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.