suppose you,a, hire another person,b, to kill a third, c.

1. b and c fight, c dies, are you a murderer?
2. b and c fight, b dies, are you a murderer?
3. b and c fight, but only a passer-by, d, dies, are you a murderer?

4. c and d will be angry with you if they survive, are they entitled to revenge?

5. if c killed you, would that be fair?

haven't thought about these things? if you don't hate or fear anyone, if you don't find anyone's existence inconvenient, or you haven't got an assassin's fee, then no reason to think about these things, naturally.

but some australians have filled roles a and b. if you knew which, would you socialize with them? or call the police?

unless they are the police of course, or the judiciary, or the cabinet. then you tip your hat.

People who have prompted me to think about any of this sort of stuff are in the law enforcement fraternity or government. They are exactly the sort of people who should uphold strong principles and command respect accordingly. The fact that they are in these sorts of positions and prove to be scumbags makes them much worse than your average scumbag.

I’m not going to proffer answers to your question Demos, but I will say that lowest life forms I have come across have been one or two people each in these categories: local government, the police force, the judiciary and federal government, in that order.

It is the most interesting thread in months congrats Demos.
And Ludwig too, let me say why I find it so.
I 25 years ago walked into a police station, the night before a drunk has smashed his car and was taken away by police.
His car was stripped by a near neighbor, he returned sober the next morning and I took him to the police to make a statement.
The detective was a grub! he swore he ranted all at me!
From that day life has taught me most police are egos on legs, not interested in justice just the discount suit they wear.
I am truly upset by a drug dealer in my community but would not for a second dob him in.
He may have killed more than once but in truth is it safe to tell a cop?
A GOOD COP IS WORTH MORE THAN ANY COMMUNITY CAN PAY.
But how can you tell who is the good one?
I would play no part in the death of any human who was not threatening the life of another but getting involved has only led to being abused in the past.
A policeman's ego questioned my views on community spirit

I have extremely strong feelings about the antics of some police, and the complete corruption of my confidence in them, to the point where like you Belly I am very hesitant to go anywhere near them, unless I absolutely have to.

This conflicts terribly with my view that normal people should bear the responsibility to play a large role in community policing, by way of reporting suspicious or dangerous activities.

I am not anti-police. In fact, I very strongly wish to support the police in doing the most effective job they can. But a small number of abject ratbags have rotted my respect for the whole constabulary.

This business hasn’t generated thoughts of murder, but it certainly has generated thorough thoughts of what I might be able to do about it…..and basically I have come up blank. It continues to be a major thorn in my side through the years.

Noone else is having a go so I will give a view off the top of my head that you can take with a grain of salt but at least it is responsive.

1. definitely
2. no
3. whether or not you are a murderer you would have some type of criminality
4.if they get revenge they will be punished more harshly than the iniator
5. It wouldn't be legal.
suppose you,a, hire another person,b, to kill a third, c.

tip your hat? If they are organising murder they should be reported to the police and CMC.

This is pretty obscure stuff DEMOS, but as I am sure there must be a reason behind it, I'll play along.

I guess the first thing to point out is that by hiring b to kill c, you are already in the frame for conspiracy to commit murder. Whether or not it actually goes ahead, or anybody gets killed, you get banged up for 25 years.

On with the motley.

1. Not murder, but conspiracy to commit. b gets the murder rap.

2. Not murder, but conspiracy to commit. c gets the murder rap, or gets manslaughter with some kind of self-defence remission.

3. Not murder, but conspiracy to commit. b and/or c get the murder/manslaughter rap, depending on how d was killed.

4. If c and d survive, then one of them must have killed b, and neither would be aware of your existence unless b told them before he died. Even then, they'd probably be best advised to keep quiet about it, as they wouldn't want to draw attention to b's death.

5. If c survives, he has probably killed b, and the same applies - how did he find out about you? b's dying breath, perhaps - "It was.... it was.... a-a-a-a-a-a..."

OK, I've done my bit.

Now, what's your point DEMOS?

pericles, i tried to reduce immediate emotional involvement by stripping away names and positions.

my points are these:

i believe john howard hired professional killers to go to iraq and afghanistan, and there kill anyone who did not submit to his will.

not his will, of course, dubya's- but that's another rotten story.

every dead iraqi is on his head, for he is a willing participant in the occupation and rule of the country.

america has been involved in this sort of murder since 1776. recent advances in transportation, communication, and education, and the widespread accessibilty of military methods and materials have made possible the 'strike back' of middle eastern 'c's 'against american ' a's '. and finally, the victims of american hegemony could do something that would get america's attention. that was the wtt attack, which has many characterizations. i call it karma.

meanwhile, as a loyal suckerfish of the american empire, ozzians can expect to be visited by ' c's ' and ' d's ' who find us an easier target than the yanks. don't be too self righteous about the incoming, in some measure, we got it coming.

I thought it might be something along those lines.

Unfortunately, the use of armies to pursue the objectives of governments by proxy has been sanctioned by the general populace for aeons. In fact, we even codified the parameters in the form of a convention, just to make sure.

So unfortunately your entry in the metaphor handicap stakes just fell at the first fence.

>>john howard hired professional killers to go to iraq and afghanistan<<

Wrong. He sent some members of our armed forces. While these are "professional killers" in the most literal sense of the words, this doesn't hold water in the sense that you want it to - i.e., that "soldier", "professional killer" and "murderer" are interchangeable terms.

The difference is that society has sanctioned governments' creation of armies, and their right to deploy them.

What is not sanctioned is action outside the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention, which is why you find American soldiers being tried for crimes committed outside these restrictions.

You do however skirt close to the reality of the issue when you point out that our activities may lead to reprisals, and that these reprisals may be in ways that are not even on nodding terms with the aforesaid convention.

But that's another story.

Until and unless we are beaten in battle, and are therefore liable to be tried in that wonderfully unjust category of "war crimes", we can be as self-righteous as we like.

we could argue longer pericles, but you're right about war crimes: they're only committed by the losers. yet america does not subscribe to the international criminal court, even though they are not likely to lose any time soon. i suppose they feel arrest warrants would be bad for tourism.

Demos I am not sure that this is helpful but surely you could argue that makes all Australians murderers. We elected the government (does not matter in this instance whether you voted for them or not) and the opposition did not oppose the deployment of troops very hard either. (Remember Kevin Rudd himself said there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.)
Or we could contract someone to take us to somewhere. On the way he drives recklessly and kills someone. Should we be held responsible? Remember we have a contract with him.
Oh and the other issue. Are we morally required to be "good Samaritans" and should we be legally required to be "good Samaritans". Is killing someone justified if it saves other lives...you know the sort of argument "I know he is going to drop an atomic bomb and kill several million people. I have seen him put the bomb on the plane. I know what his flight plans are etc etc."
I do know I am totally and utterly opposed to the death penalty...

As I have said before I thought we did the right thing for the right reasons in getting involved in the Iraq war.
And as I have said before I was wrong, it is extremely easy to look back and see that.
But at the time? yes lies and miss information helped deceive me, mad man Saddam playing lunatic confrontational games did too.
But was it wrong to stop the killing in the old Yugoslavia? some may well say yes it was given the hatred the west gets as payment for it.
Should we walk away from Africa, or continue the very half hearted concerns we show for every day murders?
While sickened yes that is right, by the dreadful America we have today I wonder how we would be without them?
Or if we stopped trying to help, maybe if America returns to a pre ww2 policy we can find out how we go on our own.
America has no way out of Iraq and no victory is possible what now?

Yes, Communicat, this is exactly what he is suggesting.

>>Demos I am not sure that this is helpful but surely you could argue that makes all Australians murderers.<<

And Belly, your list is a good summary of the reasons war starts.

>>lies and miss information helped deceive me, mad man Saddam playing lunatic confrontational games did too<<

Following 9/11 there was no chance that the US was going to miss the opportunity to invade Iraq, it was simply a matter of finding the right conjunction of events or excuses. In the end, they had to invent some of each in order to provide sufficient political cover.

>>But was it wrong to stop the killing in the old Yugoslavia?<<

Don't worry, it is only a temporary ceasefire. The underlying problems were not solved by intervention, merely deferred.

>>Should we walk away from Africa<<

Any absence will be filled in the coming years by China, which might have precipitated a form of East-West confrontation in the past, but due to the weakening of the US' international political capital, this may not occur.

>>America has no way out of Iraq and no victory is possible what now?<<

That leads to a position that says America will defend its weakening position (read: attack anything that is smaller than themselves) - with bluff, bluster and cluster bombs.

In summary, the causes of war are: a) warmongering politicians out for personal aggrandizement, b) political interference driven by ideology and/or religion, c) replacing one set of political influence on countries with potential economic benefit, with another and d) the final desperate thrashings of a country whose moral leadership and ethical influence is rapidly waning.

ccat, we may be murderers as a moral question, but a lot of moslems call us murderers 'cause we held uncle sam's coat while the usmc cleaned out someone's home with automatic weapons. for them it's not theoretical, it's family blood, whose spilling 'we' supported. get ready for their opinion about that.

so i refuse to be part of 'we', when 'we' in fact is a decision taken in secret by a few politicians. if oz ever grows up to real democracy, we won't be going to war so easily. or so i hope, on the strength of switzerland's history of peace. in any event, if going to war requires public discussion and referendum, we sure as hell won't be using the army to prop up a corrupt wheat contract with a mass murderer.

Interesting objective DEMOS

>>so i refuse to be part of 'we', when 'we' in fact is a decision taken in secret by a few politicians<<

How do you intend to implement this plan?

Wear a badge saying "Don't shoot me, I didn't vote"?

Emigrate to Switzerland?

Join the other side?

It is odd that you set up the entire conundrum thing that started this thread to prove we are committed to the decision our politicians make on our behalf, only to tell us you want to avoid the consequences.

Sadly, with a few well-documented exceptions, politicians and war are an immutable pre-condition of our living in a developed nation. We may not like it all the time, and it certainly isn't the democracy that is advertised on the box, but that is also a normal part of life.

But take my word for it, you'd not like Switzerland. The constant guilt-by-association of living in a country that enriched itself so massively from the sufferings of others through its neutrality in WWII, should not be underestimated.

Okay Demos you do not want to be your 'brother's keeper' but remember 'no man is an island'. The only way to exclude yourself would be to retire to an island and take nothing at all from society...oh, and don't forget that 'property is theft' too so you will not be able to take anything with you - and I am not sure that there are any unclaimed islands so how are you going to negotiate a deal and not be beholden to someone?
Can't be done mate.

yes, participation in society is a problem. i keep a record of my efforts to educate people as to the difference between democracy and pollie rule. if i find myself in the hague court standing next to howard i expect a reduced sentence, at least.

if i keep nagging for a few more years, perhaps some people will be a little less relaxed and comfortable about leaving the engines of state in the hands of moral pygmies. it's all i can do- if i had a magic wand, i'd break it, for my goal is not precisely to make people behave as i see morality. rather, i'm trying to suggest that the failings of human character are best minimized by involving the maximum number of people in social decisions. democracy, in short.

it's not good enough to shrug your shoulders and say, nothing to be done. attaining democracy is extremely simple, if you and enough others are tired of corruption, mismanagement, and endemic injustice. i'm tired of it, i'm working on the 'enough others' part.

DEMOS, for what it is worth, on this we are agreed:

>>that the failings of human character are best minimized by involving the maximum number of people in social decisions. democracy, in short<<

But on this, we differ:

>>attaining democracy is extremely simple, if you and enough others are tired of corruption, mismanagement, and endemic injustice<<

Possibly because I am older and therefore, by definition, more cynical, I suspect that the levers of power are now so welded to the hands of career politicians that it will take violence to detach them.

Not being a violent person myself, I am conditioned - and therefore condemned - to make the best of it.

And as corrupt, mismanaged and unjust as it may be, at least it is *our* corruption, mismanagement and injustice.

Ah Demos - yes, little things can make a big difference....but sometimes it takes an awful lot of little things...an acquaintance of mine once wrote more than 8,000 letters...each letter a small act in itself but designed to influence the whole...before she achieved her goal of getting the UN to declare what became "International Literacy Year". Of course she is still a very small person in the eyes of the national and international community. They never acknowledged her efforts and probably never will although her efforts have had more impact on world affairs than those of any politician in the past 100 or so years. So, don't expect to be acknowledged or thanked for trying to make a difference mate.

Pericles, I too immediately reading the question of Demos gained the view he would more then likely refer to John Howard, and I take the view that in fact John Howard can be charged and more then likely would be convicted.
.
John Howard (as I have set out in my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH) had no constitutional powers to authorise any armed invasion, as such the fact he did so in itself ensures he committed at the very least TREASON and TREACHERY!
.
Also, I successfully proved in Courts that all 2001 writs were defective and as such no candidate was validly elected, hence neither John Howard. The fact that they nevertheless remain in power does not alter the fact they were so unconstitutionally (illegally).
.
Again, my blog deals with it already extensively and so no need to try to repeat the same.
.
As for Demos, a very good point you raised, not merely because I am already pursuing this issue since 2003, but because it shows you are interested in FACTS and how they can be translated in dealing with matters, and not go along with the sheep!