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/
>|