Why are killing, maiming people elsewhere called moral, ‘legal’?

By David McElroy · October 4, 2013

I grew up believing that war was glorious. I read a lot of history and loved what I read. It was about strategy and bravery. It was about men taking risks to do great things for great causes.

For part of my childhood, the Vietnam war was also raging, but I was too wrapped up in my patriotic “war is glorious” narrative to look at the evidence that was becoming available. As a little boy, I cared about the United States winning that war and “stopping communism.” If some people had to die along the way, that was just a price to be paid to achieve a necessary victory.

I didn’t know anything about 9-year-old Kim Phuc Phan Thi, but it wouldn’t have mattered to me if I had. I was sure that the cause of national greatness was more important than the lives of any individuals. In 1972, Kim was a victim of a napalm attack in Vietnam by U.S.-trained and equipped South Vietnamese aircraft.

The pilot saw some people coming out of a temple and he assumed they were North Vietnamese or Viet Cong soldiers and he dropped this terrible chemical on them. Instead, he killed and maimed innocent people, including Kim. She’s the naked one in the famous photo above, running away with her family after she had stripped off her burning clothes. The use of napalm to drop on human beings was a standard operating procedure for Americans and their South Vietnamese allies.

I’ve been thinking a lot about war recently. We like to think of ourselves as living in an enlightened age, yet we still believe that it’s moral and legal for people from one country to kill masses of people in another country, even if many of those murdered people are completely innocent. That’s nothing short of barbaric.

The idea that it’s moral and “legal” for people of one country to kill people of another country as long as they use certain methods of killing — and avoid certain other methods of killing — is one of the most irrational and immoral ideas that’s ever been widely accepted by humans.

We think war is so acceptable that we even have international laws of war. (Can you imagine having laws of murder? Laws of rape? Laws of bribery?) If you think a country is somehow a threat to you, it’s OK to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people who live there — even millions of them — as long as you follow the rules.

You’re not supposed to use certain weapons, though. You can drop bombs on them and blow their bodies into a million pieces. You can blow their brains out with bullets. But you can’t use certain kinds of chemicals to kill them. (We reserve killing people with chemical for criminals in our own country.) And if someone attacks you, you can fight back with the kinds of weapons that the rules allow, but you’re a “terrorist” if you don’t wear a uniform as you’re defending your home against invaders and if you fight in unconventional ways. Got it?

Right now, there are innocent people who are being murdered by U.S. drone attacks in various countries. Someone in the U.S. government decides that there might be a “terrorist” in a particular house, so an unmanned aircraft is sent to drop weapons on the house and kill whoever happens to be there. Bad guys are sometimes killed, but many innocent people are being killed in places such as Pakistan and Yemen. Is it any wonder that those countries are producing new enemies for us?

Let’s say that another country had a complaint against people who lived among us. Let’s say, for instance, that there are Russians who have immigrated to this country seeking political asylum because of oppression by Vladimir Putin’s government. Or let’s even say that Putin and Co. object to things certain Americans have done, said or written. Let’s say that the Russian government called those people terrorists.

Now let’s say that the Russians send aircraft over your neighborhood and blow up a few houses, seemingly at random. They might kill one of the people they claim were bad, but they also kill some of your innocent neighbors or maybe some of your family. And it happens again and again. Do you say, “Well, that’s sad, but they shouldn’t have been nearby when there might have been some bad people around”? Or do you angrily say, “My government refuses to stop you, but I’ll find a way to get revenge”? Can you see why these attacks are creating more future people to hate us and want to kill us?

As for the laws of war, let’s take another example. Let’s say that someone has come into your house and is threatening you and your family with bodily harm. You believe he intends to kill you. Now let’s say you have the chance to kill him. So you shoot him and he’s dead. Nobody blames you, because he was attacking you and you were innocent. But let’s say that your only way to stop him was to throw some nasty chemical at him that would cause him to violently choke to death. Would you stop and say, “No, I can’t protect my family with this, because that would violate the laws of murder”?

The weapon you choose to use wouldn’t be an issue. The only issue would be whether someone had violated your home. We don’t have laws of murder or laws of defense. An attacker is always in the wrong. A defender is almost always in the right.

When Barack Obama was threatening to attack Syria over its government’s alleged use of chemical weapons in a civil war there, I thought a lot about the bizarreness of declaring most ways of killing people to be acceptable, if regrettable, but a few specific ways to be so unacceptable that a country on the other side of the world was justified in intervening to kill people who hadn’t attacked it. That made no sense to me.

The bigger question, though, is why we consider war to be legal and moral under any circumstances. It’s murder on a large scale — and innocent people die by the tens of thousands or more in many “small” wars.

Even though I grew up believing that war was glorious, I know now that it’s one of the most vile activities that human beings engage in. There are times when people have to defend their homes — individually or collectively — but attacking other countries which haven’t attacked you isn’t defending yourself. It’s committing murder on a large scale.

I am willing to support any tactic to defend my home or country from invaders. If it involves using chemical weapons on invaders, I’m perfectly willing. But I’m completely opposed to allowing a government claiming to represent me to make up excuses to kill others in foreign lands in my name. Whether you call it war or “police action” or “liberating the people of Iraq,” it’s murder.

We need to call murder by its name, not give it the dignity of seeing it as moral or legal — much less glorious.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts