Karzai: Stop bombing

Scott Pelley of CBS' 60 Minutes spoke with Afghan President Hamid Karzai about the use of U.S. and NATO air power in his country.

"The United States is here to help the Afghan people. The Afghan people understand that mistakes are made. But five years on, six years on, definitely, very clearly, they cannot comprehend as to why there is still a need for air power," Karzai explains.

Asked if he is asking the American government to roll back the air strikes, Karzai says, "Absolutely. Oh, yes, in clear words."

Karzai told 60 Minutes he delivered those words, privately, to President George W. Bush. But he decided to take the message public in this interview. "And I want to repeat that, alternatives to the use of air force. And I will speak for it again through your media," he says.

"You're demanding that?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Karzai says.

American air strikes can be impressively accurate. Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf made that point repeatedly and effectively during his frequent press briefings in the first Gulf War. He loved to show one particular piece of video, which appeared to show a U.S. missile being fired down a chimney with pinpoint deadly aim.

The primary intended audience for Schwartzkopf's briefings was not the millions of Americans watching on CNN, but rather the thousands of Iraqi military leaders also watching on CNN. For that latter audience, the chimney-bomb video was a brilliant and effective piece of deceptively intimidating propaganda.

The problem, 16 years later, is that Schwartzkopf's secondary, American audience still believes his mythmaking. Even some of his successors in the American military seem to have fallen for it. So Americans do not question the billions of dollars spent on newer, ever more sophisticated and "smarter" high-tech bombs and missiles. And American military leaders -- even Gen. David Petraeus, who famously "wrote the book" on counterinsurgency -- still view air power as a valuable and necessary tool in our wars of liberation.

But after 16 years of almost daily air strikes -- the bombing never stopped during the interim between the two Gulf wars -- no one in Iraq believes this anymore. They know better. They know from what they have seen with their own eyes for more than a decade that it is not true that American air strikes always destroy their intended target with precision. The truth, rather, is that American air strikes usually destroy their intended target and everything adjacent to it, and that the intended target does not always turn out to be what we thought it was. The most sophisticated and accurate targeting systems are only as precise as the maps and the intelligence that tells us what we're shooting at

And even when we are certain what we're shooting at, we're still using these incredibly precise targeting systems for delivering imprecise weapons. All the dazzling technology of our Predator drones and our satellite guidance systems are as amazingly fine-tuned as those 21st-century robot surgeons. But in the case of American air power, the robot surgeon is employing not a scalpel, but a blunt-edged, six-foot broadsword. It's not surprising, then, that our would-be patients -- the people of Afghanistan and Iraq -- are not keen about going under the knife of our so-called surgical strikes.

60 Minutes' Pelley also interviewed "Air Force Col. Gary Crowder ... deputy director of the Combined Air Operations Center, which runs the air war over both Afghanistan and Iraq." Crowder seems like a thoughtful, principled man, sounding like Augustine or Aquinas as he explained to Pelley the jus in bello criteria of proportionality -- something the American military tries to account for with great seriousness.

Asked what he means by " proportionality," Crowder tells Pelley, "If we know that there is a sniper on a roof and the roof is in the middle of a mosque which is a protected site or in the middle of a very populated area, then dropping a 2,000 pound weapon on that would not be proportional to going after the sniper."

"Two men with AK-47s run into a house. Do you bomb the house?" Pelley asks.

"In some circumstances, we will bomb the house," says Crowder. "It is entirely dependent upon the circumstances on the ground, and the ground commander's assessment of that particular situation."

In the heat of battle, of course, military commanders don't have the luxury of time in considering this moral and ethical calculus. Marc Garlasco seems a bit haunted by his role in those decisions as he discussed it with Pelley:

"There's this macabre kind of calculus that the military goes through on every air strike, where they try to figure out how many dead civilians is dead bad guy worth," says Marc Garlasco, who knows the calculus of civilian casualties as well as anyone.

At the Pentagon, Garlasco was chief of high value targeting at the start of the Iraq war. He told 60 Minutes his team was authorized to kill a set number of civilians around high-value targets -- targets like Saddam Hussein and his leadership.

"Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you're gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that's not a problem," Garlasco explains. "But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld."

Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets -- Iraqi officials.

But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, "a couple of hundred civilians at least" were killed.

Garlasco appreciates the effort American military commanders take to minimize civilian casualties, because he himself was one of those military commanders:

"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians," Garlasco points out.

"If so much care is being taken why are so many civilians getting killed?" Pelley asks.

"Because the Taliban are violating international law," says Garlasco, "and because the U.S. just doesn't have enough troops on the ground. You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs."

But just because "the only thing they can do is drop bombs," Garlasco notes, it doesn't mean this is an effective, useful or productive strategy:

"You have to ask yourself, is a mid-level thug worth nine dead civilians? But it goes beyond that. You're not talking about just losing nine dead civilians. You're also talking about violent protests throughout the country, requesting a democratically elected government be taken down, you then take people who maybe were in a pro-government area, and all of a sudden you're turning them against you, and turning them towards the Taliban," Garlasco says.

Garlasco now works as a senior military analyst for the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. If you think that means he's become some kind of dirty hippie peacenik, you're mistaken. Take a look, for example, at this thoughtful report, "The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq." That report takes into account not only moral and ethical considerations and the requirements of international law, but also the ways in which so-called "collateral damage" damages and undermines America's purported strategic aims in Iraq.

That, as Karzai said, is the problem with the continuing extensive use of air strikes in the American-led "liberation" of Afghanistan and Iraq. Air strikes are a very effective, but indiscriminate, means of killing people. In counterinsurgencies like these, indiscriminate killing empowers and strengthens the enemy. On balance, American air strikes in Afghanistan benefit the Taliban more than they benefit NATO. On balance, American air strikes in Iraq benefit the insurgency more than they benefit American military aims.

In both countries, we're bombing our way to defeat.

"To return just for a moment to the bombing at Kapisa," Pelley addresses President Karzai. "A rocket was fired at a U.S. base there. It missed. No one was hurt. And yet, the response was to drop 4,000 pounds of explosives on that neighborhood."

"That is wrong," the president says.

"They hit what they were aiming at," Pelley points out.

"That is a mistake," Karzai saya. "I know that. It may be at times careless. A careless mistake, but not deliberate."

"There is one young boy who is the sole survivor from that house," Pelley tells Karzai. "A seven-year-old boy named Mujib. We asked him what he thought of the Americans and as you might expect, he said, 'I hate the.'"

"Naturally," Karzai agrees.

"That doesn't bode well for the future," Pelley says.

"Yeah, it doesn't."

Comments

[Richard Hershberger]

"American military leaders...still view air power as a valuable and necessary tool in our wars of liberation."

If we stipulate the "wars of liberation" part, air power *is* valuable and necessary. Used well, it can be overpowering. Look at Kosovo, or the initial defeat of the Taliban. The American military is built on air power. The problem isn't the tool. Even the best tool can be used badly. The problem is that this administration went to considerable effort to place the military is just the situation were air power is least useful and most damaging to our long term interests. Bush is a walking worst case scenario.

[Mark]

I lived in Lebanon during one of the many periods of Israel's patience running out and them bombing the hell out of very specific terrorist targets. Like the power plants that supplied the terrorists in Beirut. Or the one specific flat that contained terrorists in the residential area. Okay so occasionally they missed and hit refugee camps, but generally they hit the very small precise location right on target with very high explosives.

[ako]

The problem isn't the tool. Even the best tool can be used badly.

I'd say it's the wrong tool for the problem. A top-notch sledgehammer is going to be terrible at watch repair.

But more Americans on the ground means more dead American soldiers. Fact of life; it's more dangerous to be in the middle of things than to bomb from above. And a lot of people are willing to tolerate any number of dead foreigners over one dead countryman.

[Jesurgislac]

In the early weeks of the US invasion of Afghanistan, the first three American casualties were dead because of "friendly fire" - a badly-designed device zeroed to their location, so that when they called in the target coordinates, they called the bomber in to themselves as the target.

The very small precise location was hit on target with very high explosives, and about ten people were killed. I say "about" because almost all the information I have about this incident came via the US media, who were fascinated to the point of obsession with all the news about these three American men who had killed themselves and half a dozen Afghan allies with US technology - but so uninterested in the Afghan allies who had been killed by the Americans, that they didn't even bother to record the number of dead in most news reports, let alone what their names were, who mourned them, how they felt about the Americans for killing their allies with such indifference.

In any war where the objective is to gain allies on the ground, as both the US invasion of Afghanistan and of Iraq ought to have been, using air attacks is self-defeating. That should be obvious, but for some reason isn't to many Americans. It's as if, because they don't care about the dead because they're not American, they expect the survivors not to care about the dead either.

People have been pointing this out since December 2001. Yet somehow, over and over again, you find Americans actually astonished - or still in denial (I don't mean you, Fred: I don't at the moment mean any of the regulars here) that foreigners who saw their neighbors, friends, or family killed in front of their eyes by US air attacks, react in exactly the same kind of uncivilised way as... well, as Americans reacted when they saw the WTC fall.

[Donald]

"Okay so occasionally they missed and hit refugee camps, "

Was that irony? I mean, there's a lot of acreage in even a small country like Lebanon, so what are the odds you'd aim at some terrorists and accidentally hit a refugee camp? Woah, man, that would be careless.

Anyway, the rest of what you say sounds equally implausible. A fair number of Western reporters (including even that idiot Tom Friedman) and investigators from human rights groups say that Israel appears to have used indiscriminate firepower in Lebanon. Human Rights Watch did a rather damning investigation of their 2006 practices and published a report on their findings a month or two ago.

[Michele]

Posted by: Jesurgislac | Oct 29, 2007 at 07:00 PM :: It's as if, because they don't care about the dead because they're not American, they expect the survivors not to care about the dead either.

Kind of like LaHaye & Jenkins and all the LB, eh?

you find Americans actually astonished - or still in denial (I don't mean you, Fred: I don't at the moment mean any of the regulars here) that foreigners who saw their neighbors, friends, or family killed in front of their eyes by US air attacks, react in exactly the same kind of uncivilised way as... well, as Americans reacted when they saw the WTC fall.

That is a VERY good analogy. Thank you.

[Mark]

It was really bad sarcasm. Sorry, some people have mastered the whole "implying sarcasm with just words" thing, I still need to use heavy italics or point. Or leave comments five posts down flagging it up as sarcasm.

[Rosina]

It's OK Mark. I recognized sarcasm: the 'taking out one flat with high explosive' thing was fairly obvious, I thought. I wonder if some people don't know what a 'flat' is.

[Donald]

Sorry Mark, I should have spotted the sarcasm. I do see people making claims about Israel's rigid adherence to the laws of war sometimes and thought you were doing this, but I'm usually better at reading comprehension than I was just now.

[Kevin Hayden]

I like cluster bombs better. And spent plutonium casings. People can die long afterward even after the airstrikes stop.

And where does Karzai get off ordering us around? What does he think he's running, one of those democracies or something?

[Scott]

I wish I could find it. I saw a webpage post 9/11 alternating pics of New York w/ pics of Belgrade after one of the bombing runs Clinton ordered.

[Scott]

Here it is: BELGRADE 1999 NEW YORK 2001

[hapax]

@Scott: was this what you were thinking of?

It is an interesting site.

[Dawn]

Solid piece of reporting from 60 Minutes--I have to agree with the point about using a sledgehammer to repair a watch. It leaves the US military in a predicament--they're obviously trying to avoid civilian casualties--and the Afghan people angry. Bad policy. Then again, US foreign policy has historically been bad....

[gabriel christou]

please visit
www.gabrielchristou.blogspot.com

you will see PHOTOS of WHO and WHERE Bin Laden and his NETWORKS ARE….

URGENT…PLEASE HELP…. I CANNOT FROM HERE….. I AM BLOCKED ALL AROUND
FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO THE FBI.

gavriild@gmail.com

[magistra]

If you want some earlier pictures of the effect of bombs, here is Plymouth in the Blitz. It all looks much the same because that is what bombs do to buildings. (I'm not going to look for pictures of what bombs do to people, they're just too sickening). And I'm sure you can find similar pictures from World War II of what 'we' (Britian/US) did to 'them'.

If you get blown up it doesn't make a lot of difference whether it's a bomb that's dropped or a bomb that's thrown/planted, whether someone meant to kill you or you were just collateral damage. If you're not a pacifist then in some cases you think such destruction is an unavoidable necessity. But if the leader of the country you're supposedly trying to help says 'stop', then I can't see any kind of justification for keeping going.

[Paul Walton]

"...our wars of liberation"!! wtf is a war of liberation? Was there any irony here? I hope so, but I suspect not.

The USA is kidding itself if it calls any of its adventures wars of liberation.

[hu]

'In both countries, we're bombing our way to defeat.'

I'm sorry, the turn of phrase is bombing for peace. You see, peace in our times requires bombing, and the less peace there is, the more need for bombs.

Cue Laurie Andersen, in yet another bit of recycled 80s music -
'Here come the planes
They're American planes
Made in America
Smoking or non-smoking?

And the voice said:
Neither snow nor rain nor gloom of night shall
stay these couriers from the swift completion
of their appointed rounds
'Cause when love is gone, there's always justice
And when justice is gone, there's always force
And when force is gone, there's always Mom

Hi Mom! '

The problem in 2007 being that mom in Iraq or Afghanistan is in the smoking section - the part where you can see her blackened curled fingers next to the bone white end of her severed wrist, lit by the flickering flames along the collapsed wall. But mom did make the papers - she was another dead insurgent. And this being 2007, America can now provide a market tested solution, again presaged by Ms. Andersen -

'So hold me, Mom, in your long arms
So hold me, Mom, in your long arms
In your automatic arms
Your electronic arms
In your arms
So hold me, Mom, in your long arms
Your petrochemical arms
Your military arms
In your electronic arms'

[AWN]

“But if the leader of the country you're supposedly trying to help says 'stop', then I can't see any kind of justification for keeping going.”

• You aren't actually trying to help
• You think his rationale is mistaken
• You are trying to help by having him overthrown
• You have a higher priority elsewhere, e.g.
‣ God told you to do it
‣ Bombing supports a political message at home

Or if you want a more sophisticated example, perhaps a total ban on bombing makes it unacceptably risky to use infantry, which in turn means coalition forces can't do very much in the country at all. So that means Karzai is implicitly either asking for a withdrawal or he's asking the US to re-define the acceptable risks, get more of their men killed in order to meet a refined political objective ("hold Afghanistan, but without bombing"). But since his original words don't say these things, it's very difficult to argue against him on that basis. Remember it's not only US politicians who are smart enough to play games. Suppose Karzai asks for the impossible now, and then a month later he asks for something which is possible but very difficult. Because the first request was inevitably denied there is now much more support for his second request, even though nothing has really changed - isn't politics wonderful ?

Bombing is no good for you if you're a civilian anywhere in that whole region. Everyone would like the bombing to stop. Not everyone is willing to pay just any price to see it happen though. The Plymouth photographs are a reminder of that. I am reminded even when going to fetch a newspaper, almost every street in the old city where I live has one or two missing houses, vacant lots which were once homes - destroyed by bombs that missed the industrial heart of the city to the South. All the people of Britain's cities had to do to stop the German bombing was refuse to work. Without those workers the war would have been over very quickly. The bombing was terrible, but the price to stop it was too high.

[ And this isn't by any means the first time we've bombed people who were on our side either. The best intelligence on V weapon construction sites came from workers at the sites. Most bombing raids against such sites were area bombing, the worker housing was easily as likely to be destroyed as the factories and test facilities themselves. Such intelligence, understandably, dried up. Whether the death of these people, loyal to our cause, was a price worth paying was never in question, by Allied Bomber Command that is ]

[hu]

'All the people of Britain's cities had to do to stop the German bombing was refuse to work.'

Or to read it a bit differently - All the people of Germany's cities had to do to stop the British bombing was refuse to work.

And yet, in neither case, did they end the war by not going to work.

See, bombing for peace is truly the only solution, as demonstrated by American air prowess in Vietnam. Kill enough people, you get to go home, and after learning from Vietnam, I'm sure we will declare Iraq a victory (though we will likely call Afghanistan a mess, because it always has been anyways).

'Bombing for peace' - the only slogan a peace candidate can win with in 2008 in the U.S. of whatever it is that unites Americans these days.

[Matt]

I have conflicted feelings about the various "Rules of Engagement" the military uses to protect civilians in war zones. I do believe we should take every possible step to ensure the safety civilians, however I don't think our current rules keep them safe, and the rules put our troops at risk. See this account of a n encounter in Baghdad:

http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/2007/01/stupidest-shitever.html

Those rules seem to be there to protect the reputation of the US ("We don't kill civilians, rouge soldiers who break the rules kill civilians.") I don't know if there is a set of rules that maximizes protection for both our troops and civilians, but I certainly think our current rules need review.

[Nenya]

Paul Walton--given what I know of Fred/Slacktivist, his use of "our wars of liberation" was so thick with irony that it could be used as an electromagnet.

[Consumer Unit 5012]

Jesurgislac: Yet somehow, over and over again, you find Americans actually astonished - or still in denial (I don't mean you, Fred: I don't at the moment mean any of the regulars here) that foreigners who saw their neighbors, friends, or family killed in front of their eyes by US air attacks, react in exactly the same kind of uncivilised way as... well, as Americans reacted when they saw the WTC fall.

Once again, only The Onion reports the SHOCKING TRUTH!
Study: Iraqis May Experience Sadness When Friends, Relatives Die

[hu]

Matt -

You know, I don't think the Nazis ever worried about rules of engagement, and look at how well it worked out for them. And the Nazis were very big on protecting their troops - you know, that old fashioned we will hang you, or burn a village alive if we're attacked style of protection.

Or if you don't like your killing done with Teutonic efficiency, we can see how well Gallic flair worked in Algeria or Vietnam. After all, kill enough Arabs, and you gain their respect - just ask the Israelis, who really take force protection seriously, which means that no one in the Middle East ever takes a shot at an Israeli soldier.

The real problem is that the Iraqis want us to go home - and after four years, temporary is starting to look a lot more like permanent.

However, on a cheery note, when Iraqi oil production falls below some arbitrary amount, we will suddenly discover some other place requiring our help in liberating their resources, according to the best free market principles, including bringing Blackwater to bear on thorny contract disputes.

[AWN]

Actually the Germans obeyed the existing rules of war pretty comprehensively on their Western Front for most of the war. The Great Escape makes it look a lot cosier than it really was but the Germans really did keep British and American prisoners in relatively good conditions, with proper food and medical care. The British, having a "home advantage" were able to make POWs very comfortable indeed, since it was virtually impossible for them to escape (and towards the end of the war few wanted to). Both sides avoided attacking neutral civilians, recognised flags of surrender, and on the whole avoided forbidden weapons (e.g. gas). In captured territories the Germans considered themselves the legitimate civil authority, which means that collective punishment, e.g. burning down villages and executing everyone found there as revenge for the assassination of an important Nazi by Allied-trained resistance fighters -- was strictly a civil issue rather than a military one in their eyes.

The Allies operated very similar rules when they invaded Germany. Collective punishment was used to dissuade Werwolf units (German organised resistance) from operating. You could perhaps blow up a bridge or destroy a Sherman tank in a sneak attack, but the Allies would burn the nearest (German) village to the ground in revenge. In practice British and American forces experienced very little resistance, and so they burned a whole lot less villages than the Germans had, but the same rules were there in principle.

The most obvious exception to the rules of war as they were previously generally understood was in the use of air bombing by both sides. There was no treaty about this because it was a very recent innovation in warfare, but it had previously been agreed that it was unacceptable to e.g. use heavy artillery to blow up an enemy city full of civilians that didn't have the capability to respond. Dropping bombs on it from an aeroplane seems hardly more fair, but wasn't explicitly outlawed by the 1940s.

[Geds]

However, AWN, both sides were careful to avoid bombing civilians at first. Then, during the Battle of Britain, a German bomber missed its target and hit civilian homes (in London, I think). The Brits responded in kind and, well, you know the rest...

[JessicaR]

"you find Americans actually astonished - or still in denial...that foreigners who saw their neighbors, friends, or family killed in front of their eyes by US air attacks, react in exactly the same kind of uncivilised way as... well, as Americans reacted when they saw the WTC fall."

There were wonderfully vicious comments made by The Daily Show a few months ago just along these lines. The administration was spinning that the daily violence was the birth pains of democracy and the Iraqis should take this as an "opportunity" to create a new democracy. Asif Manvi (sp?) was the correspondent for the bit and joked that he agreed because after all didn't Americans treat September 11 as A Brand New Day? And when an incredulous Jon said they saw it as an unspeakable tragedy Asif shrugged his shoulders and said "huh, that's funny."

[Ursula L]

In practice British and American forces experienced very little resistance, and so they burned a whole lot less villages than the Germans had, but the same rules were there in principle.

One problem related to this observation that's affecting the current mess is the assumption that there was little resistance in Germany because Americans were so wonderful that everyone wants them there.

Post-war, a significant chunk of the German male population was locked up in POW camps, keeping them from resisting. There was also mandatory disarmament. Not just military, but civilians also had to turn in guns. (My great-grandfather was killed in a bout of confusion over him turning in his old WWI gun. He was taking it to the town hall, as ordered, some soldiers came along and wanted him to give it now, lack of a common language led to the nice Allied soldiers shooting him.) And everyone was war-weary in a way that doesn't happen with the "short" wars fought more recently.

Plus, the Russians didn't face significant resistance either.

It wasn't a matter of the US being so lovely that invasion/occupation without resistance is something that can be expected.

[alec]

Unrelated, but I really do hope you read these comments, because this is definitely right up your alley - it's a case of right-wing evangelicals pretty much directly rejecting any appeal to Christian charity or decency and getting actively oppressive with minority-member students. And they're doing it in Delaware - this ain't the Deep South here.

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/delaware_schools.php

A few choice excerpts:

On the September 2003 anniversary of the 9/11 attack, "Nancy Doe's" fourth-grade teacher, Cindy Cunningham, a defendant in the case, gave a lesson in which she allegedly stated that "Muslims believe the Koran teaches war and hatred" and "Christians went to Afghanistan to help people, and in return, Muslims bombed the Christians."

According to the complaint, during the lesson, Cunningham pointed out that Nancy's mother Jane Doe dressed the same way as the Afghan women and was "one of them."

. . .

Children in the classroom picked up on Cunningham's cue and began tormenting Nancy. Jane Doe met with Principal Janet Maull, who said she would speak to Cunningham.

Cunninham assured Doe she would not use the same lesson materials again. But, according to the complaint, "Cunningham continued to describe Muslims as terrorists" to the class.

. . .

Meanwhile boys in Susan Doe's class pretended to urinate on her. One boy punched her in the face.

In February 2004, Jane Doe took Nancy and Susan to meet with Maull and Superintendent Brandenberger. According to the complaint, Brandenberger said that Cunningham's classroom materials were "appropriate," that she had not acted improperly -- and that Susan had not been hit in the face.

Nancy Doe became unable to go to school and began therapy for depression and anxiety.

In the other case:

Among numerous specific examples in the complaint was what happened at plaintiff Samantha Dobrich's graduation in 2004 from the district's high school. She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for "our heavenly Father's" guidance for the graduates with:

I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name.

In addition to the ruined graduation experience, the Dobrich-Doe lawsuit alleges that:

* The district's "custom and practice of school-sponsored prayer" frequently imposed ... on impressionable non-Christian students," violating their constitutional rights.
* The district ignored the Supreme Court's 1992 Lee decision limiting prayer at graduation ceremonies -- even after a district employee complained about the prayer at her child's 2003 graduation..
* District teachers and staff led Bible clubs at several schools. Club members got to go to the head of the lunch line.
* While Bible clubs were widely available, student book clubs were rare and often canceled by the district.
* When Jane Doe complained that her non-Christian son "Jordan Doe" was left alone when his classmates when to Bible club meetings, district staff insisted that Jordan should attend the club regardless of his religion.
* The district schools attended by Jordan and his sister "Jamie Doe" distributed Bibles to students in 2003, giving them time off from class to pick up the books.
* Prayer --often sectarian -- is a routine part of district sports programs and social events
* One of the district's middle schools gave students the choice of attending a special Bible Club if they did not want to attend the lesson on evolution.
* A middle school teacher told students there was only "one true religion" and gave them pamphlets for his surfing ministry.
* Samantha Dobrich's honors English teacher frequently discussed Christianity, but no other religion.
* Students frequently made mandatory appearances at district board meetings -- where they were a captive audience for board members' prayers to Jesus.

The Dobriches said the prayers to Jesus' ruined the graduation experience for Samantha. Mona Dobrich, Samantha's mother, repeatedly called district officials to complain. A board member told her she would have to get the matter put on a meeting agenda -- then refused to put it on the agenda. The school superintendent slipped the topic onto the agenda and then told Mona Dobrich she would need to raise it during the public comment period.

The board opened the June 15, 2004 meeting at which Dobrich was prepared to speak with a prayer in Jesus' name. The board was not forthcoming to her request that official prayers be in "God's name" rather than in Jesus' name. The high school athletic director veered from his agenda topic to encourage the board to keep praying in Jesus' name.

Board member Donald Hattier followed Dobrich out and offered to "compromise" by keeping graduation free of prayers to Jesus. And, according to the complaint, he warned her not to hire a lawyer.

A large crowd turned out for the next board meeting and many people spoke in support of school prayer. Mona Dobrich spoke passionately of her own "outsider" experience as a student in Indian River District schools and of how hard she'd worked to make sure her children didn't also feel like outsiders.

The district board announced the formation of a committee to develop a religion policy. And the local talk radio station inflamed the issue.

On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meeitng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them.

The complaint recounts a raucous crowd that applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him "take your yarmulke off!" His statement, read by Samantha, confided "I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy."

A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that "the people" would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating "god and state."

A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might "disappear" like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. She disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.

The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to "go back up north."

In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.

Classmates accused Alex Dobrich of "killing Christ" and he became fearful about wearing his yarmulke, the complaint recounts. He took it off whenever he saw a police officer, fearing that the officer might see it and pull over his mother's car. When the family went grocery shopping, the complaint says, "Alexander would remove the pin holding his yarmulke on his head for fear that someone would grab it and rip out some of his hair."

And in both of these cases, it actually gets worse. It's mind-bogglingly awful.

Thought you'd be interested; it's the biggest and most odious set of public-education religion cases I've ever seen in my lifetime, and the school officials are all too familiar - although less sophisticated at hiding than their cousins around the country.

[Seminarian]

I dislike the policy of avoiding civilian deaths because it suggests that it's perfectly okay and humane to kill non-civilians. Murder is murder. If you think killing a bunch of people to promote your politics is necessary and justified, then go ahead and do it. But don't imagine that you get an ethical free ticket just because you only kill people in uniform, because the act is still the same.

[ako]

But don't imagine that you get an ethical free ticket just because you only kill people in uniform, because the act is still the same.

Er, the Geneva Convention and virtually the entire international consensus on the laws of war disagree.

As do I. I mean it's bad to kill the American who volunteered, trained, and has a weapon. But it's worse to kill the Afghani eight-year-old who gets blown up for standing in the wrong place. Or the Iraqi girl who gets shot for not speaking English when the soldiers come by. It does make a difference how much choice people have about being there, whether they're trying to kill someone else (which is what a big chunk of soldiers are sent to do), if they're armed, and if they're reasonably healthy adults (which a larger percentage of civilians aren't).

If you write off the distinction between bad and worse, countries get caught between the impossible choice of unilaterally renouncing all force, and doing whatever benefits them because they're already being immoral.

[85% Duane]

But it's worse to kill the Afghani eight-year-old who gets blown up for standing in the wrong place. Or the Iraqi girl who gets shot for not speaking English when the soldiers come by.

Of those two, which is worse to kill?

[ako]

Depends, really. How much choice do they have about getting into the situation? How much of a danger do they present to other people? What would be accomplished by killing them?

I mean this is getting into really nasty ethics-assignment hairsplitting territory, far more than stacking them up against an adult American soldier who volunteered to take a weapon and invade someone else's country, and it has much less practical application (soldiers v. civilians has a direct bearing on military strategy), but given a specific enough scenario you could probably pick a least bad choice.

[85% Duane]

How about just based on the information you provided originally? We can't make an age-based decision because you didn't provide the age of the Iraqi girl. We can't make a sex-based decision because we aren't sure what is the sex of the Afghani eight year old. Avoiding inference and other speculation of what their respective nationalities may suggest, I think we reduce their relative worth to kill based on which is worse, being blown up for standing in the wrong place versus being shot for not speaking English.

The former suggests some element of unfortunate randomness. The latter suggests malicious punitive behavior. I'm going to go out on a limb and say shooting the Iraqi girl is worse.

Let's do another:

Baby chow puppy just starting to take his first wobbly steps Fat right-wing blowhard on the radio versus screaming baby in a movie theater.

We'll come back to the puppy.

Fat right-wing blowhard on the radio versus screaming baby in a movie theater.

Right-wing blowhard. The baby doesn't know any better and is likely to grow out of it; it makes more sense to go after the parents.

[ako]

Er, that was me.

[85% Duane]

The question is which is worse to kill, so I'm guessing you meant that the other way: the baby would be worse to kill. Just so we're clear, we're not suggesting killing is good or okay or approved or whatever. We're saying it's terrible but sometimes it's worse than other times. What about the fact that you can turn off the radio or change the station but you are stuck in the theater with the baby? Also, how can you assume the baby doesn't know any better? I didn't give an age so the baby could be willfully acting out.

[hagsrus]

Of those two, which is worse to kill?

42

[85% Duane]

Ako, I think you are sparing the baby for the wrong reasons and setting a precedent whereby the baby will unfairly win any "worse to kill" matchup with an adult.

However, I also think the baby is worse to kill. The right-wing blowhard is poisoning the bloodstream of American democracy. The baby is just ruining a movie.

[Jeff]

Which is HOTTER?

Baby......RWBH

Baby......Pocket Hamster

Pocket Hamster....Pocket Hamster eating peas

[ako]

What about the fact that you can turn off the radio or change the station but you are stuck in the theater with the baby?

First, you're assuming you can turn off the radio station, specifically that you're in charge of the radio. Fair enough, since it's your scenario, but you should have specified. I've been in plenty of situations where the radio is on and I'd have had a hard time changing it or leaving.

Second, you can nearly always leave a movie. You're not trapped, you just have to decide whether it's worth wasting the price of a movie ticket (unless you're being held hostage or something).

Third, it comes down to what you consider the harm is. Your point only works if you're assuming that it's a purely selfish motive; trying to stop harm to yourself. Changing the station only prevents you from being exposed, much like leaving the theater. Odds are much greater that in five or ten years the baby will have grown into someone who can behave reasonably in a movie theater than that the right-wing blowhard will have shut up and gone away.

Also, how can you assume the baby doesn't know any better? I didn't give an age so the baby could be willfully acting out.

Unless you're redefining 'baby' way out of standard usage, they'll have less cognitive capacity than even Rush Limbaugh. So, while they might deliberately be loud for attention-getting purposes or out of anger, they won't have the mental capacity to grasp that they're annoying a room full of people, or that the other people have a good reason for wanting quiet (right-wing blowhards often act like they don't grasp this, but don't have any documented limitations on their ability to).

Do I really need to dig up child-development citations to prove this? If so, ask me tomorrow.

Ako, I think you are sparing the baby for the wrong reasons and setting a precedent whereby the baby will unfairly win any "worse to kill" matchup with an adult.

Not necessarily. Most, though. I mean if, for instance, it came down to a smallpox-infected baby who was likely to spread it, or an uninfected adult who could treat it, then definitely save the adult. A big part of my 'worse to kill' bias is responsibility for the situation, and adults almost always have more responsibility than children. It's not the only factor, but it has a lot of weight.

[ako]

What about the fact that you can turn off the radio or change the station but you are stuck in the theater with the baby?

First, you're assuming you can turn off the radio station, specifically that you're in charge of the radio. Fair enough, since it's your scenario, but you should have specified. I've been in plenty of situations where the radio is on and I'd have had a hard time changing it or leaving.

Second, you can nearly always leave a movie. You're not trapped, you just have to decide whether it's worth wasting the price of a movie ticket (unless you're being held hostage or something).

Third, it comes down to what you consider the harm is. Your point only works if you're assuming that it's a purely selfish motive; trying to stop harm to yourself. Changing the station only prevents you from being exposed, much like leaving the theater. Odds are much greater that in five or ten years the baby will have grown into someone who can behave reasonably in a movie theater than that the right-wing blowhard will have shut up and gone away.

Also, how can you assume the baby doesn't know any better? I didn't give an age so the baby could be willfully acting out.

Unless you're redefining 'baby' way out of standard usage, they'll have less cognitive capacity than even Rush Limbaugh. So, while they might deliberately be loud for attention-getting purposes or out of anger, they won't have the mental capacity to grasp that they're annoying a room full of people, or that the other people have a good reason for wanting quiet (right-wing blowhards often act like they don't grasp this, but don't have any documented limitations on their ability to).

Do I really need to dig up child-development citations to prove this? If so, ask me tomorrow.

Ako, I think you are sparing the baby for the wrong reasons and setting a precedent whereby the baby will unfairly win any "worse to kill" matchup with an adult.

Not necessarily. Most, though. I mean if, for instance, it came down to a smallpox-infected baby who was likely to spread it, or an uninfected adult who could treat it, then definitely save the adult. A big part of my 'worse to kill' bias is responsibility for the situation, and adults almost always have more responsibility than children. It's not the only factor, but it has a lot of weight.

[chaos_engineer]

Can I assume that killing the talk-show host would probably be premeditated and that killing the baby would be a crime of passion? (With the talk-show host, if I got annoyed by his radio program, I'd still have to track him down and kill him. But the baby in the movie theater is right there and I could act at the moment I became annoyed.) In that case, killing the baby would be considered a lesser crime.

On the other hand, killing the baby seems counterproductive. A bunch of other people would start crying, so I still wouldn't be able to enjoy the movie. Also, I could potentially be barred from seeing other movies at the theater.

Actually, I just realized this is a trick question. I really shouldn't kill either of them. Murdering people is wrong!

[AWN]

Murdering people is wrong!

You can't say that, this is supposed to be a liberal blog. We're all supposed to be moral relativists, lacking any common set of values and unwilling to condemn anything. Next you'll be telling people the truth instead of engaging in Liberal Deceit™.

[ako]

Actually, I just realized this is a trick question. I really shouldn't kill either of them. Murdering people is wrong!

Fraid not. Terms are one of them has to die. If you don't kill one, they both get dropped into a lava pit or something (Duane's in charge of the rules, so I'm not sure of the exact consequences).

I think it's one of those increasingly pointless hypotheticals designed largely to creep people out with the potential choices. Like playing Death Is Not An Option in reverse.

Liberal Deceit™

Scott is going to be so jealous when he sees that.

[chaos_engineer]

Jasper Fforde touches on this question in his new book. ("First Among Sequels"):

Is it justifiable to kill a professor at an ethics seminar in order to preserve the lives of all the fictional characters in his increasingly pointless hypotheticals?

The answer is that it depends on the situation.

[hapax]

I think you should smother the baby with the right-wing blowhard. Then chop them both up and feed them to the puppy.

[Jeff]

Then chop them both up and feed them to the puppy.

Which chokes and dies.

[GWB]

Guess what? I have a fever and the only perscription... is more cowbell smart bombs!

[MikhailBorg]

Then chop them both up and feed them to the puppy.

Which chokes and dies.

Thereby causing the deaths of billions who would otherwise have been spared when our new overlords from Omicron Persei 8 fall in love with his "cute widdle tongue".