C[omp]ute

From: andrew cooke <andrew@...>

Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:53:10 -0400

A few days before the Bin Laden fuss, some loonies in N Ireland threatened to
kill the Queen.  In a random internet discussion at the time I said that it
didn't seem that terrible to me - obviously, any murder is wrong, but if you
are going to target anyone, a King or Queen seems like a "reasonable" choice.
After all, isn't that what wars were all about? - you have a bunch of people
who slaughter each other until one or the other King/Queen dies.  And that's
how the game ends.

So while I wouldn't want anyone to kill the Queen, it would seem, in my moral
terms, better to target the Queen (who, after all, enjoys a lot of status and
rewards for her position) that some random granny.

At the same time, I was aware that there's a general consensus in modern wars
*not* to kill heads of states.  As it happened, no-one called me out on this,
so the idea stalled there.


And then Bin Laden was killed, and there was a similar concern about
assassination - that he should have been captured and tried instead.  And
people seem to feel, to some extent, that exactly how fair this was depends on
whether or not there was a "war" etc etc.

I admit I didn't think much about this question, except to make a mental note
that it seemed consistent with my argument about the Queen, above.


Now today there's a post on Crooked Timber arguing the case against killing
Bin Laden in more detail.  And it includes an interesting example that *does*
shift my moral compass in the opposite direction: the targeted killing of IRA
members by the SAS in Gibraltar.


So, am I wrong in one of these cases, or is there a way to square the two?

I don't have an answer - I'm just writing this down here as a reminder to
think about it when I have more time...

Andrew

http://crookedtimber.org/2011/05/09/justice-like-the-hawk