Is anyone morally culpable because of Osama's death?

[Big_Ro]

but there is a commandment saying thou shall not kill…

We are allowed to defend ourselves. Killing someone in self-defense is not breaking the commandment. It has been reported that OBL was participating in a firefight. The SEAL had the right and duty to defend himself and his team. I’d say he was very effective. I do not condone killing of any kind and it’s wriong to rejoice over this death regardless of how richly deserving he might be. Fact is, he put himself in harms way when made the choice to launch a war against the western world, especially the USA. He could have turned himself in or done any number of things to avoid the outcome. He chose to fight it out and was overmatched by our SEALs. Them’s the breaks.

 

[markomalley]

The theory lays out the rules for one side declaring war in a just manner… it does not require or expect that that all sides in a war conduct themselves justly. It is in fact impossible for both sides to be justified in a just war, since somebody has to be the “agressor”, in the language of the theory.

Sure.

But…consider the wars between two Catholic countries in the past (Spain & England come to immediate mind – or England and France). I would imagine that the clergy from each respective country would be stating that each was on the side of God.

I read your point one as an argument that for a war to be just, a government can only be at war with another government. I think, for example, a government could wage a just war under the theory against a group of pirates that attacked shipping in international waters. The pirates are an organization, they are not a government, and if the other requirements of the theory are met (last resort, chance of success, agressor is inflicting grave damage, etc.) then sending the navy after the pirates seems just.

Good point, but remember that intercepting pirates at sea does not involve impinging upon another State’s sovereign territory.

And, in support of this scenario, would not the State have the responsibility to discipline any pirates who based themselves out of the sovereign territory of that State?

What makes this particularly difficult is that there are no conventions out there similar to the Hague and Geneva conventions to provide parameters for dealing with nongovernmental / transnational actors.

The second part of your question, about an attack taking place in another state, with which we are not at war is a different question, which I have not considered yet.

It’s one thing to invade a country with no viable government, like Somalia, in pursuit of a non-governmental organization like Al Qaeda; it is another thing altogether to invade a country that does have a operational government, like Pakistan.

Again, there is no international law on the subject. The only thing we have is the guidance from precedent and from UN resolutions, both of which are flaky in practice.

 

[benidict]

I think she is just saying that we shouldn’t assume, though the case seems pretty solid from our earthly point of view.

If I were to assume anything else, I would have to be an atheist. If God is not just, then I have no reason to believe in him.

 

[Shoshana]

I think she is just saying that we shouldn’t assume, though the case seems pretty solid from our earthly point of view.

God’s justice and mercy is much more all-knowing than our little skered minds. He killed many, many people and so did Saddam, or Pinochet or whoever else you want to rant about.

We may just be surprised to realize at our death where these people are.

Yes, clarity and charity are lacking when one condemns one to hell.

Let us pray for his soul…

 

[benidict]

God’s justice and mercy is much more all-knowing than our little skered minds. He killed many, many people and so did Saddam, or Pinochet or whoever else you want to rant about.

We may just be surprised to realize at our death where these people are.

Yes, clarity and charity are lacking when one condemns one to hell.

Let us pray for his soul…

honestly. I dont think there will be any surprises here. You are being unjust to the victims of these folks. Maybe you should re examine where you place your sympathies.

 

[benidict]

Honestly folks, I dont think some people understand just what kind of people we are dealing with here. Shall I tell you what happened to my friend who is a medic? and the case of a 9 year old girl she had? Shall I list the things that Saddam and his sons used to do for fun? If Jesus himself said it would be better for such to have a millstone tied to their necks, I think Im on pretty solid ground here in my assessment.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If ever there was a case of a "just war,"the war against Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is the ultimate expression of it!

 

[benidict]

If ever there was a case of a "just war,"the war against Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is the ultimate expression of it!

I Agree. Even though I would have to say the only just war is the one that never happens. This was a good kill though. And I honestly can say, I enjoyed watchin Saddam, Hang. Justice.

 

[Arandur]

markomalley, Afghanistan and Pakistan have been working with us, openly saying that they want to get rid of Al Qaeda and OBL. Therefore, we effectively had their permission.

Now, because those countries, and particularly Pakistan, are so divided, and there are likely many within that country sympathizing with and helping our enemy, it is understandable that operational details cannot always be shared. Tacit approval was given, however, even though the details may not have been approved because they were or may have been secretly protecting him. If they were, they were betraying us and acting as our enemies, and we therefore should not care what they think. If they weren’t, the fact remains that the Pakistani government is too divided and troubled to be trusted with details of an operation like this, for OBL’s sympathizers could well have learned of it.

As for the general questions, you seem to assume that just because it is a government’s responsibility to control what is going on in their borders, they can actually do it. Terrorists, pirates, and drug cartels operate illegally in most cases; their governments may have responsibility to take care of them, but they have not been able to do so. Therefore, if the government gives another the authority to do so, the other can certainly take care of the problem.

Even if they do not do so, there is still a case for action. For instance, if pirates, terrorists, or drug cartels have such a hold on a country, or if the government is too prideful to allow foreign action, even though it cannot control the acts of aggression coming from its borders, surely the least means possible to redress the harms is to go in and take out the threat.

For instance, should we tolerate drug cartels from Mexico raiding and murdering across the border in the U.S.? If Mexico can’t handle it, we should be supporting them. If our support isn’t enough, we should ask for their authorization to deal with the problem. If they don’t give us authorization, but the problem continues, then we would be justified in dealing with it as the least means necessary to defend our people. Given what’s been going on down there, we really ought to be asking Mexico to let us move in and destroy the power of the drug cartels. The Mexicans can’t do anything about them because they’ve dared all comers, having over 100,000 heavily armed mercenaries and having corrupted police and government all over the place, practically enslaving whole regions. We’ve got a parish mission community that is basically enslaved to them under threat of death.

 

[benidict]

markomalley, Afghanistan and Pakistan have been working with us, openly saying that they want to get rid of Al Qaeda and OBL. Therefore, we effectively had their permission.

Now, because those countries, and particularly Pakistan, are so divided, and there are likely many within that country sympathizing with and helping our enemy, it is understandable that operational details cannot always be shared. Tacit approval was given, however, even though the details may not have been approved because they were or may have been secretly protecting him. If they were, they were betraying us and acting as our enemies, and we therefore should not care what they think. If they weren’t, the fact remains that the Pakistani government is too divided and troubled to be trusted with details of an operation like this, for OBL’s sympathizers could well have learned of it.

As for the general questions, you seem to assume that just because it is a government’s responsibility to control what is going on in their borders, they can actually do it. Terrorists, pirates, and drug cartels operate illegally in most cases; their governments may have responsibility to take care of them, but they have not been able to do so. Therefore, if the government gives another the authority to do so, the other can certainly take care of the problem.

Even if they do not do so, there is still a case for action. For instance, if pirates, terrorists, or drug cartels have such a hold on a country, or if the government is too prideful to allow foreign action, even though it cannot control the acts of aggression coming from its borders, surely the least means possible to redress the harms is to go in and take out the threat.

For instance, should we tolerate drug cartels from Mexico raiding and murdering across the border in the U.S.? If Mexico can’t handle it, we should be supporting them. If our support isn’t enough, we should ask for their authorization to deal with the problem. If they don’t give us authorization, but the problem continues, then we would be justified in dealing with it as the least means necessary to defend our people. Given what’s been going on down there, we really ought to be asking Mexico to let us move in and destroy the power of the drug cartels. The Mexicans can’t do anything about them because they’ve dared all comers, having over 100,000 heavily armed mercenaries and having corrupted police and government all over the place, practically enslaving whole regions. We’ve got a parish mission community that is basically enslaved to them under threat of death.

Wish I could get orders to deal with this. That would be a worthy assignment.

 

[Shoshana]

I Agree. Even though I would have to say the only just war is the one that never happens. This was a good kill though. And I honestly can say, I enjoyed watchin Saddam, Hang. Justice.

Not according to the Pope at the time! If you enjoyed watching Saddam being hung, I am highly concerned. Just as I was distressed at what Saddam did, I realized that Saddam did these atrocities. Yet, what gave permission for entering his country? On what movtivation?

What about all the other dictators in the world? What about them? And what about those who are allies with these dictators? What about encouraging dictators by helping them financially for whatever reason…why encouragement and not justice?

Because if that was the case, then these dictators and the US should be hung with relish. All of them! And be happy…We have to be fair!

This all makes me sad…

 

[benidict]

Not according to the Pope at the time! If you enjoyed watching Saddam being hung, I am highly concerned. Just as I was distressed at what Saddam did, I realized that Saddam did these atrocities. Yet, what gave permission for entering his country? On what movtivation?

What about all the other dictators in the world? What about them? And what about those who are allies with these dictators? What about encouraging dictators by helping them financially for whatever reason…why encouragement and not justice?

Because if that was the case, then these dictators and the US should be hung with relish. All of them! And be happy…We have to be fair!

This all makes me sad…

And I am highly concerned about your pity for such monsters. Your views are neither, biblical, nor reasonable. Have a good night. Got more to say, but its midnight in Iraq. almost one oclock and I need to get some sleep. Which I might add, I sleep very well.

 

[WayCoolAtheist]

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41253

 

[Shoshana]

And I am highly concerned about your pity for such monsters. Your views are neither, biblical, nor reasonable. Have a good night. Got more to say, but its midnight in Iraq. almost one oclock and I need to get some sleep. Which I might add, I sleep very well.

I am sorry to hear you are in Iraq, may God in His goodness protect you from all harm.

I am not saying that I have pity on any monster. There are many dictators in the world. I wish it was not so. But we are blind to our own bloodied hands when we point the finger and saying how monsterish so-and-so dictator is. And there will always be. We become judgmental in the First Worldl but we pick and choose who we kill and become bedpartners with other citators who are doing the same thing.

Two wrongs do not make a right. What we do bechind closed doors overflows into the world. We are as evil when we partner in evil…

 

[Shoshana]

Maybe we should think along more these lines…forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=558330

 

[markomalley]

markomalley, Afghanistan and Pakistan have been working with us, openly saying that they want to get rid of Al Qaeda and OBL. Therefore, we effectively had their permission.

OK. If you review the posts that I’ve made on this thread, you will not find me asserting whether this particular instance is morally licit or not. You will find me posing questions to get people to think about this in terms of Catholic moral theology (this is the moral theology forum, after all )

Now, because those countries, and particularly Pakistan, are so divided, and there are likely many within that country sympathizing with and helping our enemy, it is understandable that operational details cannot always be shared. Tacit approval was given, however, even though the details may not have been approved because they were or may have been secretly protecting him. If they were, they were betraying us and acting as our enemies, and we therefore should not care what they think. If they weren’t, the fact remains that the Pakistani government is too divided and troubled to be trusted with details of an operation like this, for OBL’s sympathizers could well have learned of it.

True statements. But does the fact that the Pakistani government is infiltrated reduce their moral culpability for harboring terrorists? Or does it make them complicit?

As for the general questions, you seem to assume that just because it is a government’s responsibility to control what is going on in their borders, they can actually do it. Terrorists, pirates, and drug cartels operate illegally in most cases; their governments may have responsibility to take care of them, but they have not been able to do so. Therefore, if the government gives another the authority to do so, the other can certainly take care of the problem.

Once again, read what I actually wrote. I have not given my opinion on whether the action was morally licit or not. I’m asking questions in an effort to get people to think about it with their heads rather than to depend upon a gut reaction.

Even if they do not do so, there is still a case for action. For instance, if pirates, terrorists, or drug cartels have such a hold on a country, or if the government is too prideful to allow foreign action, even though it cannot control the acts of aggression coming from its borders, surely the least means possible to redress the harms is to go in and take out the threat.

OK, but then are you indicating that we have a moral case for going to war with a State that harbors terrorists, drug cartels, or pirates?

For instance, should we tolerate drug cartels from Mexico raiding and murdering across the border in the U.S.? If Mexico can’t handle it, we should be supporting them. If our support isn’t enough, we should ask for their authorization to deal with the problem. If they don’t give us authorization, but the problem continues, then we would be justified in dealing with it as the least means necessary to defend our people. Given what’s been going on down there, we really ought to be asking Mexico to let us move in and destroy the power of the drug cartels. The Mexicans can’t do anything about them because they’ve dared all comers, having over 100,000 heavily armed mercenaries and having corrupted police and government all over the place, practically enslaving whole regions. We’ve got a parish mission community that is basically enslaved to them under threat of death.

Are you now asserting that we have the moral authority to declare a state of war against the Republic of Mexico because the drug cartels and the State’s lack of willingness to do anything about it?

And if so, can you justify that belief in terms of the Just War theory? Do you think that the Holy See and your Ordinary would agree with your assessment?

Keep in mind, I’m just asking questions in the hypothetical here.

You may wish to reflect upon the words of Father Lombardi in regards to the Osama bin Laden incident:

In an official statement to reporters, the director Fr. Federico Lombardi, said the " Osama bin Laden - as we all know – was gravely responsible for promoting division and hatred between peoples, causing the death of countless innocent lives, and of exploiting religions to this end".
He added: " Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of each and every one of us before God and before man, and hopes and commits himself so that no event be an opportunity for further growth of hatred, but for peace".

 

[Arandur]

OK. If you review the posts that I’ve made on this thread, you will not find me asserting whether this particular instance is morally licit or not. You will find me posing questions to get people to think about this in terms of Catholic moral theology (this is the moral theology forum, after all )

Okay, then consider my responses thinking through the situations.

True statements. But does the fact that the Pakistani government is infiltrated reduce their moral culpability for harboring terrorists? Or does it make them complicit?

Yes, infiltration and internal division reduces their culpability. If they are compromised, we should not be hampered in our ability to do what is necessary to defend ourselves by their lack of reliability. We must continue to take the least means necessary, and this would be least means, because otherwise we would be paralyzed, and any groups wishing to wage asymmetric warfare need only find a region they can hide out in to act with impunity.

OK, but then are you indicating that we have a moral case for going to war with a State that harbors terrorists, drug cartels, or pirates?

I didn’t say that. We may under certain conditions have a moral case for going into the country to deal with such a problem with or without their help, not on waging war on that country.

Are you now asserting that we have the moral authority to declare a state of war against the Republic of Mexico because the drug cartels and the State’s lack of willingness to do anything about it?

See above. Not war with Mexico. Military action, after all other reasonable possibilities are exhausted and warnings are given, to end the cartels’ ability to continue their campaigns of murder and terror. If Mexico resisted or saw this as an act of war, it would be actively harboring and protecting the cartels and thus be entirely complicit and making themselves enemies. As long as the U.S. restrained itself to the least means necessary, As long as its government and innocent civilians were not the target, Mexico could not justly engage in war with the U.S., for mere violation of borders is not sufficient cause for war.

And if so, can you justify that belief in terms of the Just War theory? Do you think that the Holy See and your Ordinary would agree with your assessment?

What would they have us do otherwise, do you think? Let the killings continue and the power of the cartels grow unabated, unchallenged, without limit? That would be evil. All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The Holy See is not infallible in these matters, and freely acknowledges that the faithful may disagree, so long as we are honestly seeking to make moral choices and informing our consciences. I disagreed with the Holy See about Iraq, but carefully considered it all. I believe the causes in Iraq and Afghanistan were just, but the means of prosecuting the wars were not always so.

You may wish to reflect upon the words of Father Lombardi in regards to the Osama bin Laden incident:

In an official statement to reporters, the director Fr. Federico Lombardi, said the " Osama bin Laden - as we all know – was gravely responsible for promoting division and hatred between peoples, causing the death of countless innocent lives, and of exploiting religions to this end".
He added: " Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of each and every one of us before God and before man, and hopes and commits himself so that no event be an opportunity for further growth of hatred, but for peace".

I have. If you’re interested in my position, I have commented on that here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7826863&postcount=16

 

[markomalley]

Okay, then consider my responses thinking through the situations.

Yes, infiltration and internal division reduces their culpability. If they are compromised, we should not be hampered in our ability to do what is necessary to defend ourselves by their lack of reliability. We must continue to take the least means necessary, and this would be least means, because otherwise we would be paralyzed, and any groups wishing to wage asymmetric warfare need only find a region they can hide out in to act with impunity.

I didn’t say that. We may under certain conditions have a moral case for going into the country to deal with such a problem with or without their help, not on waging war on that country.

See above. Not war with Mexico. Military action, after all other reasonable possibilities are exhausted and warnings are given, to end the cartels’ ability to continue their campaigns of murder and terror. If Mexico resisted or saw this as an act of war, it would be actively harboring and protecting the cartels and thus be entirely complicit and making themselves enemies. As long as the U.S. restrained itself to the least means necessary, As long as its government and innocent civilians were not the target, Mexico could not justly engage in war with the U.S., for mere violation of borders is not sufficient cause for war.

What would they have us do otherwise, do you think? Let the killings continue and the power of the cartels grow unabated, unchallenged, without limit? That would be evil. All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The Holy See is not infallible in these matters, and freely acknowledges that the faithful may disagree, so long as we are honestly seeking to make moral choices and informing our consciences. I disagreed with the Holy See about Iraq, but carefully considered it all. I believe the causes in Iraq and Afghanistan were just, but the means of prosecuting the wars were not always so.

I have. If you’re interested in my position, I have commented on that here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7826863&postcount=16

I don’t have any issues with your points.

The biggest thing is that people need to think it through rather than depending upon the media exuberance to shape their opinion.

My opinion: a command and control node in a highly distributed network was eliminated today. I am highly confident that the JSOC forces who did the hit were as professional as always and strictly adhered to their ROEs. I don’t particularly feel any great joy or angst about it one way or the other as to the moral liceity of the act (although I think those who compare this to an execution or who talk about “justice” being served are, speaking generically, total idiots…this was a military strike, not a court of law)

More importantly, though, this highlights the fact that there is no codified International Law in dealing with transnational terrorism. All we have is a form of “common law” based upon a patchwork of UN resolutions and precedent that is, as often as not, contradictory in nature. As was evident from as far back as the 1990s, and, in particular, in the weeks following the 9/11/01 strike, the Hague and Geneva Conventions are woefully inadequate in providing any generally accepted standard for dealing with this threat. That, to me, is the most pressing issue that really needs to be resolved out of this whole mess.

 

[Shoshana]

Really?! are you serious?! Yes! Osama is feeling quite toasty now I imagine! God bless MY COMMANDER IN CHIEF, AND THE SEAL TEAM, that risked their lives to kill a truly evil individual.

Cardinal Dziwisz: The two times he got angry
Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the archbishop of Krakow, who was John Paul II’s personal secretary for more than 40 years, spoke of the two loves of the Polish Pontiff: “God and mankind, and in particular the youth.”
He also revealed the two occasions he saw John Paul II “really angry,” but with “good reason.”
“In Agrigento, [Sicily], he raised his voice against the mafia, and we were all a little scared,” he said.
"And the other occasion was during the Angelus, before the Iraq War, when he said with force: no to war, war doesn’t resolve anything. I have seen war. I know what war is."
"He sent a cardinal to Washington, [D.C], and another to Baghdad, to say: do not seek to resolve these problems with war. And he was right. The war is still ongoing and it hasn’t resolved anything."
zenit.org/article-32438?l=english

 

[ThinkPinkLaura]

Cardinal Dziwisz: The two times he got angry
Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the archbishop of Krakow, who was John Paul II’s personal secretary for more than 40 years, spoke of the two loves of the Polish Pontiff: “God and mankind, and in particular the youth.”
He also revealed the two occasions he saw John Paul II “really angry,” but with “good reason.”
“In Agrigento, [Sicily], he raised his voice against the mafia, and we were all a little scared,” he said.

"And the other occasion was during the Angelus, before the Iraq War, when he said with force: no to war, war doesn’t resolve anything. I have seen war. I know what war is."
"He sent a cardinal to Washington, [D.C], and another to Baghdad, to say: do not seek to resolve these problems with war. And he was right. The war is still ongoing and it hasn’t resolved anything."

zenit.org/article-32438?l=english

“People sleep peacefully in their beds at night, because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” This famous quote is shines a light on those who criticize our national defense from their lazy boy chairs.

If you need clarification on why the US defends the common good, read the Just War Doctrine. St. Augustine got it RIGHT and it is now in our catechism.