Justified Killing ... or Murder?

War is one of those inescapable realities men have been plagued with since the beginning of time: from ancient Biblical stones and swords to modern-day 21st century super-weapons - combative or militant killing was and continues to be viewed primarily as justified.

The decision of a country to wage war against another must rest on justified principles, or just causes to be perceived as moral. These include religious freedoms, social injustices, perceived threats, and last resort as a measure to preserve peace or re-establish peace both internally and externally.

Wars should not be waged with the self-centered goal of a country’s ruler seeking empowerment. A country’s ruler objective should be to defend and protect the country or stand in defense of a lesser known country, inclusive of its decision to go to war. Albeit, the ultimate goal for waging war should be to preserve peace in every essence – the act of being a "peace-maker" void of ambiguity. First Things April 2007 article by George Weigel, pointed out that --

"We are, as Augustine put it, to ‘be peaceful . . . in warring,’ that is, to keep the aim of peace first and foremost, and not only to ‘vanquish those whom you war against’ but also to ‘bring them to the prosperity of peace.’ . . . The ideal expressed in the just war tradition . . . is an ideal in which the use of force serves . . . to create peace. This is a purpose that must not be forgotten." http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5465

The erroneous objective of going to war on the basis of self-empowerment outside a perceived threat is unjustified killing. A ruler should not risk the life of his men (women) and the foundation of his country with the divisive intent of achieving global recognition. In such case, a ruler’s motives for war would not be to preserve peace, but rather to destabilize or obliterate that country’s economic structure and/or render it’s political institution docile. Within the doctrine of "just war" such motivations fall into the category of unjustified militant killings, as follows:

"Just War theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally preferable. "It is an attempt to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces. Just War theories attempt to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

The most contentious and destructive wars, waged throughout the centuries, were ebbing under the guise of "religious freedom." Such wars were waged in the name of God, as defined by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These wars are perpetuated by groups termed "religious extremist" who differs in the interpretation of the Divine Scripture. Nonetheless, it begs the question as to who holds the true meaning of the Holy Word. What is the nature of the Word as defined by Jews, Christians, or Muslims? The complexities are so great that to choose one versus the other intrinsically creates an apocryphal infinitum.

Meet John McCain: A Re-introduction

The presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John McCain has been cake-walking through the election race to the White House, for the last two weeks.

The media seemed to have forgotten that there is a "Republic" Opposition Party still in the race; so much so, that McCain has to state-hop to re-introduce himself as a contender. However, this "hello, my name is John McCain" phase is the most luxury he is set to have for the remainder of the election.

Irrefutably, John McCain is the most vulnerable candidate for the GOP in recent years. He carries with him flaws that are inescapable, like his age and explosive temper. But more ominously, he is flawed with a Bush 3rd term presidency, a pronounced shadow. Nonetheless, Senator McCain refuses to entertain the idea of change or any "change" for that matter - away from Bush's lexicon of rules.

When the "cake-walking" is over, John McCain would be left with the monstrosity of task in winning a nation with the seal of George W. Bush. May God smile upon us... really.

Tri-Factor: Government Corruption

Government corruption on a grand scale is nothing new in the Americas, but for the Caribbean it's a relative novel thing. Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila of Puerto Rico, as expected, surrendered to FBI agents yesterday and "was released on his own recognizance" after being indicted for breaking the law to raise campaign funds.

The indictment alleged that along with local fundraisers, three (3) of Philadelphia's most prolific businessmen helped the Governor evade campaign finance laws. The indictment charges included: "conspiring to violate federal campaign laws, wire fraud, conspiring to defraud the IRS, and filing a false tax return" according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Acevedo Vila who was in campaign debt amounting to $545,000 apparently thought that the only way out was to avoid campaign-finance laws. This way he can receive large contributions from so-called donors without limit, which is illegal.

The Governor allegedly scratched these big boys backs in Philadelphia regarding businesses in San Juan and they in turned scratched his back in campaign fundraising. Suspicion was arisen when a former Puerto Rican governor found it hard to rationalized the huge donations which were being given to Acevedo Vila who was "a nonvoting member of the U.S. Congress." Well...?

As the famed saying goes: absolute power corrupts absolutely... false! All you need is a little power to set the ball in motion for absolute corruption. Novelty?

The View on Obama

Today, Democratic Presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama visit the women of The View. The women were in a fever of melodrama - no revelation here - each primed with a question of concern to throw at the Presidential Candidate. Well, maybe not completely true, Elisabeth Hasslebeck had something up her sleeves.
Elisabeth, who is Republican was bent on clabbering Obama on the Reverend Wright issue; which has been eating away at her (not so silently) since the snippets of the Reverend's offensive statements became a public fetish. Bless her heart, she is trying to be a dutiful Republican, no harm is intended.

Senator Barack Obama responded to questions ranging from how he deals with criticisms (to which he said, he accepts the constructive ones and let the others roll off his sleeves); to his relation to Brad Pitt (a 9th removed cousin). Elisabeth Hasslebeck's opinion is not lost on deaf ears; the ears simply times-out every time Elisabeth opens her mouth. However not today, she would not be given a "deaf" ear; so with a show of fortitude Elisabeth interrupted Obama midway in him expounding on the relationship between a "pastor" and his member(s) to interject her burning question.

In a nutshell, Elisabeth wanted Senator Barack Obama to explain why he would choose to stay in a church such as Reverend Wright's who condemned America and have him as a spiritual advisor: was it a "lack of judgement" on his path? Yet again, Obama effectively put into context the controversy and pivot to expound on who he is, in his beliefs and vision. Barack Obama stated that he understands that he is "running for President" and naturally the threshold is higher; but he "had not shied away from the scrutiny."

Depicting Judas?

Since Governor Bill Richardson endorsed democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, the surrogate of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton went into a fetish hive of condemning the act as that of "Judas." Naturally, this begs the question as to why would someone want to go on record and bequeath another with such a title?

In the Bible, Judas (Iscariot) was first depicted as being of good character, one of the followers of Jesus Christ. According to the Bible, Judas Iscariot became the ultimate betrayer of the One he supposedly loved and fellowship with. The events unfold in a manner where Judas's betrayal was expected and not a surprise - he was paid 30 pieces of sliver to identify Jesus. Judas Iscariot sealed his historic betrayal with a kiss on Jesus's cheek, this signaled the man who must die. Then Judas with his 30 pieces of sliver walked to a cliff and threw himself over to his own death, there ended the biblical story.

So how does this ominous character relate to Governor Richardson's act of endorsing Senator Barack Obama? Synthesized, here is Governor Richardson's so-called act of betrayal. Fact is, Governor Richardson did not have a change of mind - he never promised Senator Hillary Clinton his endorsement. However, if he did have a change of mind- there is no great revelation here, we all do it. Changing one's mind is not confined to disloyalty and nothing else. Governor Richardson, quite naturally re-calculated the facts and/or reassessed his thoughts and concluded differently. The governor himself stated that he pondered his decision for a "long time." He did surprise the Clinton's, they knew he was weighing the options.

Since Governor Richardson's decision did not reflect favorably on both Bill and Hillary Clinton he was therefore termed a "Judas" as so emphatically proclaimed by the memorable surrogate.

McCain: Dangerous Mind

The pro-war Senator John McCain is prime to continue the Bush Presidency in not giving the slightest thought to withdrawing from Iraq. Last year at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Senator McCain said that the plan President Bush laid out regarding the Iraqi war "will give Iraqis and American the best chance of success" (MSNBC). This week McCain reinforced his believe at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council that he would consider a US victory or "success" as: the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous democratic states [Iraq and Afghanistan] that pose no threat to neighbors and contribute to the defeat of terrorist (March 26th).

McCain does not foresee withdrawal in the immediate future or for that matter within the next century, the same tart thinking as President Bush. The blunt reality is that if McCain is elected President it would undoubtedly be a Bush 3rd term.

Nonetheless, anybody would agree with the assessment that we are living in dangerous times. But do we need a dangerous mind to combat these present day evils? For some, yes - this is the only option. You can only fight fire with fire, even if it means the depletion of our resources and loss of life some conclude. For others, no - try being diplomatic. Win what can be won by negotiation and intelligence then fight if all else fail, this way we would win much and loose little others insist.

Albeit, Republicans such as Senator John McCain has a kill or be killed thinking - this is a dangerous mind. So here it is: war begets war and then more war begets even more war until nobody is left to fight... and then what?

Clinton "Misspoke" her Character

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended her salacious recount of her trip to Tuzla, Bosnia (March 25, 1996) with butchery. Her recollection of the events which occurred in exiting the plane was termed simply as a "minor blip." For some, there is nothing "minor" about making misleading statements that stretched from Bosnia to Washington. A bold, yet coward attempt. For others, it is as Senator HRC said, she "misspoke" and that's that. People misstate themselves all the time, nothing misleading here. Agreed.

However, when people "misspoke" they usually don't make the same misleading statement(s) over and over again. At some point they themselves would catch the gaffe and correct it - not so with Senator Hillary Clinton. The media has to call it to the Senators' attention that her heroism was proving to be disingenuous.

The heroine badge has been stripped from Senator HRC as these discrepancies became more obvious by actual footage and recounts by others present on that trip. Truth is neither thin nor narrow - it is just unfounded and once found - it is all encompassing (according to me).

Albeit, this might just be a brazen attempt by Senator HRC and base to beef-up her so-called "experience" record - specifically foreign affairs. Afterall, Senator Hillary Clinton is THE "experience" Democratic Candidate; darning herself as the heroine in foreign affairs can anything but explicitly make her Commander-in-Chief. Only one thing seemed to be missing, the silent yet important value call integrity related to character.

The question then is not where is the beef, but where is the integrity?