-Caveat Lector- THURSDAY JUNE 03 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Murdering for morality ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I recently received a letter from a Libertarian who supports the NATO war against Serbia. He writes: "I see that the Libertarians are against the 'war' (or whatever it is) in Serbia, lest as ol' Abe Lincoln did some years ago, the state would grow. Gladly do I appreciate the fear of a growing state. "Yet to leave a mad dog such as Milosevic alive after such a butchery shows a level of callousness that I can not accept and still consider myself as moral. "True, there are other places such as the Sudan where we are not intervening. That absence is no excuse not to intervene somewhere. That somewhere at present is Serbia. And if nothing is done and Milosevic keeps his job, that means that in this evolving New World Order, the institution of government has the acknowledged, if unofficial, right to butcher its own citizens, to kill 'we the people.' "That can not be tolerated: mad dog governments must pay a price, even if there is a fear of enlarging governments." I understand your concerns, but I believe that, in your sympathy for some people, you're overlooking many other people -- and overlooking the consequences that would flow from getting what you want. First, if you believe everything you've read about the "butchery" and "callousness," and if you feel that your ability to "consider [yourself] moral" hinges on your doing something, then do it. But do you consider it moral to condemn to death other people, who are as innocent as you are, to satisfy your moral outrage? Do you consider it moral to force Americans who don't agree with you to pay for the instruments of death and destruction that are currently raining down on the guilty and innocent alike in Yugoslavia? Second, how did you arrive at your understanding of the "butchery" and "callousness"? Your appraisal necessarily is based mostly on what has been filtered through the Clinton administration and NATO headquarters. Bill Clinton's reputation for veracity is probably the worst in the world. This is the man who told you "the era of big government is over" and "I did not have sex with that woman," and who made up tales about church-burnings in his childhood and dozens of other fantasies you're probably well acquainted with. Is this the source for your knowledge about "brutality" and "callousness"? NATO has violated its own charter by waging war when none of its member nations has been attacked. So it is under strong pressure to demonize its enemy -- and can hardly be considered a reliable source of information. You were told by NATO that it had not bombed a train carrying Kosovar refugees, that Milosevic himself had done it -- but then NATO admitted it had bombed the train, but claimed that Milosevic had used the refugees as human shields. And then NATO admitted that everything it had said was wrong, and that NATO had caused "a tragic accident." You were told by NATO that the reason it has caused many innocent people to die in embassies and civilian installations is because it is using out-of-date maps. You were told by NATO that tens of thousands of young men had been murdered by the Serbs -- but, when pressed for evidence, NATO backed up this claim by saying a pilot had seen a freshly plowed field from thousands of feet up -- a field that NATO, with no further evidence, declared to be a mass grave. You were told by NATO that Milosevic has murdered all the leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army -- but then the Los Angeles Times (May 17) reported that all the dead leaders were still walking around villages in Kosovo -- and that even the Kosovars discount most of the news of Serbian atrocities. This isn't to say that Slobodan Milosevic is really a good guy. He's a political thug, like so many world leaders. But what source of information has caused you to decide that thousands of innocent people must be put to death in order to make this particular thug pay a price? Third, have you considered how this war will set a precedent for future wars? The pundits applauded when Harry Truman illegally committed American troops to fight the Korean War. But that just made it easier for John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson to illegally commit troops to fight in Vietnam -- which made it easier yet for Richard Nixon to illegally bomb Cambodia, a neutral country. And that made it still easier for George Bush to commit troops to fight illegally in Iraq. And these precedents removed all possible restraints on Bill Clinton, so that he could willy-nilly bomb and kill innocent people in Iraq, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and now Serbia, Kosovo, Bulgaria, and Albania. How easy it will be now for the next president to bomb presumed drug fields in Mexico -- or terrorists supposedly hiding in Canada. Or perhaps he'll start a nuclear war with China, based on classified, non-public information that China is about to invade Taiwan. Or what happens when China decides some future Branch Davidians are being oppressed by the American government? On what moral basis could you argue that China has no right to rain bombs on innocent people in Texas, in order to make our "mad dog government" pay a price? Fifth, note something very closely: North Korea remains an apparent threat almost 50 years after Truman's bold stroke to involve America in Korea. North Vietnam won its war against America and today controls all of Vietnam -- despite the death and destruction unleashed by Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. And in spite of America's great "victory" in Iraq, Saddam Hussein remains on the throne there -- to be used as a bogey-man with which our government can threaten its own people. So what did all those illegal interventions achieve? And what will the illegal destruction of Yugoslavia achieve? What I'm asking is simply this: On what basis do you decide that other people must die in order to satisfy your sense of morality? Isn't your morality something that is supposed to govern your conduct, rather than decide the fate of others? Statists have always justified "collateral damage" -- the killing of innocent people -- by saying, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." But it's always someone else's eggs that get broken. And no matter how many eggs are destroyed, the omelet never materializes. And thus we have perpetual war for perpetual peace -- a peace that is always promised, but never arrives, no matter how much killing and killing and killing is justified by the search for peace. If Slobodan Milosevic truly were threatening America, an American President could post a reward of, say, $250 million -- to be given to whoever in the world succeeded in assassinating him. But, whatever he really is, we know one thing for certain: Milosevic isn't threatening us. Your concern for some people entitles you to do -- on your own -- whatever you can for those people. But I don't believe it entitles you to condemn innocent people to their death -- or to force the rest of us to pay for those executions. To most people who call themselves libertarians, force is the last resort for any problem -- not the first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Harry Browne was the 1996 Libertarian Party presidential candidate. Many of his articles are published at his website. http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_browne/19990603_xchbr_murdering_.shtml Bard Visit me at: The Center for Exposing Corruption in the Federal Government http://www.xld.com/public/center/center.htm Federal Government defined: ....a benefit/subsidy protection racket! DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
