..

a) Legal technicalities
b) Gov't did not wish to disclose in public trial the methods they used to gather intelligence.

Considering that NOW.. Bernadine Dhorn and Bill Ayers, members of that group... are now 'respected educators' (choke) I think it would have been more beneficial to the state, to declare war on them in the first instance in return and eliminate each member they found

Umm people, before you engage in this discussion there's something you should be aware of.

Boaz/polycarp/agir is NOT placing the topic here because he "genuinely" wants discussion on the topic. He's using you.

The reason for the topic being here is that it gives Boaz a soapbox to espouse the far right wing politics of the USA fundamentalist religious right. The links go to the very heart of the social and political mores of this USA religious/political fundamentalism ....... they enable Boaz to control and direct the course of discussion (in order to make his political points).

Just remember folks, the purpose of this disingenuous topic is to provide a platform for Boaz. He's using you. He's NOT interested in "genuine" discourse ........ while at the same time trying to give the "impression" that he is: It's an age old technique used by the far right USA religious fundamentalists; they are experts at it.

Al
My point still applies to your most recent post. A declaration of war by a few fanatics is not a military war and as I said there are laws that cover home-grown terrorism or criminal activity.

benq,
I'm not sure Al is Proxy/Boaz/Polycarp. They have both posted on the same threads often one after the other and while I know this is technically possible, he feels different. But I could be wrong.

Yes it is clear Al has a consistent agenda but most of us do. Some contributors are perhaps less black and white and are more open or tolerant of different views, or at least to understand the view from the other side.

Pelican, Boaz, polycarp and agir are the same person. This was confirmed by the owner of this site, Mr Young, on a thread here several months ago. That's how I know. He gets banned, and comes back under a new name. I don't know who proxy is.

This topic about the Black Panther member's killing in the early 60s (relating to the associated politics and ethical questions) has been used by the American fundamentalist religious far right for nearly 50 years now for political purposes. Why did Boaz/polycarp/agir choose this specific subject in order to promote fundamentalist politics? Because that's what his mentors in the USA do ........ Boaz is one of them (it's where he gets his info from), even though he's in Australia. He can't think for himself, which is obvious; but that's actually good, because it means he's not bright enough to effectively hide his posting motivations and that's a good thing (but he tries and tries and tries, this thread being a good example).

EDIT: The killing was in the late 60's, not early 60s as I stated a few minutes ago; and the USA fundamentalist religious far right has been using it for political purposes for over 40 years. These fundamentalists have a lengthy anti black history that goes back to the late 1800s, and they take political advantage whenever they find black organisations that break the law or do bad things. That way they can promote their anti black agenda, while at the same time appearing self righteous and in support of the law. The fundamentalist leadership has always been manipulative and quite clever in this regard.

Well I stand corrected. That disappoints me I thought with Al there was some litte ray of hope in there. :)

I wish BENNY to know...that I am not Pelican :)

Pelly... a ray of hope ? come come... surely the tone of our discussions has been fairly convivial lately no ?

I need to pick up young Benny on one point though.. any previous nick I've used has not been about avoiding bans. I was banned for a year..and I came back momentarily (in violation of the rules..yes) to correct an obvious misunderstanding that I was proxy.. then..I left again. I think I did 2 short posts.

I came back after my megaban of 12 mnths.. about 2 months after the ban ended. If I made any slippups.. humble apologies.

The reason for raising the Hampton killing and the subsequent Weather underground declaration of war.. was to explore the morality of killing outright, those who have done such things.
Weather underground....
a) Declared war
b) Embarked on a bombing campaign.

In my view.. the state should hunt the suckers down and terminate them on the spot..as it would with any avowed enemy of the state. If you wish Biblical justification for the "State" to do this... you will find it in Romans 13:1-7

Benny's paranoia about 'Right Wing Fundamentalist' stuff is just him needing his meds :)

If he wishes to avail himself of deeper counsel..I'm sure I can arrange a time.

Boronia Macca's Benny?

The local expression of the WeatherUnderground is the Socialist Alliance and Alternative groups. In their documents they have clear references to 'only by revolution' can capitalism be destroyed.
Seems pretty clear to me.
I think that's why Benny is so worried.. Watch it Benny, I understand Druids house is bugged :)

Al
'Ray of fope' was meant as a compliment. I do remember you applying that term to me at one point - and I know you would not want to be seen as hypocritical.

"In my view.. the state should hunt the suckers down and terminate them on the spot..as it would with any avowed enemy of the state. If you wish Biblical justification for the "State" to do this... you will find it in Romans 13:1-7"

Al frankly that sort of attitude worries me. How is that approach any different to those killing in the name of Allah?

Your reference to Romans reads:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

All talk of wrongdoers and establishment of authority by God not to be questioned. Sound familiar? Wrongdoing is often in the eye of the beholder. How do you know a coup is not the work of God? Too much potential for self-fulfilling man-made interpretation for my liking.

Dear Pelly.. (I might start calling you PALly :) I appreciate your enquiring attitude.

Your question is actually a most important one in regard to Church and State....

These are the points to note.

1/ The point about Romans is not that it suggests the State act in the name of "the Church" which is the Kingdom of God...but in the name of 'the State', with the interests of justice and peace and stability in mind.

2/ There is a grave temptation to associate or identify the State with the Church at times.. specially when the Church becomes 'big'.

3/ But Romans was written against a background of an idolatrous pagan Government, and it recognizes that when the State acts genuinely in the interests of justice and 'right'

verse 3 "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong"

verse 4 "for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

So, Romans 13 does not authorize a ruler to act in the name of the Church, but it does recognize that 'termination' of evildoers is an acceptable act in God's sight. (The old Testament provides ample evidence of this)

Paul, in Romans does not suggest that the State can ever be or should be "the Kingdom of God"... if that were the case, then Paul with his almost unparalelled learning could have stood for some high position within the Roman State (he was a Roman Citizen)

Notice however his statement in verse 8 which is directed specifically to the Church at Rome:

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.

Your last point "Authority of God/sound familiar" rates a separate post... I'm pressed for time right now.. I'll try later.

I am reminded of two well known sayings

George Orwell (supposedly)

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf?"

And then again, Pastor Martin Niemoller

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

On balance I feel the latter are the more appealing words.

When a state resists the expedient and acts with moral restraint and sense of fairness, despite the cowardly and odious creatures who challenge it, there is a small collateral risk to some from those who challenge the state with violence, like the weathermen or the British experience with IRA.

However, when a State allows itself to use assassination as a tool of government, no one is safe.

I note it was the Republican President, Gerald Ford, who enacted the directive, which outlawed the use of assassination as a political option by US government agencies.

We see the damage of murderous political/social anarchists and fellow travellers, the history of Europe and USA are littered with their carnage.

The problem with a murderous state organisation is the opportunity to cover-up the crimes, as was revealed when previously communist ruled countries were liberated by the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Of course, the situation of national domestic violence is entirely different to a state of declared war, where the elimination of the enemy has to be pursued absolutely by and with all means possible.

Stern,

I have to say I agree with you in the repudiation of state sanctioned murder.

Still pushing the ol' barrow I see, Boaz.

Your proposed justification for the State sanctioning murder of its citizenry would appear to be based on the fact that a group of them has "declared war".

>>Weather underground.... a) Declared war b) Embarked on a bombing campaign. In my view.. the state should hunt the suckers down and terminate them on the spot...<<

A small fly emerges from the ointment here: upon whom, exactly, would the State declare war?

Such a declaration, of course, would be absolutely essential in order to "legalize' their killing. Weather Underground, being merely a "movement" and not a Nation, would be singularly insufficient a label.

>>...as it would with any avowed enemy of the state<<

Well, not exactly. Not in any half-civilized country, in fact

The term "enemy of the State", you see, has frequently been used by dictatorial regimes over many centuries, to shore up their power base by force. It has become something of a synonym, in fact, for simple dissent, and is then employed in the oppression of views that are considered dangerous to the elite.

So pre-emptive strikes with intent to kill - as opposed to defending oneself vigorously - would not be at all appropriate.

But I do appreciate, as pelican has already noted, that you have finally confessed that your scripture, just like the Qur'an, can be interpreted as an incentive to murder.

"he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves"

Hmmm, tasty.

Your attempt at apologia is far from convincing, by the way.

Boaz/polycarp/agir is about as Christian as the Pope is Muslim.

His support of State sanctioned murder (accompanied by Bible quotes in support) is NO different to State sanctioned murder (accompanied by Koran quotes) that fundamentalists use.

We've heard it all before....... century after century after century of fundamentalists invading, killing, enslaving in the name of their Christian or Muslim God. Just like Boaz is NOT a Christian, these fundamentalists are NOT Christians or Muslims; THEY ARE **FUNDAMENTALISTS**.

Yes, fundamentalists who believe in preemptive, State sanctioned murder in order to eliminate the baddies. Just like Boaz believes. We believe that "they" are the baddies, and they believe that "we" are the baddies. And the fundamentalists can prove who the baddies really are. How? With their ancient, literal Koran and Bible quotes ...... just like Boaz.

Christians and Muslims are NOT the problem

Fundamentalists are the problem.