In a message dated 7/20/99 7:12:12 AM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

> Perhaps I should ask, "Do people have the right to kill?

     If the killing party(ies)  have the power to legitimize their act of
killing, yes, they are able to make a "just claim" to killing.  In other
instances it depends on who is doing the killing and who is being killed.
People in government kill their fellow citizens as punishment for criminal
activity, and just recently individuals got together and decided to launch an
aerial killing spree over Yugoslavia in which Serb men, women, and children
guilty of no wrongdoing, were killed to further the political objectives of
members of the US government and its figleaf NATO partners.  Those who
supported this action engaged in killing through a proxy.  All it took to get
them on board was to give the supporters an emotional feel-good excuse for
their crucial support of the killing spree, and this was easily accomplished
by propangandizing and demonizing Milosevic in particular and the Serbian
people in general.  These innocent men, women, and children were killed by
the "leaders" of the State(s) and their enthusiatic supporters, none of which
will ever be held accountable.  They had the "right" to kill with impunity,
and without any consideration of the legal concept of "Due Process"( a
fundamental tenet of the US constitution).

    From an evolutionary point of view, one has the right to kill in order to
increase one's chances for survival.  One has the right to kill in order to
increase one's security by eliminating the competition for the material goods
one needs for survival.  One also has the right to kill in defense of one's
group if one's survival is dependent on the survival of the group.  One is
still free to kill a member of the group without fear of punishment if that
is a part of the culture of that group.  This last would be especially true
in regard to mating "rights".

    The key is having the power or having a power legitimize one's rights.
Though we may wail about having "natural rights", if we do not have the
ability to enforce those rights, they are meaningless.  And of course, often
enforcing or defending those rights (liberties) requires killing, and there
is always some power willing to recognize the right to kill for liberty.
Indeed, they are even glorified as wars of liberation, and to participate
means one is "in struggle".  Romantic, no?:-)

     From a strictly secular level it seems silly to even pretend a case
could be made against a right of people to kill.  Or are we to assume that
merely feeling that an act is wrong, constitutes an absolute against such an
act?
Yours,
Issodhos