Post removed

[Azathoth]

54. So a parent who brings his child to a warzone bears no responsibility?

Come on.

... I have the utmost respect for those whose principles do not change depending on the situation they find themselves in.

One of the first things I discovered in college is that, in nearly every system of "principles," one can construct a situtation where rigid, narrow-sighted adherence to principle leads to a result that wholly conflicts with the original intent of the system. Call it the law of unintended consequences or whatever you like.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the freedoms of Americans, not shield those who would victimize their fellow citizens and take those freedoms away. It doesn't give you the right to hurt others. You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, and you can't wage war on the United States while hiding out in a foreign warzone outside the reach of law enforcement.

Extra-judicial killing is wrong, period.

This is a perfect example of the paradox I mentioned above. The fundamental moral intent behind this principle is, obviously, justice. Killing someone without letting him have a fair trial is unjust and barbaric. But what happens when that person deliberately places himself in a position where he cannot be taken into custody and fairly tried? Either we kill him, or he continues to kill innocent people. By adhering rigidly to a single principle, we are enabling an even greater injustice to occur.