You're not allowed to kill civilians

It's been awhile so it seems again it's time for a helpful reminder that noncombatant immunity isn't just a good idea, it's the law.

In other words: You're not allowed to kill civilians.

Killing civilians is against the law. Killing civilians makes you a criminal.

Yes, but ...

No buts about it. You're not allowed to kill civilians.

And, also: You're not allowed to kill civilians.

This is neither new nor controversial, yet putting the matter in such stark terms always seems to upset people.

On the one hand, this isn't surprising since the killing of civilians has become a scarcely remarkable, dog-bites-man commonplace. Yet it's still surprising that anyone could find this elementary notion upsetting: You're not allowed to kill civilians. If you're one of those people who finds this upsetting, bear in mind what it is that you're upset about. Apparently someone you feel ought to be immune from criticism has been killing civilians and you feel I'm criticizing them by pointing out -- in the most abstract terms, without any mention of particulars -- that this is something that no one is allowed to do.

"What you really mean ..." people say -- because they're certain that when I say "You're not allowed to kill civilians" I must really mean something other than "You're not allowed to kill civilians" -- "What you really mean is that you're not not allowed to target civilians."

No.

What I really mean -- and again it's not just me, or my opinion, or my preference, it's the law -- is that You're not allowed to kill civilians.

"But what if ...?" And here come the hypotheticals (which aren't really necessary since the world is full of actuals) positing all the many scenarios in which it is not only acceptable, but obligatory, to take some action that will, in fact, result in civilians getting killed.

The common thread in all of these scenarios -- hypothetical or actual -- is the idea of double effect. A doctor, for example, is bound by oath to "do no harm." Slicing someone with a razor-sharp knife would certainly seem to constitute doing harm. But if the doctor is slicing someone with a scalpel because this cutting is an inescapable part of surgery needed and intended to heal, then the doctor may -- perhaps even must -- perform such slicing without violating her oath. The harm done by the slicing is an unavoidable second effect and is not the doctor's main intent. The slicing could be called -- to borrow the military phrase -- "collateral damage."

Military officers really can, do and must think in such terms. That's what separates an army from a barbarian horde. That's what separates a soldier from a thug with a gun.

The key elements here are the intent, the justice/goodness and necessity of the primary effect, and the inescapable/unavoidable nature of the secondary, unintended effect. All of which sets the bar considerably higher than the oversimplified cartoon version of "the ends justifies the means."

If there is any possible way to achieve the intended effect without producing the unintended effect, then double-effect does not apply -- the doctor may not slice, the general may not attack. If there is any possible way to achieve the necessary intended effect without producing the unintended effect and you act, instead, in a way that produces this secondary effect, then you have not produced "collateral damage," you have simply slaughtered civilians.

And, by the way, You're not allowed to kill civilians.

Comments

[Axiomatic]

You're mistaken.

They're not allowed to kill civilians. We're the good guys. That means we can do whatever we please.

[Protagoras]

I don't know that I'd add "civilians" to your statement. Seems to me that killing "enemy" soldiers requires the same kind of justification you discuss under double effect. As a practical matter, it will likely end up being justified more often, but someone being a soldier doesn't immediately make them fair game; more is required.

[Stephen Frug]

Amen.

[Axiomatic]

Protagoras, you can't demand that the enemy soldier belong to a nation we're at war with, because the US hasn't had a war since WW2:D

[Steve]

Thank you, Fred. I've been meaning to e-mail you in the last few days and say "Isn't it about time for a 'You're not allowed to kill civilians' post"?

[Axiomatic]

Okay, here's my alternative response:

"It's okay to kill civilians if the president does it."

[cminus]

Okay, here's my alternative response:

"It's okay to kill civilians if the president does it."

In retrospect, I was a lot happier when this statement read not "kill civilians," but rather "engage in oral sex."

[NonyNony]

If you are a rag-tag group of militias who deliberately bomb civilian areas to pressure a government into doing something that you want it to do, that is called terrorism, prosecutable in the jurisdiction where you performed it (provided that jurisdiction actually has a law enforcement capability capable of capturing you and trying you, of course).

If you are a government of a nation that deliberately bombs civilian areas to pressure another government into doing what you want it to do, it is a war crime (provided you lose the war and are held accountable for your actions. Otherwise, it's just a "regrettable incident".)

If you are a government of a nation that deliberately bombs civilian areas to pressure a militia group into doing what you want it to do, you are not only guilty of war crimes, you are also guilty of practicing really poor military tactics and misunderstanding modern warfare and diplomacy.

[Edward Liu]

I hate to be a linguistic nitpicker here, but I think it matters how you define a civilian. An incident was documented during the Battle of Mogadishu where a civilian (i.e., a person not carrying a weapon) was acting as a spotter for the Somali militia. She would walk out into the street, jumping and hollering and pointing when she saw American soldiers. Then she would run away, and another hail of gunfire would be sent at the soldiers she was pointing at.

After 2 or 3 times, one of the American soldiers decided to break the rules of engagement (in this case, the one that stated that you can't shoot someone who isn't armed) and shot her, after which the gunfire from that sector stopped, at least for a while.

I suspect that this situation is covered by the double-effect you referred to above; by and large, civilians were not targeted explicitly during the Battle of Mogadishu, and I do believe that the soldiers took the rules of engagement very seriously. The soldiers did not leave their base that afternoon with the intent of shooting unarmed civilians. However, even taking that into account, I'm not sure I'm willing to label the woman in question as a civilian. She was by the strictest definition, but I think lumping in someone like her into a "you cannot kill civilians" blanket rule isn't quite right either. As a side note, I think pro-military partisans make far too light of the decision to shoot her ("I would have shot her sooner"), and anti-military partisans make far too light of how hard it is to make that decision ("How could he shoot someone who was unarmed?").

The same kinds of questions crop up when one considers the angry mob that converged on the 2nd crash site, killing and mutilating the 2 soldiers who attempted to secure the site. There may have been militia members in the crowd, but the overwhelming majority of the mob was unarmed civilians.

I don't have any good answers to this, but I'd feel better if I got the sense that more people in positions of power could begin to understand the questions.

[twig]

Yes, Edward, by all means let's nitpick this down into individual circumstance and ignore the mass slaughter of innocent, fleeing, civillians.

Fred, you rock.

[pablo]

According to Dershowitz there are no civilians anymore. At least no Arab civilians.

[bulbul]

Here's more on Mr. Dershowitz and his theories.
And a little more.
What a prick.

[bulbul]

There may have been militia members in the crowd, but the overwhelming majority of the mob was unarmed civilians.
The key point here is that they ATTACKED the soldiers. By doing that, they ceased to be civilians.

While it is a good point you raise, Edward, it hardly applies to the present situation. A family on a piknick (Gaza) or convoys of refugees (Lebanon), not to mention the score of people living buildings adjacent to "Hezbollah offices" undoubtedly ARE civilians. End of story.

[grenadine]

Edward actually makes a good point, one I'm sure Fred and others are well aware of, which is basically that, war (particularly modern war) is messy. the rules of engagement work when you consider "traditional" war, i.e. British redcoats marching in tidy lines down Concord Road. They break down in situations like Mogadishu, where "civilians," who may not be wearing a uniform and carrying a gun, but are nevertheless trying their best to get the enemy killed.

sometimes, there is no good decision, only a slightly less awful one, and that's what makes war a tragedy by definition.

[bulbul]

In retrospect, I was a lot happier when this statement read not "kill civilians," but rather "engage in oral sex."

On a similar note, I recently caught myself thinking "Good old Sharon. None of this would have happened had he been OK." Man, this sucks...

Oh and forgive the large number of typoes in my posts. Broken keyboard.

[cjmr's husband]

Italics tag apparently was collateral damage

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Killing civilians is against the law

Actually it isn't. The law - specifically, article 51 of the First Additional Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention - states that an attack is prohibited if it will "cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." This is colloquially known as the "proportionality rule."

The article contains other, more specific prohibitions such as the bombardment of towns and the use of civilians as human shields. But the basic rule doesn't boil down to "killing civilians is against the law." It's illegal to deliberately attack civilians, but it's legal to attack a military target even at the cost of civilian life as long as the damage isn't "excessive" in relation to the military objective. A panel appointed by the ICTY, for instance, concluded that there was nothing illegal about the NATO bombing of Serbia despite the deaths of (at minimum) several hundred civilians.

Keep in mind that I'm talking strictly about the law, not about morality or ethics. I happen to believe that there are moral arguments for going beyond what international law requires in protecting civilians. It's incorrect, though, to say that the law prohibits all killing of civilians in time of war.

[Beth]

If you drop bombs, no matter how carefully you avoid it, sooner or later you'll almost certainly kill civilians. If you engage in battle in a city or town, you'll almost certainly kill civilians. If you try to drive enemy out of the town, you'll almost certainly kill civilians. If you occupy a country, you'll almost certainly kill civilians. If you resist occupation by a nation that uses military contractors, you'll almost certainly kill civilians. If a gang in Brooklyn lobs missles into the Bronx and the Brooklyn government can't or won't act, so the Bronx goes in to stop them, they'll almost certainly kill civilians. If the Bronx starts bombing Brooklyn, and the Brooklyn government can't or won't act, so youse guys fight back yourselves, you'll almost certainly kill civilians. If you fight an unconventional war, you'll almost certainly kill civilians. If you fight a modern (post WWI) conventional war, you'll almost certainly kill civilians.

If you say absolutely, "You're not allowed to kill civilians," then what you're really saying is, "You're not allowed to fight any sort of war." If you believe that warfare is sometimes justified, then you believe that killing civilians is sometimes allowed. If you believe that warfare is never justified, you still have to live in a world were it happens all the time. So you are not allowed to kill civilians unless:

1. Not taking action will result in the deaths of more civilians or something equally bad.
2. Military engagement can reasonably be expected reduce that harm.
3. There are no alternatives to fighting that could reasonably be expected to result in a similar reduction.
4. The passions inevitably fanned by violence will not cancel out any benefits of fighting.
5. When all of the above conditions are met, you still do everything you can to minimize civilian death.

[bulbul]

So you are not allowed to kill civilians unless:

1. Not taking action will result in the deaths of more civilians or something equally bad.
2. Military engagement can reasonably be expected reduce that harm.
3. There are no alternatives to fighting that could reasonably be expected to result in a similar reduction.
4. The passions inevitably fanned by violence will not cancel out any benefits of fighting.
5. When all of the above conditions are met, you still do everything you can to minimize civilian death.

And does the current Israel-Hizballah war satisfy any of these conditions?

[Jeff]

Does the current Israel-Hizballah war satisfy any of these conditions?
I'm going to respond to the war as a whole (in which I agree with Israel), as oppposed to the bombing of Beiruit (in which case i think the Israelis are being flaming jerks -- to put it mildly):

1. Not taking action will result in the deaths of more civilians or something equally bad.
Yes. Lebanon was charged with removing Hezbollah from firing range of Israel. They have instead allowed what is being defined as war crimes -- the firing of rockets or missles (I've heard both) into an area that is completely civilian. Clearing Hezbollah permantly from S Lebanon will save civilian lives on an ongoing basis.

2. Military engagement can reasonably be expected reduce that harm.
See above

3. There are no alternatives to fighting that could reasonably be expected to result in a similar reduction.
Israel waited for Lebanon to do its duty. Instead, Hezbollah has strenghtened its role in the government of Lebanon.

4. The passions inevitably fanned by violence will not cancel out any benefits of fighting.
No. Especially the way that Israel is fighting.

5. When all of the above conditions are met, you still do everything you can to minimize civilian death.
No. I think Israel should pound S Lebanon and use ground troops as need to root guerillas from the civillian population, but not bomb the cities.

Let's ask the same questions of Hamas, shall we? I don't think they would get any exceptions (other than the usual canard that israel treats the population -- that has sworn to kill them -- badly).

[Steve]

Beth, you make some good points, but is not this what Fred is saying in the latter part of his post:
The common thread in all of these scenarios -- hypothetical or actual -- is the idea of double effect. A doctor, for example, is bound by oath to "do no harm." Slicing someone with a razor-sharp knife would certainly seem to constitute doing harm. But if the doctor is slicing someone with a scalpel because this cutting is an inescapable part of surgery needed and intended to heal, then the doctor may -- perhaps even must -- perform such slicing without violating her oath. The harm done by the slicing is an unavoidable second effect and is not the doctor's main intent. The slicing could be called -- to borrow the military phrase -- "collateral damage."

Military officers really can, do and must think in such terms. That's what separates an army from a barbarian horde. That's what separates a soldier from a thug with a gun.

The key elements here are the intent, the justice/goodness and necessity of the primary effect, and the inescapable/unavoidable nature of the secondary, unintended effect. All of which sets the bar considerably higher than the oversimplified cartoon version of "the ends justifies the means."

If there is any possible way to achieve the intended effect without producing the unintended effect, then double-effect does not apply -- the doctor may not slice, the general may not attack. If there is any possible way to achieve the necessary intended effect without producing the unintended effect and you act, instead, in a way that produces this secondary effect, then you have not produced "collateral damage," you have simply slaughtered civilians.

Fred's allowing for some civilian deaths if some greater evil must be prevented or ended, but extreme concern/sensitivity to civilian casualities must be part of the planning and execution (pun certainly not intended). I believe Fred is pointing out that we've become entirely too desensitized to civilians casualties on the battlefield, and entirely too forgiving of leaders and regimes who undertake plans that carelessly lead to civilian casualities.

Case in point: our entry into Iraq three years ago. Rumsfeld wanted war on the cheap, so shock and awe was the plan. But bombing from afar undoubtedly leads to many civilian casualities. This next point surprised me when I first heard it, but military leaders will say the best way to avoid civilian casualities is many, many troops on the ground...because (assuming an ethical approach by the military force) they will be able to make discriminating decisions in each case of whether to shoot, stand down, rescue, etc. Still very messy in guerilla warfare, but much more deliberate than aerial bombing. But we wanted war on the cheap, so while the Army leader recommended ~500,000 troops in Iraq, Rumsfeld said we could do it with ~150,000. We saved some money, and are losing the war and have made a mess of Iraq.

Another point: America was outraged, OUTRAGED, that terrorists killed 3,000 civilians on 9/11, and we had every right to be. But in the (misguided) response, at least 30,000 Iraqi civilians die and most of us yawn or say, well, that's collateral damage. Can you imagine if someone tried to call the victims of 9/11 collateral damage, what the outrage would be?

[cjmr's husband]

You all forgot Rule 6: Americans are never collateral damage.

[Beth]

Bulbul,
IMO, the short answer is no.

Longer answer:
1. Not as far as I know, but there's a lot I don't know. It's possible the answer could be yes.
2. Ditto.
3. Ditto, but leaning a bit more strongly toward no.
4. Almost certainly, a clear no.
5. This one's bound to be a matter of degree. No matter how careful you are, you could always do better, and no matter how careless, it could always be even worse. Still, I'd have to give it a pretty clear no.

That specific application aside, what do you think of my list?

Steve,
You're right, and I owe Fred an apology for not paying enough attention to his more nuanced analysis toward the end.

I agree with your other points as well. One disturbing trend, starting with Bosnia, if not before, is the unspoken rule that our troops' lives are infinitely more valuable than their civilians' lives. So an action that kills hundreds of civilians is justified if it prevents even one American (military) death. I think there's also a general impression that casualties caused by aerial bombing campaigns count a lot less, period. Perhaps one positive result of the bombing of Lebanon -- if I can put it that way, without sounding utterly callous -- is that it has produced so many widely seen images of the horrific results of bombing that it may help to shock people out of that view.

[Beth]

One more thought: I suspect #4 (The passions inevitably fanned by violence will not cancel out any benefits of fighting) is the most widely violated and also the most egregious. Unnecessary killing is bad enough. When it inspires even more unnecessary killing, it's much, much worse.

[bulbul]

Beth:
IMO, the short answer is no.
Thank you.

That specific application aside, what do you think of my list?
It makes me wish you would run for a public office.
My first reaction was that your list would apply to warfare in general.
I especially like point 4, since it - rather refreshingly - takes into account popular reaction to military action. It is a very important aspect of warfare and it is rarelly considered.

Jeff:
1. Not taking action will result in the deaths of more civilians or something equally bad.
Yes. Lebanon was charged with removing Hezbollah from firing range of Israel. They have instead allowed what is being defined as war crimes
The problem is, Hizballah IS a part of Lebanon. It speaks for a large portion of the Shiite population and it has two (perhaps three) government seats. If by "Lebanon was charged" you mean "Fouad Siniora's government minus its Hizballah members was charged", then I don't see how any unilateral action on Israel's part is going to help. Not in terms of rooting out the terrorists, because, let's face it, Hizballah has been fighting Israel for 24 years and has gotten quite good at it, not when it comes to popular support for the terrorists and it sure as hell won't help Siniora.

I think Israel should pound S Lebanon and use ground troops as need to root guerillas from the civillian population
They have tried that. Twice. Did it help?

[Bugmaster]

Sorry Fred, but I think you might be oversimplifying things quite a lot.

Firstly, by using your "you're not allowed to kill civilians and that's that" philosophy, you're discounting a very important factor: the lives of our soldiers. For example, it's often the case that a ground assault and an air raid can accomplish the same objective. With a ground assault, you will save civilian lives, but lose many soldiers. With an air bombardment, you will destroy the objective and save a lot of soldiers, at the expense of some civilian lives. So... whom would you rather kill ? I'm glad I'm not a general who has to make these choices.

Secondly, the situation in Iraq and the Middle East in general is more similar to Vietnam or even the American Revolution than, say, WWII. The civilians are the soldiers; at least, some of them are, and you can't tell which is which until they walk up to you and press the detonator.

I appreciate the sentiment that killing people is wrong, but it's not as simple as Fred seems to make it. The best way to avoid civilian casualties is to avoid starting wars in the first place, but, sadly, we're past that point now.

[bulbul]

you're discounting a very important factor: the lives of our soldiers
So an American soldier is worth more than an Iraqi baker after all?

Secondly, the situation in Iraq and the Middle East in general is more similar to Vietnam or even the American Revolution than, say, WWII.
Close, but not close enough. If anything, the situation in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine is more like the situation in Northern Ireland before the Good Friday Agreement. It astonishes how people fail to learn from that experience.

[bulbul]

One more thing:
With a ground assault, you will save civilian lives, but lose many soldiers. With an air bombardment, you will destroy the objective and save a lot of soldiers, at the expense of some civilian lives.
In 99% of the cases, you will have to make a ground assault anyway, no matter if you're trying to end occupation, topple the current regime or drive out undesirable elements. The purpose of an aerial campaing is to a) destroy the infrastructure, b) cripple the (war-related) industry, c) drive out the civilian population to make way for ground assault and d) instill fear. In other words, aerial bombardment is a complement to ground assault, not an alternative. Its increasing use in modern (read: post-Gulf War) warfare only reflects the "an American soldier is worth more than a X civilian" mindset and the desire of the military and the politicians to avoid public outrage over flag-covered cofins.

[Jesurgislac]

(attempts to kill italics)

Firstly, by using your "you're not allowed to kill civilians and that's that" philosophy, you're discounting a very important factor: the lives of our soldiers. For example, it's often the case that a ground assault and an air raid can accomplish the same objective. With a ground assault, you will save civilian lives, but lose many soldiers. With an air bombardment, you will destroy the objective and save a lot of soldiers, at the expense of some civilian lives. So... whom would you rather kill ?

No, Bugmaster, I don't believe Fred was discounting that. (At least, I hope he wasn't.)

The argument you're making is simple: an enemy is allowed to kill civilians if the means of attack they prefer will kill civilians, but accomplish what the enemy wants while risking the lives of fewer enemy combatants than would die if the enemy were determined not to kill civilians.

Your argument justifies perfectly the Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel, the Palestinian suicide bomber attacks in the Occupied Territories or in Israel, and indeed al Qaeda's attack on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. All three kinds of attacks killed civilians (in order of destructiveness, from least to greatest) but all three would be legitimate if the enemy was permitted to reason that it's acceptable to kill civilians in order to accomplish your goal, if by doing so you ensure that fewer combatants on the enemy's side lose their lives.

Of course, I understand that you meant your argument to justify Americans thinking that American soldiers deserve to live by slaughtering non-American civilians, rather than American soldiers risking their lives to avoid killing non-American civilians. And indeed, that is how American generals behave: it's worth pointing out, though, that the argument that justifies this as lawful and decent behavior likewise justified the attack on the US in 911. Thousands of American civilians died, sure, but only 19 al-Qaeda were killed: you justify that as an acceptable ratio when it's thousands of Iraqi civilians versus 19 American soldiers, so how can you dare complain when other countries treat American civilian lives with the same indifference?

[Duane]

I just saw Tony Snow on a newsclip dressing down the press for wanting the "magic wand of ceasefire" waved. Tony said the president doesn't see what is good about an empty-handed ceasefire. I wonder if those Israeli bombs were falling in and around Houston or Crawford, our president would be able to figure out what is good about an "empty-handed" ceasefire?

Clearly the president is a sociopath. Or can his actions actually qualify him to be a psychopath?

Just like folks used to say "Where were you when Kennedy was killed" or "Where were you when the Shuttle blew up" I think in a few years or more folks will actually ask one another, "Where were you when you realized that Republicans are batshit fucking crazy??"

[Scott]

You all forgot Rule 6: Americans are never collateral damage.

They are if they're Branch Davidian children and there's a Democrat in office.

[Bugmaster]

So an American soldier is worth more than an Iraqi baker after all?

I don't know, is he ? As I said, I'm glad I'm not the guy making these decisions. I didn't say that American soldiers were "worth more"; I said that their lives have a value that is not negligible, as Fred's post seems to imply. There's a big difference between my (fairy mild) statements, and Jesurgislac's "oh so then you're a baby-killer" attitude.

In fact, I absolutely agree with someone who posted earlier on the thread: the only way to avoid civilian casualties is to avoid waging war.

[Steve]

With a ground assault, you will save civilian lives, but lose many soldiers. With an air bombardment, you will destroy the objective and save a lot of soldiers, at the expense of some civilian lives. So... whom would you rather kill?

Well, maybe this is too simplistic of an answer, but the soldier.

He is the one willing to kill and taking the risk of being killed. The civilian is not. (Unless, as noted above the civilian joins the fighting, but then they are no longer a civilian........or gee, what if the soldier was conscripted into service by a leader with impure motives....or simply found it the only alternative to working at Wal-mart for minimum wage at which he could support his family....uh, pardon me while my head explodes.)

But the soldier is an official member of the war, not the civilian. Kinda like a football player can cream another player on the field, but if he does it to someone in the stands, he's in trouble. Poor metaphor...surely civilians aren't spectators and war isn't a "game"...but kinda makes the point.

[Scott]

How many civilian German and Japanese civilians did we kill bombing cities in WWII with the New Dealers in charge? Is FDR a war criminal?

[Scot]

Hey, Hey Great-Society-LBJ; How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?"

That's right, he brought us Medicare, so All Is Forgiven.

[Duane]

Poor metaphor...surely civilians aren't spectators and war isn't a "game"...but kinda makes the point.

It's a great metaphor! Ya know, if the playing field was extended from 100 yards to, say, 2000 square miles. And if there were, say, seven teams all playing each other. And if there were small children crawling throughout the field being crushed and maimed with a certain degree of regularlity. And if the cheerleaders were young terrified women that could be assaulted by any player at any time. And if the footballs kept blowing up and killing groups of folks. Oh yeah, and if the object was to score the most kills. And maybe if the spectators were insulated in a cushy wing of the White House, cheering on.. .. more death.

Heh. That war, just a big 'ol crazy football game.

[Beth]

Overall, I agree with the responses to Bugmaster, but I also think he has a point. According to the old Rules of the Game, civilians are off-limits and soldiers are legitimate targets, but we're not playing that game anymore. The label of "civilian" has become more ambiguous, and "soldier" has too. Should peacekeeping forces be treated like combat soldiers, and if not, where do you draw the line? Are the American forces soldiers or peacekeepers in Iraq?

There's still an important line between 'combatant' and 'non-combatant', but it's gotten awfully smudged. When the civilians might be combatants or at least sympathetic to them and the soldiers may be only reluctant combatants by orders if not inclination, how should their deaths be weighed?

Duane,
I wonder if those Israeli bombs were falling in and around Houston or Crawford, our president would be able to figure out what is good about an "empty-handed" ceasefire?

And I wonder if those Hezbollah rockets were falling in and around Houston or Crawford, our president would even consider a ceasefire without their unconditional surrender? I'm sure we can all agree that the president's reaction to any issue would be different if it involved someone firing on the US.

[Duane]

How many civilian German and Japanese civilians did we kill bombing cities in WWII with the New Dealers in charge? Is FDR a war criminal?

Is he? Can we get some analysis with the history lesson? And throw in some libertarian thoughts on the killing of noncombatants. The Party Of Principle is always good for some mindless "Use Only In Case Of Theory" drivel.

[Duane]

And I wonder if those Hezbollah rockets were falling in and around Houston or Crawford, our president would even consider a ceasefire without their unconditional surrender? I'm sure we can all agree that the president's reaction to any issue would be different if it involved someone firing on the US.

Are you suggesting that Israel is going to get Hezbollah to surrender by attacking Lebanon? Did Usama Bin Laden turn himself in when we destroyed Iraq?

[Scot]

Can we get some analysis with the history lesson? And throw in some libertarian thoughts on the killing of noncombatants. The Party Of Principle is always good for some mindless "Use Only In Case Of Theory" drivel.

Funny how dead civilians are so easily ignorable when a liberal hero is called into question. As long as you get the power you lust after, incinerating civilians is no biggie. Thank you, liberals.

[Scot]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v160/DrDoLttl27/School/Waco.jpg

[cjmr's husband]

They are if they're Branch Davidian children and there's a Democrat in office.

Cute, Scott, but the term "collateral damage" was popularized about a year after that -- it's how the right-wing terrorist that blew the Federal Building in Oklahoma City described the day care center.

Yeah, I suppose there was still a Democrat in office then, too.

(Yes, in fact, I *have* studied Historical Linguistics)

[Duane]

Duane: Is he? Can we get some analysis with the history lesson? And throw in some libertarian thoughts on the killing of noncombatants. The Party Of Principle is always good for some mindless "Use Only In Case Of Theory" drivel.

Scott: Funny how dead civilians are so easily ignorable when a liberal hero is called into question. As long as you get the power you lust after, incinerating civilians is no biggie. Thank you, liberals.

Why are you so afraid to take a stand and defend it, Mr. Coulter?

[Scot]

Cute, Scott, but the term "collateral damage" was popularized about a year after that -- it's how the right-wing terrorist that blew the Federal Building in Oklahoma City described the day care center.

The term is a mere rhetorical device - the idea (fuck the kids, we have Our Guy to protect from accountability) goes back to the stone age.

Why are you so afraid to take a stand and defend it, Mr. Coulter?

I asked how FDR would rate w/ the standard given in the verbage tossed around here (you know "Killing civilians makes you a criminal"). Why are you so afraid of having your own beliefs questioned, Mr. Limbaugh?

[Scot]

Killing civilians makes you a criminal

[Duane]

I asked how FDR would rate w/ the standard given in the verbage tossed around here (you know "Killing civilians makes you a criminal").

You can't tell us?

[Scot]

Sorry for the quick followup, but my previous link is pretty graphic and I forgot to post a warning.

[Scot]

You can't tell us?

By the standard used against the GOP here ("Killing civilians makes you a criminal"), FDR is a criminal.

[Scott]

Duane, go look at the Waco pics I posted and revel in the Majestic Power of a Liberal Democrat President, and see how those Red State Hick got what they deserved. Feel better after 6 years of Shrub?

[Duane]

By the standard used against the GOP here ("Killing civilians makes you a criminal"), FDR is a criminal.

You can't untroll yourself long enough to voice your own opinion and provide some insight into how a libertarian might view the issue?