Thursday, January 26, 2012
Being Barack Obama
In his State of the Union address Obama reveled in his accomplishment that Osama bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda leaders are no longer a threat to Americans. It was a strong opening. But the problem with such assassinations is that any opposition to others can be considered assassination-worthy for the security of a country and its people. As Israel has long engaged in targeted killings, it is significant that Andrew Adler, the owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times, wrote that the assassination of Obama should be an option for the Israeli government for the security of Israel and her people. Besides the legality of such acts of war among governing bodies nationally or internationally, is there not a better way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
no. unless we handled things differently in the 1980's so an Osama Bin Laden wouldn't have had a following. For example, if Jimmy Carter had been taken seriously in 1980 when he said becoming energy independent was the moral equivalent of fighting a just war, we may not have needed to back arab dictators for ever.
You sound like an apologist and situationist. Ethics and morality, not to mention rule of law, and not just those created to justify laws that negate constitutional and international ones, are not considered in your reply. I suppose such rationalizations were also made for the last administration and its laws devised by lawyers to justify what many believe to be torture to thwart international law and our very own constitutional ones with the invasion of Iraq and how prisoners were treated at Gitmo. We are either a country of laws or not. If not, its citizens cannot be expected to abide by the rule of law.
Post a Comment