Korea shows all that is wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

After World War II, the United States and its allies — against the wishes of most Koreans — divided the country at the 38th parallel. After North Korea invaded the South in 1950, Harry Truman intervened with U.S. combat troops in a “police action.” The result was the senseless death of more than 36,000 American soldiers for Truman’s foolish policies, for the United Nations, for the failed diplomacy of World War II, and for the division of Korea in the same place it was divided before the war started. Since that time, a day has not gone by when the United States has not had thousands of troops stationed in South Korea, some no doubt the grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in the Korean War. There are at least 25,000 U.S. soldiers currently in Korea. There are also more than 35,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan.

There was no U.S. declaration of war against North Korea. On five different occasions, the United States has declared war on a total of eleven other countries: Great Britain in 1812 (the War of 1812), Mexico in 1848 (the Mexican War), Spain in 1898 (the Spanish-American War), Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1917 (World War I), Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941 (World War II), and Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania in 1942 (World War II).

Only a few Republicans in Congress dared to object to Truman’s clearly unconstitutional intervention in Korea. Most notable was Sen. Robert Taft, who maintained, “The president is usurping his powers as commander in chief. There is no legal authority for what he has done. If the president can intervene in Korea without congressional approval, he can go to war in Malaya or Indonesia or Iran or South America.” The Korean intervention set a terrible precedent, for no declaration of war has ever been issued since, even though the United States has been involved in many military conflicts since then, some of them being major wars, such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The personal army

But not only was there no declaration of war in Korea, there was not even a congressional authorization to use force. Such a resolution has been issued eight times in U.S. history: under Eisenhower in 1955 and 1957 to defend Formosa and check Soviet expansionism in the Middle East; twice under Kennedy in 1962 in response to the threat of Cuban communism and the crisis in Berlin; the infamous 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution under Johnson; under Bush the elder in 1991 when he ordered the first U.S. invasion of Iraq; and twice under Bush the younger for launching the Afghanistan war in 2001 and the Iraq war in 2002. The lack of any congressional authorization for the Korean conflict shows that U.S. foreign policy is really at the whim of whoever is the president. Americans are expected to support or demonize a country at the word of the president.

The lack of any congressional input in the decision to go to war in Korea signals the beginning of the U.S. military as merely the president’s personal army, as Jacob Hornberger has pointed out:

Thus, as a practical matter the troops serve not as a defender of our freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands. It is an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and attack, kill, and maim any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S. invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to take into custody any American whom the commander in chief deems a “terrorist” and to punish him accordingly.

The misuse of the military since the Korean War is so prevalent and wide-ranging that the majority of what the military now does has nothing to do with the defense of this country and everything to do with intervening in foreign countries. The U.S. military performs most of its duties outside the United States providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation-building, spreading “goodwill,” launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, “opening markets,” maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars.

The U.S. military should be engaged exclusively in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not attacking, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any purpose other than the actual defense of the United States perverts the purpose of the military.

The misuse of the military results in needless deaths of U.S. soldiers. The most unnecessary job in the world is that of the Casualty Assistance Calls Officer, who must go knocking with a message that no military family wants to hear. In addition to the more than 36,000 soldiers lost in Korea, there are the more than 58,000 soldiers who lost their lives in Vietnam, and the more than 4,450 soldiers in Iraq and 1,750 in Afghanistan who paid the ultimate price fighting in those places. Every one of those deaths was unnecessary and preventable and can be charged to a reckless and meddling U.S. foreign policy.

Where the boys are

The continued U.S. military presence in South Korea with thousands of troops at 87 different sites (if you include golf courses) is but a small part of the U.S. global empire of troops and bases. According to the Department of Defense’s “Base Structure Report” for FY 2009, there are 716 U.S. military bases on foreign soil in 38 countries. Yet, according to the expert on this subject, the late Chalmers Johnson, that number is actually closer to 1,000 because “the official figures omit espionage bases, those located in war zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and miscellaneous facilities in places considered too sensitive to discuss or which the Pentagon for its own reasons chooses to exclude — e.g., in Israel, Kosovo, or Jordan.” This same report lists the DOD’s physical assets as “more than 539,000 facilities (buildings, structures and linear structures) located on more than 5,570 sites, on approximately 29 million acres.”

But not only does the United States have thousands of troops in South Korea, Japan, Germany, and Italy decades after World War II and Korea, there are, according to the DOD report titled “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country,” U.S. troops stationed in 147 countries and 11 territories in every corner of the globe. That means that U.S. troops have a presence in more than 75 percent of the world’s countries. All told, there are more than 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries — not counting the 50,000 troops in and around Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom or the 100,000 troops in and around Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Those numbers would be even higher were it not for the thousands of DOD contractors.

The United States is committed to the defense not only of South Korea, but of many other countries as well, thanks to various security alliances and bilateral agreements. That, in spite of the warnings of Washington and Jefferson to stand clear of permanent and entangling alliances.

The real issue about Korea, as Congressman Ron Paul recently explained, is that “the American taxpayer is still forced to pay for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea.” According to the CIA, the economy of South Korea is 34 times larger than the centrally planned economy of its northern neighbor. South Korea has twice the population of North Korea. Per capita GDP in the South is 15 times what it is in the North. North Korea faces chronic shortages of food and fuel and its “industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment and shortages of spare parts.” It makes no sense, financially or otherwise, for the United States to guarantee the defense of South Korea against a country where malnutrition and poverty are the rule rather than the exception.

Korea shows all that is wrong with U.S. foreign policy: disregard for the Constitution, departure from the wisdom of the Founders, unaccountable presidential power, misuse of the military, a global empire of troops and bases, callous disregard for the lives of American soldiers, meddling in the affairs of other countries, and wasting billions of dollars taken from American taxpayers. U.S. foreign policy is hopelessly interventionist — no matter which party controls the Congress or the White House.

Originally posted at The Future of Freedom Foundation on January 18, 2012

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Korea Shows All That Is Wrong With U.S. Foreign Policy

There are several problems with these war prayers.

First, our "enemies" are praying the same war prayers. The citizens of other countries likewise ask God to bless and protect their troops. How is the Lord going to take care of both sides in the same way? American Christians just assume that God will not bless and protect the troops on the other side. American troops alone are dear to the heart of God.

Second, why is it that war prayers never seek to limit war? In his "Prayer before Battle" from "Some New Prayers" (CWE, 69:137), Erasmus gives us a model:

Almighty king of Sabaoth, that is, of armies, you determine both war and peace for the regions of the earth by means of your angels appointed for the task. You gave new heart and strength to the boy David, so that although he was small, without weapons, and unskilled in war he attacked and overthrew the giant Goliath with a sling. If we are fighting for a just cause, if we are forced to fight, I pray you, first, to turn the hearts of our enemies to the desire for peace, so that no Christian blood may be spilt upon the earth; or to spread the fear that men call panic; or to let victory be gained with the least shedding of blood and the smallest loss by those whose cause is more pleasing to you, so that the war may be quickly concluded and we may sing songs of triumph with one accord to you, who reign in all and above all. Amen.

Third, why are we only asked to pray war prayers? Why is it that we are never enjoined to pray prayers for peace and non-intervention? It is never suggested that we pray for impressionable young men and women to not be ensnared by military recruiters. It is never suggested that we pray that American troops are never sent to fight on foreign soil. It is never suggested that we pray for the safety of innocent civilians in the country the U.S. military is bombing. It is never suggested that we pray for the safety of foreign soldiers defending their homeland against attack. It is never suggested that we pray that the U.S. military only be used for genuinely defensive purposes. It is never suggested that we pray that the United States return to a noninterventionist foreign policy. It is never suggested that we pray for Congress to limit the president’s ability to wage war. Instead of all these things, we are told ad nauseam to "pray for the troops."

Fourth, war prayers are vague and presumptuous. What exactly does it mean when we are told to pray for the troops? Is it their safety and protection we are supposed to pray for? Should we pray that God keep them safe while they fly their helicopter gunships, pilot their bombers, and drive their tanks? This sounds like a strange thing to request since U.S. troops are the ones that did the invading of a sovereign country. Should we pray that God protect them while they drop bombs, throw grenades, launch missiles, fire mortars, and shoot bullets? This too sounds a bit odd since U.S. troops are the ones fighting an unnecessary, senseless, and immoral war. Would we ask God to keep someone safe while he was committing a crime? Then why should we ask God to protect U.S. soldiers who are committing a crime against the Iraqi people?

Fifth, and most significantly, war prayers are dishonest. Although not usually vocalized, implicit in every war prayer is a request for victory. It doesn’t matter what country U.S. troops are fighting in or the reason they are fighting. A war prayer for God to protect the troops is not just a prayer for the troops to be kept safe for some indefinite period; it is a prayer for the troops to be kept safe while they are vanquishing whatever group of people the U.S. government claims is the enemy. If war prayers were honest prayers they would openly and boldly call upon God to help U.S. forces crush the enemies of the United States.

Mark Twain (1835-1910) recognized the true nature of war prayers a hundred years ago. In his brief story called "The War Prayer," Twain tells of a church service held on the Sunday before "the battalions would leave for the front." A "war chapter" was read from the Old Testament, followed by a long prayer from the pastor that God would protect the "noble young soldiers," encourage them "in their patriotic work," and "bear them in His mighty hand." At the end of the prayer a mysterious stranger appears and addresses the congregation. He claims to be from the throne of God. After explaining that he was "commissioned of God" to put into words the other part of the pastor’s prayer that he and the congregation prayed in their hearts, the stranger uttered a real war prayer:

O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them – in spirit – we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

Although Twain dictated "The War Prayer" around 1904-1905, it was not published until 1923 in Albert Bigelow’s anthology of Paine’s writings called Europe and Elsewhere (Harper & Brothers, pp. 394-398). Twain is supposed to have remarked to a friend that only the dead were permitted to tell the truth.

But Mark Twain was not the only one to shed light on the true nature of war prayers. Back in 1845, the American Peace Society assembled a collection of sixty-four essays by a variety of authors and from a wide range of viewpoints on the subjects of war and peace. It is titled The Book of Peace: A Collection of Essays on War and Peace. Essay No. XLI is called "War-Prayers." After pointing out that pagans have their war prayers, and explaining how "our prayers, if made in accordance with the pacific principles of the gospel, would oppose war, and be discarded by all war-makers as hostile to their designs," the author puts forth a war prayer that honest chaplains should pray on the eve of battle:

O Lord of hosts, smile upon thy servants now marshaled before thee for the work of death. Breathe into them, O God of war, the spirit of their profession. Let them for the time forget thy prohibition of old, thou shalt not kill, and also those commands of thy gospel which bid them do good unto all men, to love even their enemies and turn the other cheek to the smiter. Thou knowest, Omniscient Father of all, this is no time for the application of such principles; and we pray thee to animate them with sentiments more appropriate to the awful duties of this hour, and thus prepare them for a signal and glorious triumph over their enemies. Fill them with the spirit of war, and enable them, in humble reliance on thee, to shoot, and stab, and trample down their foes. Nerve every arm, direct every blow; guide every sword, every bayonet, every bullet to the seat of life, that we may soon reap a glorious harvest of death. Thou knowest, O God most holy, that our enemies, murderers in heart, if not in deed, all deserve the damnation of hell; and we beseech thee to aid us in sending as many of them as possible to the place "where the worn dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Fight thou for us, and give thy servants a great victory, for which all the people shall praise thee.

And back in 1793, Anna Barbauld expressed her opposition to war in Sins of Government, Sins of Nations. She includes in her work this brutally honest caustic prayer:

God of Love, father of all families of the earth, we are going to tear in pieces our brethren of mankind, but our strength is not equal to our fury, we beseech thee to assist us in the work of slaughter. Whatever mischief we do, we shall do it in thy name; we hope, therefore, thou wilt protect us in it.

Well, since 9/11 "changed everything," what we need is a war prayer for the twenty-first century. Just as honest Christian warmongers should recite the Warmonger’s Psalm, assent to the Warmonger’s Beatitudes, manifest the Warmonger’s Fruit of the Spirit, and pray the President’s Prayer, so they should pray a war prayer like this:

O Lord God of war, we beseech thee to bless our troops in their latest military adventure. Go with U.S. soldiers as they travel around the globe to intervene in the affairs of other countries. Use the U.S. military to smite the enemies of the United States just like thou used the children of Israel in the Old Testament to smite the heathen nations. We ask for thy special protection on the U.S. soldiers who have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and now occupy those countries. Guide every bomb to its target, and every bullet to the heart of its victim. We pray that thou would send these Muslims to hell who dare to plant roadside bombs to harm U.S. soldiers. We know that thou will look after widows and orphans – so please help our soldiers, thy soldiers, to create as many widows and orphans as possible. Destroy the young Iraqi and Afghan children with bullets, malnutrition, or disease before they grow up and become suicide bombers. We beseech thee to guide all Predator drones to their targets in Pakistan and all the other countries where terrorists and their families need to be killed. Fill U.S. soldiers, thy servants, with the spirit of indifference to the death and destruction that they are causing. Avenge the United States, thy country, for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We also humbly request that thou move upon Congress to not only increase funding for this war, but the overall military budget as well so thy people can fight another just war against the Muslim infidel. All these things we ask in the name of the Prince of Peace.

We know, of course, that no war prayers like this will ever be prayed in public. No matter where or why U.S. troops are fighting, we will still simply be told to pray for the troops. But has anyone ever stopped to consider what the Lord thinks about these war prayers?

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on January 17, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A War Prayer for the Twenty-First Century

Let’s consider each amendment in turn.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, have insisted that they can gag recipients of “national security letters” and censor broadcast ads in the name of campaign finance reform.

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, make it difficult to keep a gun in the home and make it a crime for a citizen to carry a gun for self-protection.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners.  This safeguard is one of the few that is in fine shape — so we can pause here for a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can conduct commando-style raids on our homes and treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can use eminent domain to take away our property and give it to other private parties who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial—“throwing the book” at those who refuse to plead guilty—which explains why 95 percent of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines on people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers they possess, and have extended federal control over health care, crime, education, and other matters the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.

Thank goodness we still have Amendment #3! The Cato Institute also posted a little video as well:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Is there still a Bill of Rights?

1. It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano – The Judge, host of FreedomWatch on Fox Business, has put together an amazing book that analyzes a host of topics from the standpoint of natural law. I will be reviewing this book on LCC soon but I’m going to say it now – you need to read this book. The data and stories he presents in the book make it easily worth every penny and a well-deserved place on your (or anyone else’s) bookshelf.

2. Libertarianism Today by Jacob Huebert – This book was on the list last year, but it warrants another mention because you can get it at a significantly reduced price by purchasing directly from the publisher. Huebert’s book is definitely a must-read, and is one of the best recent books on hardcore libertarianism in the past few years. LCC writer Laurence Vance has called it, “The best introduction to libertarianism on the market.”

3. Bourbon for Breakfast and It’s a Jetsons World by Jeffrey Tucker – Check out the LCC review of Bourbon for Breakfast, and you’ll see that it is a super read for anyone looking to circumvent statist restrictions upon their lives. Tucker’s followup work tells exciting stories of the little everyday miracles of the free market at work.

4. Liberty Defined by Ron Paul – Another gold standard in libertarian literature by one of liberty’s greatest defenders. See the LCC review for the full story.

5. Rollback by Thomas Woods – I am a huge fan of Tom Woods and have known him for over 5 years now. His latest book makes an eloquent case for dismantling pretty much everything the government currently does today.

6. Great Wars and Great Leaders by Ralph Raico – Leaders who take a country to war are often heralded as “great,” but the libertarian perspective dispenses such ideas as folly. War is the health of the state and the enemy of liberty, and Raico’s historical work is great ammunition in the war of ideas that we fight daily.

7. Myth of a Guilty Nation by Albert Jay Nock – This is an old book newly reprinted by the Mises Institute, and I’m excited to see it available again (because I’m a big fan of Nock and haven’t ever read this one). From the Mises.org description: “Nock’s book reminds us of what most everyone has forgotten, namely, that this was sold as a war for freedom and self-determination over imperial ambition. Along with that came some of the most rabid war propaganda ever fabricated until that point in time, all designed to make Germany into a devil nation. Nock’s brave book took on that idea and demonstrated that there was fault enough to go around on all sides. All through the 1920s, a Nockian-style retelling of the facts behind the war led to a dramatic shift in public opinion against World War I.” Awesome!

8. The Bastiat Collection Pocket Edition by Frederic Bastiat – If you haven’t read Bastiat’s The Law, you need to get on that immediately! This book contains all the major works of Bastiat in a very small volume, and makes a great gift.

9. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt – Need to learn a little more about economics? Start with the classic by Hazlitt, and never forget the first lesson again…

10. Christian Theology of Public Policy and Bible and Government by John Cobin – I would be remiss to write a book list on LCC and not mention the excellent work of John Cobin, especially in this volume. As Christian libertarians, these are must reads, and don’t forget to check out Cobin’s free Christian Theology of Public Policy Short Course series on LCC!

Check out other Top 10 book lists and book reviews on LCC for more ideas, and remember that every time you shop at Amazon.com through a LibertarianChristians.com link you are supporting the work of LCC! Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Top 10 Libertarian Books for Christmas 2011

After pulling out of the League of Nations, rearming, annexing Austria, remilitarizing the Rhineland, allying with Mussolini’s fascist Italy, stripping German Jews of their civil rights, occupying the Sudetenland, signing a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, and turning into a fascist dictatorship, Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and then conquered much of Europe.

The Holocaust that occurred during World War II is universally recognized as the greatest example of systematic, state-sponsored murder. The Nazis killed millions of Jews in their quest to rid Europe of them. Millions of Poles, Gypsies, Serbs, Slovenes, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and other "non-Aryans" were also killed, as well as Germans that were disabled, institutionalized, homosexual, communist, or opponents of the Nazi regime. The horrors of concentration camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Buchenwald are well known, as are the Nazi doctor medical experiments on children, the slave labor, the death marches, the gas chambers, and the mass graves.

The Nazi’s are universally reviled and, rightly or wrongly, are the first choice of comparison when a modern oppressive regime needs to be made into an evil bogeyman.

After Germany was finally vanquished by the Allies in May of 1945, twenty-four Nazis were put on trial in Nuremberg, Germany, from November 20, 1945, to October 1, 1946, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, and the United States supplied judges and prosecutors. The U.S. prosecutor was Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. The defendants had German attorneys.

Twelve defendants were sentenced to death by hanging: Martin Bormann, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Hermann Göring, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Julis Streicher. The hangings were all carried on October 16, 1946. Bormann was not hung because he was tried in absentia. Göring committed suicide the night before his scheduled execution, Seven defendants were sentenced to prison terms; three were acquitted; one committed suicide before the trial began; one was declared medically unfit for trial.

This does not mean that the Nuremberg Tribunal was ideal or the only option. The judges came only from the accusing nations and also acted as the jury. And of course, the Soviet Union was itself guilty of gross crimes against humanity. And then there is the matter of the United States dropping atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. On World War II in general, see my "Rethinking the Good War."

Three of the most notable Nazis committed suicide as the war was coming to an end: Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels. One, however, escaped, but was found later in South America, Adolf Eichmann.

Eichmann joined the SS in 1932 in Austria. After a series of promotions, he became a 1^st Lieutenant and, through the Central Office for Jewish Emigration which he had formed, began to forcibly expel Jews from Austria. After the beginning of World War II, Eichmann became an SS captain, major, and then lieutenant colonel. In 1944, he went to German-occupied Hungary and oversaw the deporting of Hungarian Jews to death camps.

Eichmann fled Hungary after the Soviets invaded in 1945. After being captured by the U.S. Army at the end of the war, Eichmann escaped, hid out in Germany, went to Italy, and finally settled in Argentina.

Eichmann was discovered by Israeli intelligence in 1959. After a period of extensive surveillance to confirm his identify, Eichmann was captured on May 11, 1960, by team of Mossad (Israel’s official intelligence agency) and Shin Bet (the Israeli security agency) agents and taken to Israel.

Eichmann was charged with fifteen counts, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. His trial began on April 11, 1961. Three judges presided over the trial. The chief prosecutor was the Israeli Attorney General. Eichmann had two defense attorneys. Ninety Holocaust survivors were called as witnesses for the prosecution. Dozens of former high-ranking Nazis sent the court depositions as witnesses for the defense. The trial lasted for fourteen weeks. Eichmann was convicted on all counts on December 11. He was sentenced to death on December 15. After an appeal by Eichmann, Israel’s Supreme Court upheld his conviction on May 29, 1962. Requests for clemency were received by the court. The Israeli prime minister reject an Eichmann appeal for mercy.

Eichmann was hung on May 31, 1962, and then cremated.

On May 2, 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. Navy Seals in his home in Pakistan on the order of President Barack Obama. He had been on the FBI’s "Ten Most Wanted List" for the bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, but not for the 9/11 terrorists attacks to which he was allegedly connected.

On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a U.S. Predator drone strike in Yemen on the order of President Barack Obama after being put on a secret government hit list. He allegedly inspired and incited others to commit acts of terrorism against the United States.

Whether bin Laden or Awlaki ever killed anyone or actually committed a crime will never be known since the president and his agents served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

As a candidate for president, Obama claimed that he didn’t even believe the president had the right to arrest and hold a U.S. citizen without charges. When asked in a Boston Globe interview if the Constitution permitted the president to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants, Obama replied: "No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants." Obama’s campaign literature makes it clear that as president he would "restore habeas corpus so that those who pose a danger are swiftly tried and brought to justice and those who do not have sufficient due process to ensure that we are not wrongfully denying them their liberty."

My point is simply this: If the leaders of one of the most evil, despicable, and murderous regimes in history were entitled to their day in court before their execution, then certainly thugs like bin Laden and Awlaki were.

In a memorandum to President Roosevelt dated January 22, 1945, by Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, and Attorney General Francis Biddle, U.S. policy toward the "Trial and Punishment of Nazi War Criminals" was laid out:

After Germany’s unconditional surrender the United Nations could, if they elected, put to death the most notorious Nazi criminals, such as Hitler or Himmler, without trial or hearing. We do not favor this method. While it has the advantages of a sure and swift disposition, it would be violative of the most fundamental principles of justice, common to all the United Nations. This would encourage the Germans to turn these criminals into martyrs, and, in any event, only a few individuals could be reached in this way.

We think that the just and effective solution lies in the use of the judicial method. Condemnation of these criminals after a trial, moreover, Would command maximum public support in our own times and receive the respect of history. The use of the judicial method will, in addition, make available for all mankind to study in future years an authentic record of Nazi crimes and criminality.

The German leaders and the organizations employed by them, such as those referred to above (SA, SS, Gestapo), should be charged both with the commission of their atrocious crimes, and also with joint participation in a broad criminal enterprise which included and intended these crimes, or was reasonably calculated to bring them about. The allegation of the criminal enterprise would be so couched as to permit full proof of the entire Nazi plan from its inception and the means used in its furtherance and execution, including the prewar atrocities and those committed against their own nationals, neutrals, and stateless persons, as well as the waging of an illegal war of aggression with ruthless disregard for international law and the rules of war. Such a charge would be firmly founded upon the rule of liability, common to all penal systems and included in the general doctrines of the laws of war, that those who participate in the formulation and execution of a criminal plan involving multiple crimes are jointly liable for each of the offenses committed and jointly responsible for the acts of each other. Under such a charge there are admissible in evidence the acts of any of the conspirators done in furtherance of the conspiracy, whether or not these acts were in themselves criminal and subject to separate prosecution as such.

Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. troops, turned over to Iraqis, tried, sentenced to death, and hung. Yes, perhaps it was a kangaroo trial with a pre-ordained verdict, but my point in bring him up is simply that even though many people in the United States and its government accused Hussein of committing unspeakable crimes against the Iraqi people, compared him to Hitler, and thought he was responsible for 9/11, he was still not summarily executed by U.S. troops.

Awlaki should likewise have been captured and brought to justice for his alleged crimes, for as congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has explained:

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.

One of the prosecutors at Nuremberg who is sill living, Benjamin Ferencz, wrote a letter to the New York Times just after the killing of bin Laden:

Your superb report "Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden" leaves key questions unanswered. Jubilation over the death of the most hunted mass murderer is understandable, but was it really justifiable self-defense, or was it premeditated illegal assassination?

The Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler’s worst henchmen a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail. Secret nonjudicial decisions based on political or military considerations undermine democracy. The public is entitled to know the complete truth.

Ferencz also told London’s Guardian newspaper:

The picture I get is that a bunch of highly trained, heavily armed soldiers find an old guy in pyjamas and shoot him in the chest and head, and that borders, without access to more facts, on murder. Even Göring had a right to trial.

And, as evil as they may have been, so did bin Laden and Awlaki.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on October 20, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Nuremberg, Eichmann, and Extra-Judicial Murder

The lies about Ron Paul uttered by the media, the Republican Party, the political establishment, conservative talk show hosts, and rank and file Republicans and conservatives who blindly parrot their leaders, and even some libertarians are legion. However, when it comes to Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Religious Rightists that have no problem draping the cross of Christ with the American flag, there are basically five lies that are continually told about Congressman Paul, all recycled from the last time he ran for president.

Lie number one: Ron Paul is not pro-life. That is, he doesn’t support a federal law or constitutional amendment banning abortion since that is entirely up to the states.

The subject of abortion is one that Ron Paul is uniquely qualified to talk about. In addition to being a member of Congress, Ron Paul is a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology who has delivered over 4,000 babies. In forty years of medical practice, Dr. Paul says, "I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." He believes "beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." But unlike many Republicans in Congress, Representative Paul also believes in consistently and strictly following the Constitution in all matters. Therefore, as he simply states:

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

Dr. Paul is also consistently pro-life. Many pro-life Religious Rightists are cheerleaders for the killing of innocents outside of the womb in senseless foreign wars. Ron Paul believes in the sanctity of all human life.

Lie number two: Ron Paul supports drug use. That is, he doesn’t support the unconstitutional federal war on drugs.

The $41 billion a year war on drugs is a failure in every respect. It has reduced neither the demand for nor the availability of drugs. It has failed to keep drugs away from kids and addicts. It has made criminals out otherwise law-abiding Americans – over 1.5 million Americans are arrested on drug charges every year, with almost half of those arrests being just for possession of marijuana. The war on drugs encourages violence, unnecessarily swells the prison population with non-violent offenders, destroys civil liberties, attacks personal and financial privacy, and corrupts and militarizes the police. But not only do the costs of the drug war greatly exceed its benefits, it is clearly an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows full well the harmful effects of illicit drug use. But he also recognizes the dangers to liberty, property, and limited government that the war on drugs poses. It is perplexing and hypocritical that Religious Rightists don’t likewise support a war on alcohol since every negative thing – and more – that could be said about drug abuse could also be said about alcohol abuse.

Lie number three: Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. That is, he doesn’t support looting the American taxpayers and giving the money to a foreign government.

Since World War II, the U.S. government has dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid in a variety of forms to over 150 countries. Foreign aid is further camouflaged as U.S. support for the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other globalist organizations. Foreign aid now costs the American taxpayer over $40 billion a year. Egypt received over $1.5 billion in foreign aid last year. Israel received over twice as much. Since their peace accord in 1979, Egypt and Israel have been the top two recipients of U.S. foreign aid, accounting for about one-third of all foreign aid spending. Foreign aid is really foreign government aid that enriches the leaders of corrupt regimes and their privileged contractors. Foreign aid further entrenches the U.S. government bureaucracy, increases the power of the state, fosters dependency on U.S. largesse, and lines the pockets of U.S. corporations whose products are bought with foreign aid money. Following the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who advocated "honest friendship with all nations" and "entangling alliances with none," Representative Paul sees neutrality as the best foreign policy for the United States: "The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily."

Lie number four: Ron Paul is weak on defense. That is, he doesn’t support perpetual, senseless, and immoral foreign wars.

Most of U.S. military spending is not for defense, but for offense. Most of what the military does is outside of the country and in some cases thousands of miles away: providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, advising armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, opening markets, maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars. The proper use of the military – as envisioned by Ron Paul – is in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not bombing, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States – its land, its shores, its skies, its coasts, its borders – perverts the purpose of the military. The United States is not and cannot be the world’s policeman.

Lie number five: Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is, he doesn’t support a global empire with 1,000 foreign military bases and troops stationed in 150 countries.

The Department of Defense has more than 500,000 facilities on more than 5,500 sites totaling approximately 29 million acres. There are over 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries – plus over 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus tens of thousands of contractors. The word isolationist is a pejorative term of intimidation used to stifle debate over foreign policy. A noninterventionist foreign policy – like that espoused by Ron Paul – is a foreign policy is a policy of peace, diplomacy, and neutrality that includes trade, cultural exchanges, travel, immigration and emigration, and foreign investment. No invasions, threats, sanctions, embargoes, commitments, meddling, entangling alliances, or troops and bases on foreign soil.

So why the lies?

Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-family values, pro-religious liberty, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-free market, pro-sound money, pro-defense, pro-liberty, pro-peace, pro-privacy, and pro-property. Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really anti-UN, anti-tax increases, anti-taxes, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-unconstitutional government spending, anti-birthright citizenship, anti-amnesty, anti-New World Order, anti-foreign aid, anti-government subsidies, anti-foreign wars, anti-welfare, anti-socialized medicine, anti congressional pay raises, anti-congressional pensions, anti-government-paid junkets, and anti-centralization of power in the federal government.

I say really because Ron Paul is and has always been for and against these things on a philosophical level. He doesn’t just say he is for or against these things to get elected. He doesn’t change his message depending on the crowd he’s addressing. He has a track record of consistency unmatched by anyone who has ever been in Congress or run for president. Why would any member of the Religious Right not embrace Ron Paul as their ideal candidate even as they run from the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?

So why the lies?

I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent.

But not all Religious Rightists are ignorant. Some are just deliberate apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, and its foreign policy. If they were honest, then they would have to say that they believe in the centralization of power in Washington DC, in a police state that inconsistently criminalizes peaceful behavior, in swearing allegiance to a foreign government and looting other taxpayers that don’t share their allegiance, in endless foreign wars and military interventions, and in maintaining an empire of troops and bases around the world and meddling in the affairs of other countries.

The last time Dr. Paul ran for president, I concluded that he would not be the candidate of choice of the Religious Right because they love centralization more than federalism, political power more than liberty, war more than peace, politicians more than principles, faith-based socialism more than the free market, and the state more than God Almighty. The Religious Right’s embrace of candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and non-candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee leads me now to the same conclusion.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on October 6, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paul

"Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." ~ Major General Smedley Butler

"If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army." ~ Frederick the Great

"I find in existence a . . . dangerous concept that the members of the armed forces owe their primary allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the executive branch of the Government, rather than to the country and its Constitution they are sworn to defend. No proposition could be more dangerous." ~ General Douglas MacArthur

"There is one thing in the world more wicked than the desire to command, and that is the will to obey." ~ W. K. Clifford, mathematician and philosopher

After almost ten years of fighting in Afghanistan, the deadliest day for U.S. forces was just a few weeks ago on Saturday, August 6. On that day thirty U.S. military personnel were killed when their helicopter was shot down. The majority of those killed were said to be elite Navy Seals from the same unit that killed Osama bin Laden.

The question that was never asked about this event by any major news media outlet is a question that I (and a few others) have been asking since the war in Afghanistan began: What is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan?

The ones who bear the most responsibility for the 9/11 attacks are the pilots who flew the planes, none of whom were from Afghanistan. No American was ever harmed by anyone in Afghanistan until the U.S. military invaded and occupied that country. The United States even supported the Muslim insurgents and Afghan militants when they were freedom-fighting Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan.

Tens of thousands of Afghans are now dead who had never threatened America and had nothing to do with 9/11. Over 1,700 American soldiers are also dead, and many thousands more have life-altering injuries.

So, what is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan?

The purpose of the U.S. military should be limited to defending the United States, securing its borders, guarding its shores, patrolling its coasts, and enforcing a no-fly zone over its skies. Period. To do otherwise is to pervert the purpose of the military.

This means the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to defend other countries, secure their borders, guard their shores, patrol their coasts, and enforce no-fly zones over their skies.

This also means that the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to provide disaster relief, dispense humanitarian aid, supply peacekeepers, enforce UN resolutions, spread goodwill, rebuild infrastructure, establish democracy, nation build, change regimes, eradicate drugs, contain communism, open markets, keep oil pipelines flowing, revive public services, build schools, or train armies in any foreign country.

This also means that the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to remedy oppression, human rights violations, sectarian violence, ill treatment of women, forced labor, child labor, religious or political persecution, poverty, genocide, famine, or injustice in any foreign country.

And it certainly also means that the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to launch preemptive strikes in foreign countries, fight wars in foreign countries, drop bombs on foreign countries, assassinate people in foreign countries, torture people in foreign countries, takes sides in a civil war in foreign countries, station troops in foreign countries, maintain bases in foreign countries, attack foreign countries, invade foreign countries, occupy foreign countries, or unleash civil unrest in foreign countries.

Clearly, no U.S. soldier, sailor, or marine had any business stepping foot in Afghanistan in 2001 or flying a helicopter there in 2011. Those who returned in a coffin (if enough of their body parts could be found) died unnecessarily, duped, in vain, and for a lie.

So again I ask: What is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan?

The only answer is unconditional obedience. Although some U.S. soldiers, because of misguided zeal, may have wanted to go to Afghanistan after 9/11, few would choose to go now if it were their decision to make. But soldiers were told to go and they went, and soldiers are still being told to go.

They didn’t consider the history of Afghanistan. They didn’t consider the purpose of the military. They didn’t consider U.S. foreign policy. They didn’t consider Chalmers Johnson. They didn’t consider the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. They didn’t consider the Constitution. They didn’t consider the Soviet Union’s failed attempt to subdue Afghanistan. They didn’t consider their families. They didn’t consider the cost to U.S. taxpayers. They didn’t consider their own mental and physical health. They didn’t consider the thousands of dead or maimed Afghan civilians.

Even worse, those that did consider some or all of these things went to Afghanistan anyway. They may not have even bought in the baloney about fighting for our freedoms or fighting them "over there" so we don’t have to fight them "over here," but they went anyway.

Unconditional obedience.

If you want to see a perfect example of unconditional obedience on display, then just look at the recent interview on the Diane Rehm show about "Navy Seals and U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan."

After announcing that U.S. forces were continuing their investigation into the shooting down of the helicopter in Afghanistan, Diane introduced her guests in the studio, Thom Shanker, the Pentagon correspondent for the New York Times and Paul Pillar of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, and by phone from Plymouth, Massachusetts, former Navy SEAL lieutenant commander Anthony O’Brien. Joining the panel later by phone was Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

The second caller to the show was someone named Don, who made this comment:

I just wanted to comment real quick. Any time you have generals on the air and they’re pressured to give some reasons why we’re in this war in Afghanistan, they always fall back to a main reason being women’s rights, so girls can go to school, you know, for all the Taliban oppression. And I was just wondering if your panelists thought that that was really a legitimate reason, that we should have our military spending billions of dollars a year in this country to fight for women’s rights.

Diane referred the caller to Anthony O’Brien, who gave this reply:

I agree with the caller’s premise. The primary reason why you engage the military at the strategic level is for the national security interest of the United States of America. And as much as I’m a fighter for the rights of women, it is – it’s not our duty in the military, primarily, to protect the women or stop drug trades, et cetera. However, the president is the boss, and he calls the shots. And if – whether it be President Bush or President Obama, when they tell us where to go and when, we give a snappy salute, and we do what we’re told.

Diane then sought a comment from Thom Shanker.

Well, I just want to give Anthony a snappy salute ’cause his answer is perfect. I mean, we hear so often these conversations among civilians: why are we there, I don’t want us there or the opposite, we should be there. The military does not assign itself these missions. They follow the orders of the elected civilian leadership who are representing, Diane, your caller and everybody else. So that is where the responsibility for these decisions resides at the end of the day.

My only comment is simply this: Only God deserves unconditional obedience.

Unconditional obedience is why Nazis killed Jews in concentration camps, Japanese pilots bombed Pearl Harbor, East German border guards killed their fellow citizens fleeing over the Berlin Wall to the West, and Soviet soldiers invaded Afghanistan before U.S. soldiers did.

Cursed be unconditional obedience.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on August 31, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Cursed Be Unconditional Obedience

Considering the present monetary problems of the world right now, it is interesting to note that this particular speech by President Nixon actually led a number of libertarians to found the Libertarian Party. Here is what my friend Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party, had to say about this historic event.

************

WASHINGTON – On August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon gave a speech announcing what would be known as his "New Economic Policy." The speech led directly to the formation of the Libertarian Party.

In the speech, Nixon announced two measures that were of particular concern to libertarians. First, a government-imposed freeze on wages and prices. Second, and end to the convertibility of dollars to gold.

Nixon said, "I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States for a period of 90 days."

Libertarians saw both of these actions as betrayals of the principles on which the United States was founded.

This speech has often been cited as the critical moment that ignited the formation of the Libertarian Party.

In his history of the libertarian movement, Radicals for Capitalism, Brian Doherty writes that the late David F. Nolan "was working for an ad agency in Denver and happened to have a handful of libertarian-minded friends over that day when Nixon hit the airwaves with his wage and price controls announcement. They all agreed: It was time for a third party…a Libertarian Party."

Nolan and several others formally created the Libertarian Party in Colorado Springs on December 11, 1971.

Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "Taking the dollar off the gold standard has allowed the Federal Reserve to manipulate and devalue the dollar, and that’s one reason our economy is in such trouble today. That, coupled with foolish wars and an unsustainable entitlement system supported by both the Democrats and Republicans, is why the Libertarian Party is more important today than ever before."

************

The political process is not the only way to spread liberty in the world today, but this was an important step toward showing people how a true philosophy of liberty works. If you are involved with the LP, then do your best to make sure it keeps to the core values of libertarianism and away from statism-light. This is a radical philosophy, let’s keep it that way.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How Nixon Helped Instigate the Libertarian Party

Americans love anniversaries, and especially of horrific events. Every year at this time we are reminded that the atomic bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945 ("Little Boy"), and on Nagasaki on Thursday, August 9 ("Fat Man") ended World War II (or began the Cold War, depending on how you look at it).

Since the 9/11 attacks, we have heard a lot of talk about Iraq, Iran, or some terrorist group having weapons of mass destruction; that is, nuclear weapons. Yet, when it is pointed out that the United States is the only country that has actually used these weapons of mass destruction – against civilians no less – we are told that it was necessary to incinerate 200,000 people – civilians – to save the lives of "thousands and thousands" (Harry Truman’s original number) or "millions" (George H. W. Bush’s figure) of American soldiers who might die invading Japan.

So, according to the American myth that is trotted out every year, the atomic bombing of Japan was not only justified and necessary, but sane and moral. After all, the U.S. Army Air Force had already killed 100,000 Japanese civilians when it firebombed Tokyo on the night of March 9, 1945, with seventeen hundred tons of bombs. "War is hell." "All’s fair in love and war." "Remember Pearl Harbor."

I write now, not about Truman’s decision to drop the bomb or to rethink World War II, but about the United States using nuclear weapons again in another "good war."

It was recently brought to light that U.S. Air Force chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California were appealing to the Bible and just war theory in a mandatory Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare session for missile officers in order to morally and ethically justify the launching of nuclear weapons.

In other words, nuke ’em and God will bless you.

A watchdog group, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, filed a complaint on behalf of thirty-one instructor and student missile launch officers.

The program has since "been taken out of the curriculum and is being reviewed," said David Smith, chief of public affairs of Air Education and Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. It turns out that the Air Force has been citing Christian teachings in its missile officer training materials for twenty years.

A forty-three-page PowerPoint presentation given in the Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare session by Chaplain Captain Shin Soh can be viewed here.

Many armchair Christian warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, Religious Right warvangelicals, Reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, and God and country Christian bumpkins might object, not to the existence of a Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare session that appeals to Scripture to soothe the consciences of religious people, but to the cancellation of such a program because it "takes God out of government" and other nonsense. David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, dismissed complaints about the program as what he called "another attempt to cleanse American history of its religious realities." "It’s about cleansing religion from the public square and building a completely secular society and military," added French.

I am not one of those Christians and I think French should go to France.

I wish I could say that the only things wrong with the PowerPoint presentation are that page sixteen is duplicated and page forty-three is blank.

I find the presentation to be a blasphemous misuse and perversion of Scripture to justify the idea that Christians can launch nuclear weapons with the blessing of God.

I want to focus on the examples given in the presentation from the Old Testament, the Intertestamental Period, and the New Testament. I reproduce the text of the presentation exactly as it appears.

On page eighteen we are told that there are "many examples of believers engaged in wars in the Old Testament." Here are the four examples we are given:

• Abraham organized an army to rescue Lot (Gen 14)
• Judges (Samson, Deborah, Barak) – God is motivating judges to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors
• David is a warrior who is also a man after God’s own heart
• Hebrews 11:32-34 uses as examples of true faith those OT believers who engaged in war in a righteous way

Chaplain Shin Soh should have just said what he meant: Abraham organized an army to rescue Lot, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. God motivated judges to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. David was a warrior and a man after God’s own heart, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Hebrews 11:32-34 uses as examples of true faith those OT believers who engaged in war in a righteous way, so nuke ’em and God will bless you.

What does Abraham, "the friend of God" (James 2:23), rescuing his nephew Lot have to do with launching nuclear weapons? Absolutely nothing, of course, unless you are deluded enough to think that the United States is the "friend of God" and other nations are God’s enemies.

So, God motivated judges to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors. Does this also mean that God motivates U.S. soldiers to fight and oppress foreigners? I didn’t think so.

True, David was a warrior (Psalm 144:1) and a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), but he was also an adulterer (2 Samuel 11:2-4) and a murderer (2 Samuel 12:9). And besides, because David was a man of war, the Lord said to him: "Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood" (1 Chronicles 28:3).

The "OT believers" mentioned in Hebrews 11:32-34 include four judges (already discussed), King David (already discussed), and Samuel and the prophets. What they did is irrelevant since, as the presentation says, they did it "in a righteous way." There is nothing righteous about nuking cities. And especially nuking civilians after their military strikes a military target like the Pearl Harbor Naval Base. And besides, the Bible in Hebrews actually says that these people in the Old Testament "wrought righteousness" (Hebrews 11:33), not that they did something in a righteous way. At least get your Scripture straight before you pervert it.

There is one PowerPoint slide on the "Inter-testimental [sic] Period":

• Maccabees – Jewish revolt against their Syrian oppressors
• No pacifistic sentiment in mainstream Jewish history

What Chaplain Shin Soh means to say is that since the Jews revolted against the Syrians and there is no pacifistic sentiment in mainstream Jewish history then go ahead and nuke ’em and God will bless you.

Although it is true that God commanded the nation of Israel in the Old Testament to fight against heathen nations (Judges 6:16), the president of the United States is not God, America is not the nation of Israel, the U.S. military is not the Lord’s army, the Christian’s sword is the word of God, and the only warfare the New Testament encourages the Christian to wage is against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

On pages twenty-one through twenty-three we are given six examples from the New Testament:

• Luke 3:14 – John the Baptist doesn’t tell the Roman soldiers to leave the army before being baptized
• Luke 7:10 – Jesus uses the Roman centurion as a positive illustration of faith
• Acts 10:2, 22, 35 Paul interacts with Cornelius, a Roman army officer – known as "devout and God fearing"
• Romans 13:4 In spite of personal blemishes, God calls the emperor to be an instrument of justice
• II Timothy 2:3 Paul chooses three illustrations to show what it means to be a good disciple of Christ
  • Farmer – work hard and be patient
  • Athlete – be self disciplined, train
  • Soldier – be willing to put up with hardship
• Revelation 19:11 Jesus Christ is the mighty warrior

Again, Chaplain Shin Soh should have just said what he meant: John the Baptist doesn’t tell the Roman soldiers to leave the army before being baptized, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Jesus uses the Roman centurion as a positive illustration of faith, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Paul interacts with Cornelius, a Roman army officer, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. In spite of personal blemishes, God calls the emperor to be an instrument of justice, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Paul uses the illustrations of a farmer, an athlete, and a soldier to show what it means to be a good disciple of Christ, so nuke ’em and God will bless you. Jesus Christ is the mighty warrior, so nuke ’em and God will bless you.

Regarding Roman soldiers, centurions, and army officers, it’s funny how apologists for the U.S. military never refer to the ones that beat and crucified Jesus Christ, an innocent man (Matthew 27:4). They would be more akin to U.S. soldiers that kill foreigners in unjust wars or train to launch nuclear missiles at civilians. On John the Baptist, I have written a whole article here.

The emperor was "an instrument of justice" in his empire; he was not the policeman of the world. Unless Chaplain Shin Soh wants to acknowledge the U.S. empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe, he might want to rethink his example. He can’t have it both ways.

The Bible does liken a Christian to a soldier (2 Timothy 2:3, Philemon 2, Philippians 2:25). But as soldiers, Christians are admonished to "put on the whole armor of God" (Ephesians 6:11), "the breastplate of righteousness" (Ephesians 6:14), and "the helmet of salvation" (Ephesians 6:17). The weapons of the Christian soldier are not carnal (2 Corinthians 10:4); his shield is "the shield of faith" (Ephesians 6:16) and his sword is "the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17). Not exactly a description of a soldier in the U.S. military.

It is blasphemous to even remotely imply that since Jesus Christ is pictured as a mighty warrior, so nuke ’em and God will bless you.

The New Testament section of the presentation closes with this statement: "If war in the natural order is inherently unethical, it cannot be a good illustration in the spiritual order." Sorry chaplain, wrong again. First, it depends on what kind of war. War that is truly defensive (not just said to be defensive like Bush declaring the Iraq war to be defensive) or war that is divinely sanctioned (limited to Jews in the Old Testament, not U.S. wars) is not inherently unethical. Anything else is not just unethical; it is wholesale murder. And second, the Bible records Jesus as saying: "Behold, I come as a thief" (Revelation 16:15). Although stealing is inherently unethical, it is a good illustration in the spiritual order because the Lord Jesus made the illustration.

On page thirty-two of the presentation, under "Nuclear Ethics," the question is asked: "Can we exercise enough faith in our decision makers, political and military, to follow through with the orders that are given to us?" This is a good question, and one that all current and potential U.S. military personnel should consider. I would say that our decision makers, political and military, are the last people that anyone should put faith in.

The presentation concludes with a statement by a Captain Charles H. Nicholls that I wholeheartedly agree with: "Those of us on missile or bomber crews must also make the decision now. Before taking the oath of office or donning the uniform, we must commit ourselves to duty. We must decide now that our mission is compatible with our morality, or else we must resign our commissions." This is a great statement. I would say – nuclear mission or no nuclear mission – that since so much of what the military does is immoral (like, for instance, bombing, invading, and occupying other countries that were no threat to the United States), those young people that can’t find a good job or are looking for money for college should not even consider the military in any capacity. And to those entrusted with nuclear weapons, we can only hope and pray that they resign their commissions. God will not bless them for launching nukes just because they were following the orders of political and military decision makers.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on August 6, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Nuke ‘em and God Will Bless You

Considering the spiritual battle raging between God and Satan, it should come as little surprise that the spread of God’s kingdom often does not occur peaceably. Paradoxically, the Lord is both the “God of peace” and the God who assails the kingdom of Satan: “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20), implying that His judgment will come upon Satan’s kingdom in both the spiritual and temporal realms. The Christian’s civic duty should be similarly directed. Jesus is called the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) and yet He tells us: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The reason is simply that even though a battle rages in the spiritual world between principalities and powers (2 Corinthians 10:4-6, Revelation 12:7; Jude 1:9; Daniel 10:13), this battle spills over into time and space, being manifested principally through conflicts between Christians and false religion or the state. However, God’s kingdom has invaded the world, casting out Satan’s kingdom and disrupting the false “peace” that Satan gives (Luke 11:21).

Surely, the preaching of the Gospel and its transformation of hearers brings men peace with God. But the preaching of the Gospel also yields a threat to Satan’s kingdom, resulting in social rancor and violence as Satan seeks to defend his turf. The church is to neither be the initiator of violence nor use force to create converts. Yet the Bible indicates that individual Christians may use force to defend themselves against attacks from criminals—even state criminals. Martyrdom is not their only choice. Indeed, the threat of force is the only deterrent that keeps a state in line and Christians must be ready to use their might to that end. Of course, prudence would direct that using force should only be considered for egregious, ongoing violations of civil liberties. The civil disobedience and resistance doctrine of Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer thus has no quarrel with the Scriptures and rightly concurs with Jefferson’s caution in the Declaration of Independence. (¹⁾

Ironically, Christians must fight for peace, and their greatest achievement and objective should be to promote peace. Conversely, let us recall that the great “achievements” of modern man—unbelief, totalitarianism, secular humanism, Darwinism, and socialism, just to name a few—have brought poverty, misery, hatred, and war to human civilizations. But Christians should have the opposite record. They can promote peace with God by preaching the Gospel and they will promote peace and goodwill among men by advocating limited government and free markets. They may also promote earthly peace by engaging their culture politically: by voting, by signing petitions, by writing to congressmen, and by serving on juries in order to establish and secure fundamental rights for all people equally (and utilizing civil government as a means to defend these rights).

If we remember that the state is humanity’s foe, how can Christians justly use it to be their henchman? The state has wrought the antithesis of peace on earth. It has brought terrestrial hell to millions of people: shortening lives, extorting funds, degrading the environment, and destroying property. Therefore, Christians should not work to recruit the state into God’s service. Instead, they should be active in transforming their culture, reducing the impact of evil and the grief that comes from the state.

For this reason, it is important for American Christians to be informed and vote for candidates who will stand by the principles of liberty. They should not cop out and vote pragmatically, viz. for “the lesser of two evils”. Christians must overcome evil with good and that feat cannot be achieved by pragmatism. A Christian’s vote is never “wasted” when it is cast for someone or some policy backing good principles. But it is always wasted when it is cast for evil—even the lesser of two evils.

Some Christians might go beyond merely voting and even venture to get involved with politics. They may do so when they believe that running for office will allow them to pursue peace by encouraging the recognition of fundamental rights, the maintenance of free markets, and the rule of law. (²⁾ Furthermore, all Christians should be eager to sit on a jury in order to be ready to free any captive of the state who is having his fundamental rights violated. They can do this by nullifying an unjust or stupid decree (i.e., the procedure known as “jury nullification”).

Freedom is neither free nor cheap and Christians who want to enjoy political freedom need to be prepared to pay the price of keeping it. Professor Richard Beeman reminds us: “There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’ The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.” (³⁾ Accordingly, American Christians fighting for peace now face the challenge of trying to keep the republican form of government that the Founders entrusted to them.

⁽¹⁾ “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

⁽²⁾ Dietrich Bonhoeffer was simply mistaken when he wrote in The Cost of Discipleship that Christians should never aspire to high political office. Some peacemaking Christians might be effective in government office that promotes proactive policy. In remarking on the humility that a disciple must display he did not take into account the role a disciple has in engaging his culture and being a peacemaker. Whether or not they pursue a legitimate political office (i.e., one based in reactive policy) ought to be left to the liberty of each Christian’s conscience.

⁽³⁾ Richard R. Beeman, “A republic, if you can keep it” (2005), National Constitution Center.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on November 16, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Some Strategies in the Fight for Peace