submitted w/o comment
When a Pro-Life President Kills
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

"We should not as a society grow life to destroy it," said President Bush in response to the news that a Massachusetts company had cloned a human embryo. Though Bush says that’s "exactly what's taking place," scientists interviewed dispute that there is any cloning going on.

As has become the norm with these type of bioethics issues, no one can even agree on the essential facts of the case. Larry Goldstein of the University of California at San Diego said the company "induced human eggs to undergo a couple of rounds of divisions. What they made was not human. I don't know what they made, but they're not really embryos."

Human life or no, Bush is clearly concerned. So let’s talk about some other forms of life that are currently under some degree of stress, namely life in the suburbs of Khandahar, Afghanistan. We are not talking embryos or embryo-like objects. These are full-grown adults and their children. No scientists dispute that these are people. No one disputes that life is being destroyed. What’s in dispute is the justification. What Bush says that science must not do he is more than willing to do under the guise of war.

The other day, American cluster bombs fell in this area and killed at least 100 unarmed civilians. These facts have been confirmed by many Western observers. One man affected is Juma Khan of Charikari, husband and father of six. Make that widower and father of one 11-year-old daughter named Gulshan who has severe head injuries but is still breathing. A bomb hit their house during the breakfast hour of 8am. It killed five of his children and nine other family members, including his brother and his brother’s children.

"I was just sitting there. The next thing I knew, people were digging me out of the rubble," Mr. Khan told the Independent. In the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is just war and we have to buck up to face it, and then escalate. But to Khan, this was his wife, his children, his brother, and his nieces and nephews – all that matters in the world.

Who is responsible? The pilot who dropped the bombs? Maybe. But there will be no prosecutions. It’s not even clear that there are channels for such things. Despite the platitudes about sparing innocents heard early in this war, there is no outcry or even admission of wrongdoing.

Besides, the pilot was following orders. Who was giving the orders? Sure, the generals, but on whose authority are they operating? The Joint Chiefs of Staff, but who empowers them? There’s only one man: George W. Bush, the man who just decried cloning on grounds that it destroys life.

Bush is willing to use all his now-considerable power to try to stop the division of human embryos, and isn’t going to let any platitudes about the "progress of science" stop him. And yet here is a case where he has full power to stop the destruction of life right now. And yet he does nothing. Far from it: he orders more bombing in more countries, using violence to achieve his political ends.
page 1 of 2

page 2 of 2
It strikes me that we have a very interesting case of human psychology in operation here. As a man, Bush wouldn’t hurt anyone, particularly not innocent people. As president, he believes it is his responsibility to defend the right to life. But as commander-in-chief in wartime, he can in good conscience oversee the wholesale slaughter of innocents and lose no sleep. He can smile, laugh, and enjoy 85 percent popularity.

Of course many thinkers have exposed the immorality of the state and its wars, including Frederic Bastiat, Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, Betrand de Jouvenel, Herbert Spencer, Franz Oppenheimer, and Murray N. Rothbard, among many others. Their writings provide brilliant insight into how the state "thinks," and its exaltation of itself over everything else on earth.

They show, for example, that the state purports to punish theft and murder while making theft and murder the very essence of its domestic and foreign policy. The state claims to make and uphold the law yet exempts itself from punishment when it transgresses that law. It claims to punish evil doers yet its own actions, in war and the regular conduct of domestic policy, inspire and motivate evil doers to copy the state’s ways. And when it comes to actually punishing crime, it hits crime against itself far more severely than crimes against its citizens.

All this is clear. But what can we say about a man like Bush, a decent fellow who loves his wife and children, who goes to church, who probably entered public life with the most sincere motivations. How does he sleep and pray knowing that his decisions as president are tearing off the heads and ripping open the bellies of innocent men, women, and children? Does he blame the terrorists for making him do this? Perhaps, but that only takes him so far. Under no standard of justice is killing innocents in another nation a proper retaliation for the killing of innocents in our nation.

There’s no cracking some mysteries of human psychology, but I think the answer has something to do with the ideology of public service, and particularly the mythology of the moral burdens of the presidency. For generations, every historian of note has held up the most mass-murdering of presidents for public adulation. The "moral burden" of the presidency amounts to doing very immoral things under the cover of statesmanship.

"The evil that men do lives after them," Shakespeare has Mark Antony say. "The good is oft interred in their bones." But with US presidents, the tendency is precisely the reverse.

Can all the historians be wrong? Yes, certainly. But it takes a special kind of intellect and moral courage to reach this conclusion. You have to be an extremely independent thinker. If you are like Bush, a conventional sort of guy, you are perfectly willing to believe the conventional wisdom that what a president does in wartime is not mass murder but rather statesmanship.

That is why it is more urgent than ever to underscore the essential idea of the liberal tradition, that morality is universal and that the state is not exempt from it. We should not grow life in order to destroy it, by any means, whether science or war. Only the tradition that applies that view consistently can restrain the state, and it must be taught to a new generation.

November 28, 2001
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.
Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com

In some respects, such as the dual standard the state applies to itself and others, the author is correct.  But as for the rest of his comments, he is quick to criticize and offers no alternatives.

Terrs linked to a particular country kill 4,000 or so of our citizens.  Our reaction?  None, because we might kill some innocent people by reacting.  Terrorists reaction to that?  "Good.  We can kill Americans with no cost to ourselves."  So they do.  And, no American reaction leaves them not only willing, but fully able to do so.  More Americans are killed as a result.  Being a selfish xenophobic bastard, I would trade 1,000 of their lives for the life of one American.

Too bad innocent people such as Khan's family must die, but that is the way it is.  The WTC people sure didn't ask for what happened to them, so maybe Mr. Rockwell should bleat to the Taliban and Osama.  If the innocent people in Afghanistan don't like it, perhaps they should have run the Tallybanners outta *their* country before *their* SHTF.

Even [b]if[/b] the author is correct, my mother always said, "Two wrongs do not make a right."

Funny how simple things can be.

Eddie

Balderdash! This is the usual tripe you get from Lew Rockwell.

Are we engaged in a war, or not? That's a very simple question.

If your answer is yes, Hun, we are engaged in a war, then the next question should be, is that war being conducted in the most civil manner possible? With the view of causing as few non-combatants' deaths as possible?

If your answer is yes, Hun, we appear to be trying to keep civilian deaths and suffering to a minimum, and dropping supplies to civilians at great risk to our own servicemen, then your next question should be, why do I continue to read this obnoxious, anti-American trash?

There is a line between what our government says and what Bin Laden would tell you about our government's action in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Choose who you wish to believe, but one of those two is [u]lying[/u].

As for me, I question the patriotism of Lew Rockwell, I think he's a jerk with [u]no[/u] answers, just a whiny attitude ordinarily found on elementary school playgrounds. But that's ok, 'cause this is America, and he's entitled to say whatever b.s. thing comes into his fevered mind!

If your answer is no, Hun, we're not engaged in a war, then Lew Rockwell is the man for you!

In the meanwhile, there is no difference between the man and his family in the suburb of Kandahar, and a similar family in a suburb of any major German city in 1942 - 1945. No one in the American military ever set out to kill any civilians either then or now!

Can the same be said of Bin Laden and his ilk, and, by extension, their sychophants in the presss?

Eric The(AnswerThat!)Hun[>]:)]

I think the SOB needs to go down to ground zero and plead his case awhile! Then move his ass to afghanistan.

It's soooo good to see that somebody gave there time so we could see this,where would we be if we did not have all these commies to think for us[rolleyes]

Yep, more BS from Rockwell.  You would think he would get tired of spouting this insipid crap.

Hey RikWriter, did you notice how fitting your signature line is to this debate?



The anti-war protesters of the 60s an 70s used the first part of that saying as one of their rallying cries, without including the second part. The same applies to Mr. Rockwell.

If we didn't go to Afghanistan and kill the people who planned and financed the 9.11.01 attack, it would be the same as encouraging others to do the same or worse. We are finally raising the price for attacking America and Americans in the international marketplace, and Mr. Rockwell and his ilk would have us sit on our hands because the people who wish to do us harm decide to hide behind their own people, just like the gunmen in Somalia did. In the grand scheme of things those innocent civilians the Taliban and al-qaida hid behind are not as important to me as the thousands of Americans killed by the assholes of 9.11.01. Ugly to read it in black and white like that, but me and mine have to come first over them and theirs.

This sends a signal that we will not sit idly by and have the war brought to us. We will take it to you and make you pay ten- or a hundred- or a thousand-fold for every American you kill. That is the only language understood by someone who would fly a planeload of innocent non-combatants into a building full of innocent non-combatants.

We need to go even further, in my opinion. Just like the King of Jordan said to his intelligence chief when Abu Nidal threatened his life. "Burn them down, root and branch." The Abu Nidal organization is no longer a force on the international stage, because they are dead, their families are dead, their friends are dead, the people who harbored them are dead, the people who financed them are dead. It's like cauterizing a wound. Some healthy flesh needs to be sacrificed to kill the infection. It also sends a message that there is a high, blood-soaked price to pay for your actions.

Mr. Rockwell embodies the "miserable creature" that John Stuart Mill spoke of:

Um, I think the author is confusing two totally seperate and distinct issues...typical.

Look, in war people get killed.  That is the way the game is played.  We don't march into other countries with the express purpose of destroying "innocent" life.  Deaths among civilians are purely accidental...that is quite a different thing than the deliberate killing that we ponder in bio-ethics issues.  Yes, "innocent" people will be killed in war...but as far as I am concerned they are already dead if they are living under a regime such as the Taliban.

Look, are we going to sit by while terrorist bastards anally rape us?  I don't think so!  Are we going to sit around and wait for terrorists to kill thousands more of our people?  Hell no!  We are going to take it to them...and anyone else who gets in our way.  I care about American lives FIRST.  Everyone else second.  Are we clear, Mr. Rockwell?

Blame this war on the terrorists ..for that is were the blame soley rests... they hide among the women and children...they set up anti aircraft sites..machine gun positions
they ambush from shools and hospitals...they make sure that collateral damage gets reported on the 6 O'clock news in the most graphic way possible...They learned this from the western press in Vietnam...its the propaganda war...making the enemy look innocent and those retaliating for vicous attacks look like the agressor...GW never intentioal targets civilians...only those areas that contain or support terrorists..those who give them shelter..feed them..bind their wounds etc..are collaboraters...and have joined the enemy...its a trajedy when innocents are killed among the guilty...
When the next terrorist attack America perhaps if Mr. Lew Rockwells relatives or loved ones are among the victums we will hear him sing a different tune...probably soprano given his current leanings

Yes I did. [:D]  In fact I adopted this sig line specifically in reaction to the incessant whining from self-styled libertarians on the whole WTC issue.

Eugen Berthold Friedrich Brecht was a German poet, playwright, and theatrical reformer who developed drama as a social and ideological forum for leftist causes.
His work in Germany reflected a Marxist interpretation of society. After his emigration to the U.S. and trial by the HUAC, he subsequently emigrated to East Germany.
In October of 1947, during the McCarthy years, Brecht was called to appear before the House Committee for Un-American Activities in order to investigate the "subversion" of Hollywood. Although not an official member of America's communist party, Brecht left the United States for Switzerland the next day. He was soon reunited with Helen Wiegel and they travelled to East Berlin in 1948 and set up the Berliner Ensemble with full support from the communist regime.
How interesting, quoting a Marxist to refute liberals.
Politics indeed makes strange bedfellows.

Would someone explain to me why it is OK to kill an unborn innocent fetus, but everyone gets teary eyed about mass murderers.

The pacifists will only be happy until when we kill no-one, not even the guilty.  The killing of innocents arguement is a just a position becasue they know there will always be collateral damage.

I would argue that there are no innocents in Afganistan.  If you stood by while the Taliban took control and didn't try to oust them, you cannot be called an innocent.

The question to ask Mr. Rockwell is how many American soldiers is he willing to sacrifice to make sure that no "innocents' are killed.  His answer, wether or not he will admit it, is all of them.

I'm so glad he has the right to show off his stupidity, otherwise we wouldn't know how dangerous he is.

I think the quote in question is fairly apolitical. It reflects a truism of human nature, even inhuman nature.

When you retreat or otherwise show weakness before an agressor or predator, it encourages them. This is true for mountain lions, muggers or yorkshire terriers.

Yes, I agree, the quote is apt and not at all connected to Brecht's Marxist politics.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Hell, even DuhMan is right sometimes... [:D]

Man comes together and forms nations and governments in order that he can live in a state of law.  This way, he can go about his business without worrying about being killed or attacked, basically.  So there's a system of justice.

Hobbes said that life in a state of nature (i.e. without laws or government) is nasty, brutish, and short. This is how things are in nations like Afghanistan and Somalia for individual people, but in an abstract sense it is how things are for nations as well.

We have international courts, the UN, and so on to take nations out of this state of nature, so nations don't have to worry about being attacked and have other courses of redress other than war.  But this system hasn't been too effective.  

So, the nation operates in another state of being than the individual.  It operates in a state of nature, where life is nasty and brutal, and one's survival and self-interests are the chief concern.

Liberals often think nations should operate like individuals in a state of laws, and it's a nice thought, but everyone else would be playing a different game by different rules.  Your survival and security would be at risk.

This is why it's ok for states to steal and murder, but not individuals under those governments.

Raven!!! I was about to go off here and you come in with the most brilliantly stated argument that I have seen in a long time. Thanks and may
I borrow it? It is also a wonderful argument for less government-----people don't kill people, gov't kills people!!!!!

Actually I think his point was that we create governments to let them do our killing for us.

Yeah, I wrote a paper on this idea I got from Hobbes.  It's mainly his idea.  

I don't think it's a justification for less government (there are a lot better reasons than this) but instead it's probably the most fundamental reasons for having a government in the first place.  

It would be great if we could all live peacefully and civilly without a government, but doing so puts at risk to evil individuals and worse to evil groups.  Most people on the whole are pretty good, but the threat from the few bad people is so real and severe we willingly and contractually give up our individual sovereignty to a government.

This sovereign government administers justice internally and deals with other sovereign states externally. On the international stage it acts in our interests.  The international stage I believe is a place that's in a state of nature - where only might makes right.

We could enter into a long debate on this, but
I will just say that it is immoral and wrong for a government formed by the people and for the people and of the people to act in a way that would be wrong for one individual.
There are people that need killing and who does
the government send?-- people---so why should the motivation and standards be different?

hound, are you saying that the U.S. should not retaliate against the 9/11 terrorists?  That we should appeal to a "higher authority" for recourse?  If so, what "higher authority"?  The U.N.?  

Yep, he sounds right on target.


What? Haven't you read history? In WWII They SPECIFICALLY targeted German and Japanese cities with large populations of civilians in them to kill the morale of the populations and its military. Then there is the whole issue of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now if you want to debate whether that is right or wrong that is different, but don't say that the military has never set out to kill civilians, because there is ample evidence of that.


Gladly. [:)] Intervention is wrong and it makes the world worse of than it was, with many innocent deaths.

If I understand what he was saying, you have it messed up. We should retaliate against the 9/11 terrorists(actually it would be their accomplices since the ones who did it are dead), but Congress should either declare war, or issue letters of marque and reprisal

Our governments action is not immoral. our situation with afghanistan is not much differnet from a thug breaking into your home and murdering your wife and babe. an eye for an eye is not always appropiate, but if our government were a single man and afghanistan were a single man that kicked mr. US in the balls, should then mr. US not defend himself? if he does nothing then mr. US could be kicked in the nuts again and again. (ooowwwwccchhhh!!!!)

our government arms its soldiers and police with rifles, shotguns, and pistols. this should be as morally a defensive measure from harm as a single citizen should carry a weapon to guard against harm.

defend yourself lib

I took hound's post to mean that he was against the "war on terror".  There has not been an official declaration of war because we are not at war with a sovereign entity.  Just because the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan does not mean that we are at war with the country as a whole.  The reason Congress hasn't officially declared war probably has to do with the location of the terrorist cell's in different countries.  We could declare war on every country right off the mark or give said country an opportunity to participate in hunting down the terrorist in their borders.  If they chose not to help then allow us to carry out our mission.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. = [puke]

woohoo...everyone got busy while I was gone and most of you got my gist.....
to the perpetrators of 9/11.....bang, I don't care whether afghan, israeli, british, or american. And NOBODY has presented evidence to make me choose one of these groups over the others. If you don't know that there are glaring holes in the Official cover---I mean story, then
you should read more. Example---19 middle eastern men responsible...those names or their alias are not on the passenger lists!!!
And yes it is immoral to bomb someone who has nothing to do with the incident..