Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <638@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Apr-86 18:08:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.638
Posted: Mon Apr 21 18:08:24 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Apr-86 16:32:30 EDT
References: <157@unido.UUCP> <720@ark.UUCP> <629@utastro.UUCP> <4742@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 54
Xref: linus net.followup:5057 net.politics:14475
Summary: morality and crime

In article <4742@ut-sally.UUCP>, nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
> In article <629@utastro.UUCP>, ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes:
> > I would think that a proportionate
> > and reasonable mode of retaliation would have been a campaign of
> > assasinations aimed at the groups promoting terrorism, including
> > Quadaffi.  
> 
> That's exactly what the raid aimed at -- they didn't drop a bomb within
> 150 yards of his tent, and manage to kill one of his children and wound
> two others, by accident.  They were after the man himself.
> 
> If you really like assasination as a policy, we already have it.  Personally
> I don't like it, in any form.
> 
Well Ed, I have no doubt that we can argue about this in person, but as long
as this is on the net I have a few more thoughts to broadcast.

   1)  I don't see anything immoral about trying to kill people who are
       guilty of murder, can be expected to murder again, and whose 
       extradition or capture is absurdly unlikely.  Whether or not this
       constitutes sound policy is a pragmatic question.  In this case,
       Qadaffi is probably not a good target since his assasination would
       have uncertain, and possibly disastrous results.  Those of his
       underlingswho are directly involved in this business are likely
       targets.

   2)  It is immoral to bomb civilian areas for the purpose of killing these
       people for the same reason that it is immoral to fire randomly into
       a crowd containing a fleeing murderer.

   3)  Obviously, bombing Qadaffi's family compound is immoral for the above
       reason, regardless of whether or not it actually kills innocent people.
       (as it clearly did.)

   4)  Bombing military bases in Libya in retaliation for terrorism is
       morally ambiguous, since the military may or may not be particularly
       involved in the terrorism.  It is clear that the action is 
       disproportionate.

   5)  After believing that the US had exhausted all efforts to get reasonable
       cooperation from our European allies, I was astounded to read that
       the US economic boycott specifically *excluded* the major oil companies.
       Taxes on these companies provide Libya with about a quarter of its
       budget.  The US has *no* significant trade with Libya when one excludes
       these companies.  This has led me to view the European refusal to
       cooperate with sanctions with more sympathy.  How can we expect them
       to demolish their trade with Libya when we don't?

-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas