So I have been around here and a student of MN law for some time now, I have also been reading a good deal of history and Tom Clancy.

MN law talks about four things that are required before a person can use deadly force. Basically it boils down to must try flight before fighting. Morally i find this acceptable

History tells of almost constant warfare. Now Mr. Clancy tells fictional stories which are highly researched. From the *little* work that I have done with and a tad of talking to these people he presents fairly good scenarios. In these he portrays people takes the lives of foreigners on foreign soil to protect America, its people and interests. These are covert actions, instead of open war.

Now onto the heart of the matter. Why are these three situations morally different? What lets the USA (or any country for that matter) take the life of someone else, while not allowing citizens the same broad range to take someone’s life. Granted of late there have been restrictions on military operations.

Another way of asking this is that we in MN have to run from a fight, while military by their very presence announces that there is a fight if anyone wants to step up, and covert operations go looking for trouble. Why are each of these situations OK?

Remember the "Golden Rule".

"He who has the Gold makes the Rules".

Warfare and espionage (including black ops) are government sanctioned and as we know the government knows what's right. We on the other hand are "loner wackos" looking to shoot people just because we have a gun.

See the logic now.

I also wondered about the (retired) Laotian General who was arrested for plotting a government takeover in Laos.

Why the hell is it a crime *here* to plot the overthrow of a government elsewhere? Turn the guy loose!

Murder is murder, whether government sponsored or an act by an individual. Self defense is the same, whether a person or a group or nation.

I guess governments can use self defense preemptively.

jb

This is the reason the laos guy got taken down, or at least the law they are using. There are some other very interesting laws linked from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts

I also find it interesting that "Congressional opposition to U.S. wars and interventions" jumped from 1812 to 1935 and there has been a great deal since.