I think that a case could be made that both principles were operating. Certainly, the administration needed to make a case that the war was "justified."

However, I don't see that what was neccesary on a purely pragmatic level negates the presence of a "messianic" spirit that, if not actually moving the administration, certainly seems to have been employed by it to reasonable effect.

The battle for the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis would not have been possible had Bush not succesfully won that battle at home. Had the "just war" case been persuasive by itself, preaching the mission to spread the gospel of democracy, or proclaiming mythical combat against an "axis of evil" would seem to be superfluous.

While I agree that if we look to the Christian contribution to the theory of "Just War" then you can argue to a concept of "God being on our side" as being part of it.

However, it seems to be a part of it in a different way.

Aquinas' argument, while certainly claiming the support of God, does so in the sense that warfare is an appropriate response to given existential acts. While God's work is done in a general sense of the state legitimately maintaining order and peace, it seems more interested in establising that killing, despite the commandment against it, is not always unjustified.

Aquinas and Augustine both seem to be answering the question of how Christian rulers and citizens of secular states can legitimately engage in activities which the bible itself condemns - ie killing. It is also noteworthy that many of the positions Aquinas adopts can be argued from a secular perspective.

This seems very different from the "Zealous" war, where it is not simply the case that war is not in conflict with divine command, but that war is a direct result of divine command. It has a very particular position in the unfolding of divine history as opposed to a general role to play in the maintenance of Christian kingdoms.

In the "Just War" theory of Aquinas war is the lesser of two evils.

As for Messianic War, it is an act of war required by God, and therefore it seems it must be considered (by its advocates) a Good in itself.

If torture isn't effective, why do people do it?

One answer is that whether it is effective in reality is not as important as whether people believe it is effective. This is the point that the US Senators are concerned about - if the public are misled by popular entertainment to believe it is effective they will give their implicit consent to its use. My point is that the ethical question that should be asked is whether the use of torture can ever be justified, even if it is effective. Essentially its a question of whether the ends justify the means.

Darren, people do a lot of things that are not effective. Of course torture is effective - if you want the person being tortured to say what you want them to say.

But if you want useful intelligence, why don't you ask a military intelligence officer what they think of it as a tool for extracting information. They will tell you that it is not.

Of course, all of that is a moot point. The use of torture is illegal here - and we are supposed to be a society based on the rule of law. If we make excuses that certain organisations like the police or military are above the law and can torture suspects to extract information, then what sort of society are we really? And what makes you think that torture would only be used on the really bad guys (whoever they are)? You might just happened to be on the receiving end yourself one day, because some policeman somewhere thinks that you know something.

That's an easy one Mike: I don't know any military intelligence officers, hence the reason I am asking it here (of people who are offering statements on its efficacy).

As for myself - if it works, I have no problem with it. If it doesn't, find another way: in short (for me), yes, the end justifies the means.

I am an atheist and I would have had no problem signing an Executive Order to Kill or Capture bin Laden. If the mission resulted in the death of bin Laden, even in murky circumstances, I'd still sleep well. Why? Because some acts are so atrocious that death is a justifiable punishment. And 9/11 is just about as atrocious as you can get (IMO).

really? I do find that interesting. An executive order to kill a foreign national on sovereign soil is an interesting legal document. I wonder how legitimate such an order is in australian law.
Would you still sign the order knowing that it may risk the following consequences:
1. capture, torture and death of those effecting the order on your behalf,
2. death or long-term injury to bystanders at the scene, or in the immediate vicinity (what quantity or quality of 'collateral damage' would you deem acceptable in order to prosecute this action?),
3. Targeting of Australian nationals by extremists disaffected by the death of the subject in question.

I don't mourn Bin Laden, nor am i distressed at his passing. I am interested to see how easy it is to beat your chest and make glib assertions that deadly force is the best solution to a problem, especially when there may be unintended consquences resulting from that action.

I understand your points - and they are all valid practical considerations. However, I interpreted your question more from an ethical perspective.

Fair enough, I've turned a thought experiment into a practical problem...

What about you? Removing your practical impediments for the sake of the discussion - would you have signed it?

I find it impossible to remove practical considerations from the discussion, so no, I don't believe that the ends justified the potential risks to bystanders.
I believe that Osama Bin laden was a legitimate military target and if he had been holed up in a mountain in afghanistan surrounded by taliban than it would have been completely legitimate to conduct a military mission to kill or capture him.
As to the question 'what would I do': I was,in my previous career, an Army officer (albeit not an arms Corps officer) - so I have already asked myself the ethical questions at issue in the article. I would kill, or order the killing, of enemy combatants as part of a military operation necessitating that action. As an atheist I have already asked myself the hard ethical questions and I am far from glib or flippant when contemplating the killing of another human. I believe that those that are glib and flippant have either never truly counted the consequences, to themselves or others, of such an act or they are so inured to the act that they fail to see their opponents as fully human and worthy of such consideration.

You say "I believe that Osama Bin laden was a legitimate military target" but then suggest you wouldn't have ordered a kill / capture mission.

Is that because he was located in a non-"battlefield" area?

In short, yes.
Long version:
1. He was in a sovereign country, and in a particularly unstable country at that, so ordering this mission is fraught with possible untintended sequelae. What if Bin Laden was in an embassy in switzerland, or in a safe house in Moscow? The fact that he was in a sovereign country I believe changes the nature of the operation.
2. he was in a populated area surrounded by family - military operations are rarely clean and surgical, as it was there was a helicopter crash as one of the choppers lost lift, what would be the consequences of a .50 cal round, or series of rounds or hellfire missile landing in the suburbs 500 m away from the site? Does that justify the mission? What if the mission failed, does that justify the mission and the ensuing consequences?
3. What were the consequences of not ordering the mission and waiting until sufficient pressure could be brought to bear to extract or extradite Bin laden by other means? I haven't sufficiently thought about this and am not armed with sufficient knowledge to answer it definitively, but my point is: there is usually an alternative to military action and that alternative can often be more effective, or less costly, in the long term.
4. The death of Bin Laden was a foreeable consequence of the operation. Was he better off dead? It may have been more morally defensible to have him not-dead. It may have led to better intelligence gains and thus prevention of further deaths to both combatants and civilians to have him alive. This also leads to ethical and practical gains.

I guess my contention is that it is extremely rare for a thought experiment to be anything but abstract. The real practical and ethical considerations are both complex and weighty. To say glibly "I would order the killing and capture of bin Laden' is easy, weighing the consequences of it (and of not doing it) is much harder.

Perhaps this scenario best sums up our differing views...

If we were both asked to sign the Order, I would say "I am happy to, provided you can satisfy my real concerns" (as described well by you).

You would say "no", thereby rendering further arguments unnecessary.

???

I would say no thus rendering further arguments necessary.

Therefore your position is basically philosophical - you've answered without even having to delve into the practical.

Hardly. And why therefore? what logical entailment would lead you to think that my objection is purely philosophical when i have continually expressed the practical implications?

My positions are based upon ethical (or philosophical grounding). That is, all decisions should be based upon rational underpinning. This does not mean that decision making is static and always falls back to the default philosophical position.
An example pertaining to the above is the tension between a virtue ethical position (thou shall not kill), deontological position (following duty) and the utilitarian position (greatest good for the greatest number).
If you reexamine my objections to ordering the mission against Bin Laden, and other comments I have made, you'll see the various interplay between these positions based upon the practical realities of the actual position on the ground.
My final position is ethical, yes, but based upon 3 philosophical positions reflected by the reality of what happens on the ground.

i'd be interested to see how one could come to any conclusion about the right, or otherwise, of killing a human being without examining the various ethical viewpoints and the practical realities at play. To do so would be to purely come from a position of emotion, not reason...

OK. "[Your] positions are based upon ethical (or philosophical grounding)". I'm happy to leave it at that.

and yours are from?

As above: "Because some acts are so atrocious that death is a justifiable punishment [action]."

Really? what acts? How many deaths justifies a response that involves the death of the perpetrator? 1, 100, 1000?
And what if the perpetrator was sufficiently and justifiably aggrieved? Just as you are sufficiently aggrieved to want the death of Bin laden. What if the perpetrator of htis one or more deaths was loved by many? does the love of many outweigh the grief of one?
What if the death of the one or many victims was contributed to materially by misfortune, or unforseen circumstance? What level of deathly retribution should be levelled at the perpetrator?

There are many layers of ethical dimension to blithely stating:
"some acts are so atrocious etc..."

How will you attempt to justify this statement?

What acts? I assume that the question is rhetorical as the facts of 9/11 are pretty well known and accepted: the act of 9/11 was so atrocious as to warrant death as appropriate punishment.

"the act of 9/11 was so atrocious as to warrant death as appropriate punishment."

simply restating this claim does not justify it. If you claim that the death of thousands warrants the death of the perpetrator you need to justify why this is the case. Is it the quantity of deaths involved? if so what quantity of deaths is sufficient to warrant the death of a perpetrator/ 1000? 100? 1?

Why should the death of the perpetrator in any way be an account for the death of a thousand anyway? will it bring them back? Will the sense of justice felt by the families be sufficient in quantity of suffering alleviation to justify the death of one?

what if he wasn't guilty - or rather what if the blame for 9/11 can be accorded to more than one person? it's not as if Bin laden and the pilots were acting alone... why should Bin laden die and not others, or should they have a portion of death visited upon them as proportioned by their degree of comlicity in the act? oh, that doesn't wok does it... you can't 1/4 kill someone....

so you're talking about vengeance not justice? that's the problem with blithe statements without ethical or philosophical underpinning... damn hard to justify.

'

To me, the statement "some acts warrant death as punishment" is self evidently true.

If you accept that position (I know you don't), then you (of course) need to start stating which acts qualify and which acts don't.

Without actually performing that cataloguing, I can pretty confidently state that 9/11 is in the "Qualified" basket.

so your 'self evidently true' is different to mine? Who is right?
I know someone that states that the world was created 4000 years ago, it is 'self evidently true'.

Forgive me if I take decisions involving the use of military force from a legal, ethical and pragmatic position rather than a 'self evidently true' position.

Who is right? Neither (and both) of us: Australian society (at the moment) has adopted your view. Some American states (but not all) agree with mine. Both view exist and are acted upon at the same time, albeit in different places.

Also, to attempt draw a parallel between an ethical position and a scientific fact (the age of the world) is trite (and wrong).

You have not comprehended my assertion. I compared your (un) ehtical position: 'something is right because it is self evidentary'
to another self evidntiary position that is probably untrue (the age of the universe is 6000 years).

ie: self evidentiary truths are bunkum.

the only way to get a to a position is to test it by reason. The statement' the universe is 6000 years old. This is self evidentiary' does not stand the test of reason because there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

Similarly, your statement: "some acts warrant death as punishment" is self evidently true.' does not justify the military action against Bin Laden in a sovereign country in an urban environment.
This doesn't make the military action unjustifiable, it's just that you have presentewd nothing to justify it except a statement which is not, in fact, self evidentiary without testing.

If you test the statement that you believe to be self evidentiary you will find it difficult to justify. If you test the statement in light of mounting a military operation etc. etc. you will find it even harder to justify.

I'm presuming thatyou are not in a position to make life and death decisions for and on behalf of others. If you were in such a position you might realise that your view comes across as flippant, emotive and wholly without substance.

Not once have I stated that '... "some acts warrant death as punishment" is self evidently true.' ... justif[ies] the military action against Bin Laden in a sovereign country in an urban environment."

In fact, I said (see above): "I would say "I am happy to, provided you can satisfy my real concerns" (as described well by you)." The reality is that for all the reasons you described (and perhaps more), I may well decide NOT to proceed.

I am merely pointing out that sans any practical impediment, I'd say "go ahead".

Why? Because, in my view, 9/11 was so atrocious the (lead) perpetrator of it deserved to die.

Why do people who commit such atrocious acts deserve to die?

Because I believe that death is the appropriate punishment for some acts - of which 9/11 is one.

I can't go beyond that. The opposing view rests upon the rock that there is no crime so severe as to warrant death, which is itself an equivalent self evident statement.

I understand you don't agree with my view, but I'm perplexed as to what appears to be your inability (unwillingness?) to comprehend it (even intellectually).

In order to state that some acts are so atrocious that the perpetrator deserves to die you have to define which acts are so atrocious.
To say:
'Why? Because, in my view, 9/11 was so atrocious the (lead) perpetrator of it deserved to die.
Why do people who commit such atrocious acts deserve to die?
Because I believe that death is the appropriate punishment for some acts - of which 9/11 is one.'

Is circular. You are really saying "I believe some acts deserve death because some acts are so atrocious that they deserve death". And; furthermore,to state 'the opposite of my position is self evidentiary therefore my position is supported' is not true in logic.

Your justification for your position is that you believe it to be true. i cannot accept this as a basis for any act that would result in the death of another.

Where would you stop?

To answer this question you need to look at principles of proportionality, utility, justice, responsibility etc. it ain't so simple as 'self evidentiary'. Just sounds like revenge to me...

'

Let me ask you the obverse question then: argue the point that "there are no circumstances under which the state can execute someone" that doesn't ultimately rest on the (self evident) premise "because I think life is sacred".

*** happy to except wars from the argument.

Well this seems to read:

"I can't think of a justification to kill Osama Bin laden except personal belief so i 'll try and pick holes in someone elses argument in order to attract credibility to my argument" (a position known as 'tu cocque').

I am happy to discuss the question of whether the state can kill someone (or not). But I'm not happy to fill in the gaps in your argument. That's your job... if you're going to make statements you have to be prepared to justify them, at least on this website anyway.

Actually, I wasn't trying to pick holes in your argument. If you were able to construct such an argument (I doubt you can though), it might've helped me construct one to support my view that also satisifed you.

You're characterising my argument as ""I can't think of a justification to kill Osama Bin laden except personal belief..." whereas I've never attempted to say it as anything but personal belief.

sure, but personal belief is no justification and really no different to using religious conviction as a justification, except religious conviction has usually been backed up by centuries of theological and philosophical thought.

This was your original question: "A deeper mystery, and one I find much more interesting, is how secular or atheist actors justify killing."

And, speaking for myself (as an atheist, not presuming to represent all atheists), that's how I justified it: on the basis that, in essence, some people deserve to die for their crimes. To me, this statement is (as I've said ad nauseum) self evident and not controversial.

If I ever were to be in a position to have to execute (pardon the pun) such an Order, that's how I'd justify it.

mmmm.... good luck using these 'self evidentiary beliefs' in a court of law or a humanitarian court. You might find that 'self evidentiary beliefs' as a form of justification is really only a justification for yourself.

LOL. Really?????

Yep, really. Soldiers confront this every day when deployed. healthcare workers confront this every day. police officers confront this every day. Really.

strange isn't it, that those involved in making decisions in respect of others life or death are forced to use philosophical and legal underpinnings for their decision making and do not rely on 'self evidentiary beliefs'. Who would have thought?

"Yep, really. Soldiers confront this every day when deployed. healthcare workers confront this every day. police officers confront this every day. Really."

No, they rely on Rule of Law and the threat of punishment transgression brings.

Don't let being wrong stop you from making blithe statements.
professional practice in all the disciplines I have mentioned above is governed by codes of conduct and ethical practice that govern decision making.
Criminal acts are governed by the relevant legislation... it's ironic you would mention this: How does criminal law impact on your 'self evidentiary beliefs' as a justification for killing Bin Laden?

"Criminal acts are governed by the relevant legislation... it's ironic you would mention this: How does criminal law impact on your 'self evidentiary beliefs' as a justification for killing Bin Laden?"

Australian criminal law expressly forbids extrajudicial killing. So, duh, it would ABSOLUTELY stop me carrying it out of course!

It's against the law, so I wouldn't do it.

If it was permissable under law, I would.

But I sense now (part of) the discord in the discussion: I have been trying to answer the question (ie, show how I would justify) the killing of OBL if I was the person who had to make the final decision (like the POTUS) did.

I haven't been talking about situations where I (as an ordinary Aussie citizen like a cop, healthcare worker, etc) would deal with day to day workplace decisions.

I fail to see the distinction between the justification for the thought experiment and the pragmatic. The justification for both is identical, with the exception that the pragmatic involves more real time variables.
Had the question been: 'should Bin Laden die for his actions in respect of 9/11?' well, that is different, but touches on the same themes.

Seamus, what's wrong with vengeance?