"ius ad bellum"
ius iuris - law
> See a discussion at USIP (United States Institute for Peace) website,
whcih
> held a roundtable symposium of experts on December 17 2002 on ancient
> Christian rules of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, or justice on the way
to
> war and justice in war. Experts on the ancient rules devised by Augustine,
> Aquinas and Ambrose conclude, wiith one goatlover's objection, that the
> proposed and long-planned peniswar of Bushgoat was long planned and
> permissible, but everyone else said such a war would be unjust and would
> violate the old Christian rules of just war.
>
> What the US has done is utterly evil and reckless. I have a number of
> warlovers on filter.
>
> At 12:30 PM 4/18/2003 +0100, Lawrence Upton wrote:
> >I think the problem arises from the idea that premeditated murder ever
could
> >be moral.
> >
> >Most official acts are carried out under the banner of Xtianity; and
that,
> >it seems to me, is quite clear - thou shalt not kill
> >
> >and in the behaviour of Christ this is clearly not the OT "thou shalt not
> >kill" where God chips in and says Kill that lot tho
> >
> >it seems to be total - thou shalt not kill
> >
> >what might now be called the complete solution of Xtian behaviour makes
it
> >pretty impossible to be a lawgiver, administrator or anything as a
christian
> >
> >so despite the texts xtianity is supposedly based on, the rules got
changed
> >to the implication that some people could be licensed to kill
> >
> >only a few months ago, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury explained
that
> >thou shalt not kill only applies to individuals!
> >
> >using the word murder to mean _unlawful murder_ is a distortion of those
> >with the will to rule - I think it should be used for all premeditated
> >killing
> >
> >Whether it is right or not to murder or not is another matter
> >
> >Personally I have no trouble with abortion...
> >
> >I have no trouble with the way they took Ceaucescu out and shot him - as
an
> >example
> >
> >My worry is that it leads on to wider killing (someone bless her said on
> >radio yesterday We have opened Pandora' Box but only a little bit) and
that
> >generally widespread killing is not a pleasant basis for society
> >
> >I am for instance totally opposed to my being murdered
> >
> >One does not have to believe in the sanctity of life in order to condemn
> >murder as a dangerous and therefore undesirable thing
> >
> >Phrases like _judicial murder_ are useful in that they help remind us
that
> >such powers are assumed by the self-appointed rulers on no sound basis
> >
> >It follows that the soldier killing is commiting murder morally and so on
> >
> >L
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Peter Howard" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: 18 April 2003 11:07
> >Subject: Re: from the dream we are having
> >
> >
> >| I understand the word 'murder' to mean something along the lines of
> >| 'unlawful, premeditated killing of a human being by another', so
> >| expressions used in this discussion like "judicial murder" (Dominic)
and
> >| "Nobody seems to be suggesting that murder should be illegitimate
> >| altogether." (Alison) confuse and intrigue me. I guess there's a
> >| rhetoric behind them implying some sort of higher order legality or
> >| morality that proscribes *any* premeditated killing of a human being by
> >| another. Am I correct? And if so, is the implication correct, I wonder?
> >|
> >| Best,
> >| --
> >| Peter
> >|
> >| http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/
> >|
|