The big news story for the past two days has been the contract out on an American citizen taking refuge in Yemen. He's tied to terrorist activities in the U.S.
In the past, we knew that America killed people. The CIA has a covert reputation for taking undesirables out one way or the other. In the past, we "knew", but no one admitted it publicly.
However, whether we hide it or reveal it is not the direction of today's blog.
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and a long list of other tyrants killed undesirables. "No mercy" would have been a fine slogan for their regimes.
Most of these misguided people are dead now and history has been merciless in its criticism and denouncement of them.
When, I ask, did it become acceptable to kill one's enemies on purpose while they're riding in their cars, eating in their homes, or traveling from one place to another.
Honored officials and dignitaries are assassinated, undesirables are killed. One we consider a crime, the other a necessity.
Today's question for pondering: When a person is killed and they are not threatening your life with a weapon, where do you draw the line? What happened to due process? Saddam Hussein had due process and then they hung him. How do you determine to whom you give a fair trial to and who you just outright shoot?
Has all the killing stopped all the killing? Is there another way?
Yes, of course there is. Why don't we pursue it? Perhaps because in a supposedly faith- filled nation we still seem to cling to an "eye for an eye" as true justice for those we deem irredeemable.
No comments:
Post a Comment