If God Is Pro-War – He Lied

I have a question to ask you. I would then like you to ask it of others, particularly of Christians:

How many innocent people would you be willing to kill – purely to defend yourself?

For example, let’s say you are well armed and an armed robber is shooting at you – but the robber is holding a hostage directly in front of him.

Or, suppose someone is shooting at you from within a crowd. Maybe some in the crowd don’t like you. Let’s push it even further and say that most of them hate you, and sympathize with the attacker. To shoot back, you would be aiming at the attacker, but you know you would also hit others.

I repeat:

How many of them would you be willing to kill, even absolutely and purely in self-defense?

I asked this question of someone fairly high up in military intelligence recently. I had to press the point as he beat around the bush for a while. His (eventual) response? "I’m not sure I know the answer to that question." Well, at least he was thinking about it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Asset Forfeiture

Was the war on terrorism contrived?

George Bush’s “war on terror” isn’t discussed much nowadays, which has enraged more than a few right-wing Republicans who accuse President Barack Obama of being soft on terrorism.

“Doesn’t he know we’re at war,” grumbled a furious guest on Fox News recently. It may have been given a lower profile but in reality, it’s still ongoing. Obama has reauthorized the USA PATRIOT Act until February next year, which means the American people are still vulnerable to telephone wiretaps and to having their records seized by authorities.

Moreover, for the first time ever, a US president has blessed “the targeted killing” of American terrorist suspects under a congressional act passed a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Currently in the CIA’s sights is Anwar Al-Awlaki, a US-born former imam of Yemeni extraction. Al-Awlaki, thought to be hiding in Yemen, is a “senior recruiter for Al-Qaeda and a spiritual motivator,” according to the FBI.

Read the rest of this entry »

Police told to arrest innocent people to meet targets

Hurting People For a Living

I don’t like him. He hurts people for a living.

Only people who’ve hurt others, or who haven’t kept a promise.

Spenser explains Hawk’s code of ethics to his inamorata, Susan Silverman.

For neither the first nor last time I find myself lamenting the fact that those employed by government typically aren’t as moral as Hawk, the fearsome muscle-and-gun specialist created by novelist Robert Parker (and memorably brought to life on screen by Avery Brooks).

Singularly capable when it came to inflicting injury on other people, Hawk employed that gift for commendably narrow purposes: If you hurt others for whom he was responsible, or attempted to, he would hurt you; if you reneged on a loan made by someone who employed him, Hawk would inflict the necessary duress until the debt had been satisfied.

While he was honest and — in the estimation of those who knew him — honorable, Hawk wasn’t entirely laudatory, particularly in his choice of employers. But he wasn’t a predator; he didn’t target the weak or helpless.

Hawk was a violent man, but he exercised violence only to deter or punish aggression and fraud.

If you chose not to get involved with the kind of people who employed him, Hawk — for all his tightly coiled ferocity and potential for lethal violence — was no threat at all. Think of the principle symbolized by the snake found on the Gadsen Flag given life in the form of an uber-slick urban enforcer so palpably deadly he’d make Shaft soil his underoos, and you’ve got Hawk.

Although he was frequently employed by unsavory people, Hawk was immeasurably more moral than those who presume to rule us, and the government they operate at our expense on their behalf. This is why he displayed nothing but wary contempt toward the government, especially those given the task of enforcing its laws.

Government, we are told, exists to protect us against anarchic violence that threatens life, liberty and property.

As Papa Hemingway might reply: Isn’t it pretty to think so?

Read the rest of this entry »