I don't really have much to add to what Ken said.
I don't really have much to add to what Ken said.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
You really need to check out the meaning of "self-defense", for to you guys it seems to mean something like "we are allowed to kill you if we can make up an excuse".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_defenseTo be acquitted of any kind of physical harm-related crime (such as assault and battery and homicide) using the self-defense justification, one must prove legal provocation, meaning that one must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...ited_States%29In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
Can't see how the airliner did assault the Vincennes violently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_...f_self-defenseIn Cross v. State, 370 P.2d 371 (Wyo 1962) the Court found that the Due Process of Law clause in the state constitution guaranteed "the inherent and inalienable right to protect property."
However, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (...), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint.
The muzzle flashes ceased to be a threat seconds after being seen. The aircraft had to return for so-called "self defence".
Identifying an aircraft flying high and straight as F-14 (a 100% fighter without ground attack capability beyond 20mm strafing in that version) does in no way create a reasonable fear on part of the Vincennes bridge crew.While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death.
It goes son:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...ited_States%29Some states also include a duty to retreat (exceptions include Louisiana and Florida: see castle doctrine), when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat.
You guys need to bend the definition of self-defense even beyond definitions from the U.S. in order to excuse the kills. Don't expect any foreigner to buy into this if he's got a critical mind and respect for human lives.
On the other hand; you guys had it comfortable for 20+ years buying into the propaganda excuse of the own team. Who am I to expect that I could break through the cognitive dissonance with some petty forum posts?
Just be alerted at the fact that there are wildly different interpretations for what the U.S. military does, and said expectations have good reasons.
Fuchs,Originally Posted by Fuchs
The citations used in your discussion of self defense apply to "domestic" law, or laws governing the interactions between individuals, in various USA jurisdictions, not to international law, or laws governing the interactions between nations or their agents.
In traditional just war theory, actions normally considered to be homicides are justified by appeal to a domestic analogy, not a domestic identity. Your points about self defense might have more impact were they drawn from international law or law of land warfare cases rather than those dealing with domestic homicides in the USA.
I am reminded of the story that in Bavaria, der Fhn may be used as a defense in a homicide case. Should one have allowed that defense to the leaders of the Third Reich during the Nrnberg trials? By parity of reasoning from your examples, it seems so.
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
Dunno what's "Fhn", but international law (which is not universally respected in this forum) is about states.
The IIRC rather customary maritime laws are hardly legalising killing pilots of a plane that didn't even open fire, for otherwise there would be massacres over all seas all the time.
One of the ever-astonishing things in discussions with anglophone people about military stuff is how wrong it is to just assume that they apply basic human decency a, respect and civility when it comes to foreigner's lives.
The whole idea that the shootdown of an airliner or even only the shootdown of a harmless fighter in peacetime could be justified is totally ridiculous.
Those officers were intent on killing foreigners in wartime without any legal justification, period.
The bomber pilots over AFG who bombed civilians 'due to muzzle flashes' were intent on killing and jumped on a flimsy excuse for killing.
Besides; half of the people whom I've met discussing these events and claiming self-defence for the U.S. troops readily dismissed any legal argument whenever it pleased them in other cases.
Now I could write a lot of much more harsh comments, but those events are old and by now everyone who hasn't a plank on his eye should know that those were gross mixtures of incompetence, lack of discipline and lack of respect for human lives.
Good question
Understood and accepted. We fully respect their right to differ as a result of living in significantly different environments
One problem with the Wiki is that it is reflective of the small 'l' liberal position on self defense which was promulgated in an effort to let government take care of us. The majority of Americans IMO subscribe to the attitude that government proves repeatedly that it cannot and will not do that and so most have adopted an attitude that is supportive of the newer definition described in this 2005 news article (LINK). Note two things; "Thirdly, persons attacked in any place outside the home where they have a legal right to be may also use force to defend themselves" and that the predictions of frivolous deaths the gun control folks foresaw have been proven not even remotely true. Most in the US view the issue differently than does much of the world and we're aware of that.That's the good question.On the other hand; you guys had it comfortable for 20+ years buying into the propaganda excuse of the own team. Who am I to expect that I could break through the cognitive dissonance with some petty forum posts?
Oh and it's more like 200+ years...Yep. Bias is an amazing thing -- it works both ways. Isn't that weird...Just be alerted at the fact that there are wildly different interpretations for what the U.S. military does, and said expectations have good reasons.
ADDED:No planks but while one can acknowledge the broad accuracy of your statement, one need not -- indeed many Americans will not -- agree with your proscription and the restraint you seem to desire. In the end, self defense is in the mind and eye of the defender at issue at the time of an incident. Everyone does not always apply sound judgement and impeccable logic in a sterile setting...but those events are old and by now everyone who hasn't a plank on his eye should know that those were gross mixtures of incompetence, lack of discipline and lack of respect for human lives.
Last edited by Ken White; 12-13-2011 at 04:42 PM. Reason: Addendum
Fuchs:
The muzzle flash incident to which you refer happened in 2002 I believe. The rules have probably changed quite a bit since then so I suspect that exact type of thing could not happen again. Does that mean the airplanes don't kill the wrong people still? Nope. It just means that precise sequence of events won't happen again.
There was no way to know whether an Iranian F-14 could attack a surface ship with something bigger than 20mm in 1988. We hadn't been supporting those aircraft for years and the Iranians could have modified them how they pleased. Prudence probably would have dictated assuming that they had modified the airplane to give it an ability to attack surface ships. Of the many mistakes that resulted in that airliner and its' passengers being killed, assuming that an Iranian F-14 might be able to badly hurt a ship wasn't one of them.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
What exactly is your value system if you bring forward a If in doubt we kill and ask later and that's OK defence?!?
A serious response
Obviously not identical to yours. I suspect many Americans but certainly not all would agree with me and I suspect many Europeans but not all would agree with you. I think that means that neither position is wrong, just that they differ.
I have no objection to that and do not believe I have a right or duty to correct those who differ with me. I can and will tell them I differ if asked or prompted but I cannot and will not berate them as e.g. 'excessively self righteous,' superciliously judgmental,' 'moralistic naggers,' 'spineless cretins' or 'metrosexual inconsequentials' because I do not know them or know any of those conditions to be accurate with respect to them (and even if any did apply to someone, they'd almost certainly not apply to many or all...). Just because something isn't done the way I'd do it is not a sign that it is wrong, immoral or illogical.
I can say categorically that in my case, the "if in doubt, kill" factor reasonably sanely exercised over a number of years allows me to be here and enjoy my curmudgeonly old age. I have no doubt that had I not exercised that prerogative, I would not be here so I certainly have no problems at all with that value system. Recommend it highly, in fact...
The obvious response to that last is that had the US Government not sent me to exotic travel destinations, that might not be the case. True but they did send me and it is the case. As Dayuhan noted above, "Whoever has the greatest capacity for intervention will always do the most intervening, UN or no UN." We've been intervening for well over 200 years, a good many times (for more than two Centuries) over the objections of at least some in Europe, often of many there and almost never with their unanimous approval. Those interventions or escapades were sometimes to the benefit of many, occasionally to the detriment of others and not always beneficial to ourselves (in fact, quite often, they were not especially so) but it is part of the psyche and no verbiage is likely to alter that. IOW, that's reality; not what should be but what is. Since it is reality, to not espouse the "if in doubt, kill" mantra would be imprudent if not actually immoral as to most Americans, active and effective self defense is a duty, not a terrible chore to be avoided if at all possible. That's unlikely to change much in your lifetime...
As that Ancient Oriental Philosopher once said; "Different strokes..."
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks