----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl Shannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 10:55 PM
Subject: RE: Different standards of proof was Landmines
>
> One more thing. Yes, I do agree that the citizens of the US are
> responsible for the actions of our elected and appointed
> representatives. So, if the CIA assassinates or tortures people, then
> absolutely the populace of the US is ultimately responsible, although
> to a lesser degree than the people who actually carried out the crimes.
> See, we live in a representative democracy over here. The people are
> sovreign. Our elected and appointed officials can only act as our
> representatives. Sometimes they do things we don't like, but it is our
> fault for electing and appointing them. We take both the blame and the
> credit.
>
I also agree with that. I have a couple of caveats I'd like to mention in a
bit, but I'd first like to expand on the responsibilities.
One of the first things I'd like to consider in assessing moral
responsibilities is a phrase from the call to confession in the Catholic
Mass
I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned through my own fault
(it is customary to strike your breast with you right hand at this
point)
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
Of particular note is the last two lines. We are not only responsible for
the evil which we do, we are responsible for the good that we fail to do,
or the evil that we fail to stop. I accept this view of morality, as do
most of the people I know: Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and
non-Christians.
The question of morality was at the heart of the debate over Viet Nam. Both
sides at least implicitly and often explicitly accepted the responsibility
of the citizens of the United States for its actions in Viet Nam. The ones
who were anti-war focused on the damage that was done by fighting the war.
Those who thought the war was necessary focused on the damage that would be
done by abandoning the war.
While I don't want to expand this to include a debate on the war in 'Nam
right now(I'm way to busy for that at the moment), I'd just like to say that
my view in hindsight is that the US was caught in a conflict of moral
imperatives that have been used as a guide for the nation. It seemed like,
no matter what we did, we would violate a basic moral principal of the
nation.
So, as shown by the postings of various Americans of different political
persuasions on the list, the acceptance of responsibility for the actions of
our elected leaders is accepted by the people of the US.
I'd also like to interject a personal confession here I feel the conflict
strongly within myself as a Christian between the pacifistic underpinnings
of Christianity and the call to the responsibility towards the well being of
my brothers and sisters that also is at the foundation of Christianity. The
latter is best exemplified by Dietrich Bonhoffer, the author of "The Cost of
Discipleship" (the premiere theological work of the 20th century IMHO) and
the Bremen confession, one of the confessions of the Presbyterian church
(where I am an elder). He was arrested and killed for participating in the
assassination attempt on Hitler. He considered it his Christian duty to
stop the Nazis this way, because he saw where they were headed. He
considered himself and other citizens responsible for the actions of the
German government
There are some caveats to this that I, and I'm guessing others held. If our
leaders do something wrong and hide it from the American people, then it
lowers the responsibility of the people. If a law has been passed against
it, then it lowers the responsibility further. For a while, the "black bag"
actions of the CIA were a half hidden secret. So, the citizens of the US
were responsible for allowing those actions. But, Americans would not be
nearly as responsible after it was outlawed.
It should also be noted, although I favor making assassinations illegal, it
is not a cut and dried case. I think Bonhoffer was doing the morally right
thing by trying to kill Hitler. I accept the responsibilities for the
consequences of forbidding assassinations.
Dan M.
