Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 5

Humanities desk
< May 4	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 5

Excuse me sir!

I just read The Dead by James Joyce for the first time, and I know I've seen the joke Gabriel tells:

"Round and round he went," said Gabriel, "and the old gentleman, who was a very pompous old gentleman, was highly indignant. 'Go on, sir! What do you mean, sir? Johnny! Johnny! Most extraordinary conduct! Can't understand the horse!"

before. I mean not exactly that quote, but the same thing: a bemused gentleman riding a misbehaving horse and calling it "sir" like "Excuse me sir! What is the meaning of this behavior?" Do any of the excellent people of RD/H recognize the reference? This is really bothering me. 71.176.141.209 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google only turned up a modern Irish race horse called Call Me Sir.

From memory, it was a common affectation in the 18th and early 19th centuries to call everyone (male) "sir" regardless of relationship or social rank. Take the case of Lord Uxbridge's leg at the Battle of Waterloo.

Uxbridge (on being hit by a cannonball): "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"

Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"

Also Samuel Johnson to James Boswell his friend and confidant "Why, Sir, you find no man, at all intellectual, who is willing to leave London. No, Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford."

[http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/madness-of-king-george-script.html This script] from The Madness of King George has the King speaking to his servant: "Fetch me another shirt, a softer one! Wake up sir! Attend, sir, attend!"

I suspect that Joyce's old gentleman would have addressed his relatives, friends and maybe even servants as "sir" so why not his horse as well? Sorry, no reference though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

He would certainly have addressed his dog that way if it misbehaved. Reference: OED's sense 8a of sir, "Used with scornful, contemptuous, indignant, or defiant force", and 1782 citation there, "Sir! in a surly tone, [signifies] a box on the ear at your service!—to a dog it means a good beating." --Antiquary (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Democratic party propaganda PR strategy of the 60s or 70s

Searching for the name of this. It's something like Sven-Pickvens, named after its authors. I believe one of its main cornerstones was appropriating the term "liberal" to avoid association with the Soviet Union socialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.44.252 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but the word "socialist" already had very negative connotations in U.S. politics by the late 1910s / early 1920s (see Palmer Raid etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "socialist" was used then the way "communist" was used in the cold war era - and the way "liberal" is used now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Sven-Pickvens", though of course there's always Slim Pickens. ;-) Perhaps you're thinking of slightly different leftist labels, or a different time period. As AnonMoos says, the initial flight from the term "socialist" came long before the 1960s. In 1951, journalist Felix Morley described his take on the process:

Those who urge the progressive intervention of government in business were once accurately and dispassionately known as 'Socialists.' But most American Socialists now describe themselves as 'liberals,' although that designation for a believer in State planning is directly opposite to the historic meaning of the word. There is no doubt that this type of semantic duplicity, or double-talk, has been politically influential.

There have been several times when the American left has shed one label in favor of another. As Morley described, the left appropriated the word "liberalism" around the 1920s, giving it a nearly (but not exactly) opposite meaning (the original meaning is now called classical liberalism). In the '60s, "liberal" began to lose its appeal for some liberals. In 1976, Democratic presidential hopeful Morris Udall stopped describing himself as a "liberal" and returned to "progressive", saying "when a word takes on connotations you don't like, it's time to change the label". I would guess that you're remembering something from this era, when perhaps older liberals, uncomfortable with the rise of the New Left (for whom "socialist" was not a dirty word), sought refuge in a return to the word "progressive". —Kevin Myers 04:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only simple people who demand simplistic labels for complex concepts. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And it's hard to find any "simpler" person than a politician. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ I think what the original poster might have been thinking of is reflected in these two postings in the American right-wing blogosphere:

• Duped! Relentless Marxist Deception by Alan Caruba (The Progressive Conservative, USA, vol. XIII, issue 63, March 5, 2011)
• American Socialist Group Leaks Names of House Members in Their Ranks, RedState.com, posted by pratsha45, Saturday, August 14th, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. EDT

Let me make the following comments about those pieces, since I've long been a democratic socialist (in fact a founding member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, a predecessor of Democratic Socialists of America): (1) it's never been a secret about this branch of socialism working within the Democratic Party, as there were long and public wrangles over this very question (see Socialist Party of America and Socialist Party USA); (2) there hasn't been that much secret, either, about Congressional members of, or sympathizers with, DSA; their names and pictures often featured (together with other names) on recruiting brochures; and (3) most seriously, the feeble attempts to link democratic socialism with Kremlin or Beijing or Havana style communism are just wrong; our rejection of dictatorial methods is what distinguishes us from Communists, both when that's popular and when it's not; in fact I just wrote a very critical piece for a liberal blog last Saturday about why I couldn't positively celebrate the Fall of Saigon 36 years ago (30 April 1975). ¶ This isn't a forum, so I don't want to be more argumentative or advocatorial than I need be to answer the original question about sources which have their own political implications. After removing what I consider to be inaccuracies or irrelevancies, I think a valid point does remain; it's just a rather mundane one. Socialists see the achievement of liberal objectives as necessary to even begin discussing how and whether to progress further towards liberalism, so it doesn't make sense to alienate non-socialists with socialist rhetoric if you're trying to achieve something much more limited (for example, union bargaining rights). Universal health care is a socialist objective, but it's one that's been shared by conservatives from Otto von Bismarck and Theodore Roosevelt to the newly-re-elected Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. (For a very rough analogy, there are many who want to turn [or return] America into a Christian nation, but they can still be principled workers on other moral issues without either proclaiming or hiding their ultimate ideal. Working for universal health care doesn't automatically mean that a liberal is also a socialist, any more than opposing abortion means that a conservative is some kind of theocrat.) —— Shakescene (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Socialists see the achievement of liberal objectives as necessary to even begin discussing how and whether to progress further" -- Unfortunately historically that has not been true; there was a school of thought which can be labelled "the worse the better" or "Kautskyism" or "Impossibilism" which rejected all reforms under the rotten capitalist system because it would postpone the day of proletarian revolution. This was very prominent in continental Europe during the late 19th-century and early 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Found my answer in one of last night's dreams, oddly enough. It was socialist campaign amidst the Democratic Party, at least I got that right. Raskolkhan (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Cloward–Piven strategy

That seems to be a strange Glenn Beck conspiracy obsession; there's no evidence that this article had any significant influence in real-world politics, and it seems to have remained rather obscure until Glenn Beck somewhat arbitrarily chose to retroactively make it his focus, long after its original publication... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hitler

Hi all. Did Hitler ever write down any tips on how to give a stirring speech (I mean, besides blaming Jews/minorities)? I know what he did to the Jews was terrible and I in no way condone it, but still Hitler was a genius, at least when it came to giving speeches. THanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he ever wrote a Public Speaking for Dummkopfs book, but his technique has been studied. I saw some PBS special about Hitler, a number of years ago, and they had some footage besides what you normally see. First of all, it's obvious he had absolutely no fear of public speaking, which certainly helps. They said he would come out on stage and just stand there silent for a minute or two, surveying the crowd, no doubt making eye contact with many of them. Then he would start talking - softly, measured. Over the next hour or whatever, he would pick up the pace, bringing the mesmerized crowd along with him, until it would climax with what you usually see in film footage, of him shouting and the crowd shouting back with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reader's Digest i the 1930's , if I recall correctly, had an article with pictures of him practicing dramatic facial expressions in front of a mirror. He clearly knew the photos were being shot, so he thus consented to "giving tips" on how to deliver a dramatic speech. Edison (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Something like these photos: [1]. Edison (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

He tapped into anger, initially at Germany's failing economy and humiliating defeat during WW1, then found somebody to blame it on. I'm not sure how this could be replicated for a more positive end, like fighting global warming. Stirring up hatred is easy, but not particularly productive, unless your goal is to massacre people. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing, but this could be apocryphal, that he had "insiders" dispersed into the crowd with instructions to incite fervor. I don't know if it is true or not, but it sounds plausible and the effect it would have had is undisputed. People in groups tend to base their reactions on social proof, just like if you have a few people laugh in a cinema it can set off a "chain reaction".. Sprinkle a few people around a crowd who start yelling and saluting and all that and people around are much more likely to get into the spirit of things. The social proof phenomenon no doubt also played a part in why so many seemingly normal people did terrible things. Vespine (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm among many who've never been able to read more than a chapter or two of Mein Kampf at a time; it's too loose, disorganized and detached from reality. But in discussing his early political career, Hitler does give out various hints and tips about political organizing and rhetoric, as well as his views of public opinion and crowd behaviour. Some of his theories about swaying popular sentiment can be seen in reverse from what he says about how the German people were craftily misled by the Jews, the Marxists, the plutocrats and other villains. He was never much of a writer; most of his sayings were transcribed by intimates like Rudolf Hess and then reduced to writing. Profitable as Mein Kampf eventually proved to be, Hitler never wanted another book published under his name because he was afraid it would limit his future freedom of action. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So Mein Kampf was kind of like "Quotes from Chairman Adolf"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

More like "The Rambling Thoughts of Adolf Who Has Been Locked-Up in a Small Room By Himself For Far Too Long", but "Mein Kampf" has a better ring to it (my father bought a copy in 1941 in aid of the British Red Cross). Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think much of Mein Kampf was written while Hitler was locked up in not-so-small room in a fortress but probably (though opinions differ) not for long enough. He was briefly imprisoned for his role in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch in Munich against the democratic Weimar Republic, and was visited by various friends, some of whom like Hess, transcribed his rambling, non-NPOV, unreliably-sourced, unduly-weighted thoughts.—— Shakescene (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't choose my words very carefully did I? I meant "too long to be coherent" rather than "too long for the good of civilization". I'd forgotten about the input by his chums; thanks for putting me straight. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how much "input" Hitler's friends and admirers gave him (at least directly) when he was discussing his past or broad, general topics of history, philosophy and policy. I have the impression that his conversations would tend to be a bit one-sided and unidirectional, although most of the transcription was probably done by others. (I don't know how much editing he might have done once his words had been reduced to writing.) —— Shakescene (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the killing of Osama Bin Laden legal?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few days ago Osama Bin Laden was apparently killed. However, the details of the killing are apparently that the US ordered troops to go to his hiding and gun him down. Is this legal? I thought in today's modern world we treat a criminal by:

(a) Taking him to court (b) Deciding his punishment (c) Serving the appropriate punishment

I mean shouldn't have Bin Laden be taken to court first and shouldn't he have been given the opportunity to defend himself with a lawyer and then the punishment decided etc.? Don't say that he shouldn't be given this opportunity because he killed thousands of people; in today's world we don't go gunning town muderers, we take them to court first. Killing someone who say murdered this other guy is illegal unless he has been given the death penalty in court. The same is true for Bin Laden.

Even more so Bin Laden was not even in the US. Why do the US have rights to take Bin laden to their country? As he is in Pakistan, Pakistan law applies and Pakistan government only can give the punishment. I don't see anyone challenging the US because they would be afraid but still it's a question worth asking. I don't understand how international law applies but if someone challenges the US saying that the murdered Bin Laden without taking him to court first, what penalties to the US face? Can the US goverment be fined and/or proscuted?

Finally, why is there so much propoganda about "joy of Bin Laden's death"? In today's world, we don't laugh when someone dies even if he is a murdered who has been given the death penalty. Can someone be sued for being happy about Bin Laden's death? I mean can the court case be based on a case of defamation by expressing happiness about someone's death. Can someone associated to Bin Laden file a court case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

He was not a conventional criminal, he was an enemy combatant, and it's a war, so he bore the consequences. He could have surrendered, but didn't, so he was taken out. In theory, the UN could impose some kind of sanctions on the US. Not bloody likely. It's Pakistan that's going to pay for this, for harboring him. Maybe you missed them dancing in the streets in some Arabic communities when 9/11/01 happened. And, no, you can't sue someone for being happy over this. There's no jurisdiction. There are a lot of things going on in "today's world" that shouldn't go on, but they do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Is it legal ? Probably not. The Pakistani government could bring charges, but not having custody or even knowing the names of the soldiers involved would make that difficult to pursue. If they found the names out and requested extradition from the US for trial, it would be denied. The International Criminal Court could charge the US under international law, but the US would just ignore it. In the US they could try the soldiers, but this would soon lead up the chain of command to the decision maker, Obama. He could be impeached by Congress, and would, if he just ordered random murders of people around the world, but no politician would bring charges for killing bin Laden. Also, I think some Congressmen where notified in advance, and approved. Then there's the huge negative PR anyone would incur who tried to defend bin Laden in court.

2) As for why to not try bin Laden in court:

2a) He was in Pakistan, who seemed to be helping him hide. So, they would not be interested in arresting and trying him.

2b) If he was captured, then, like the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre of Israeli athletes, he would soon be released to terrorists who took hostages and threatened to kill them if he was tried. As Israel learned, the only two viable options are to let famous terrorists go or kill them immediately.

3) As for whether it's morally right, I tend to view it this way: For people who follow international law, they are entitled to it's protections. For people who don't (like terrorists), they aren't. Now, there is the issue of how you determine if somebody is really a terrorist or was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I could believe that some of the people at Camp X-Ray fall into the latter category, but not bin Laden. There's a huge volume of evidence implicating him, including his own videotapes where he bragged about it. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. government is claiming that it is legal [2]. Other people aren't too sure. Ultimately, in international politics, what's legal is what you can get away with. Nobody's going to haul Obama to International Criminal Court in The Hague, so it's all good, from a practical perspective. Buddy431 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The blackmail that StuRat speaks of is par for the course for these characters. There were news stories the other day (don't ask me which ones) that said there was a standing threat of, apparently, a nuclear holocaust in Europe if OBL were caught or killed. The US called that bluff (assuming it was a bluff) and went ahead with it. Regarding 1972, the terrorists initially got away, but the Israeli intelligence agency figured out who they were and took them out over time, one by one. They got into a spot of trouble when they killed the wrong guy at some point. These things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The US government states that a country is allowed to attack and kill the leader of the force which is at war with it. Bin Laden did not "take to court" thousands of civilians his minions killed on 9/11/2001, so clearly he should not have expected that nicety to be extended to himself. A quote from author Katherine Arthur, regarding the execution of Julius Rosenberg: "He buttered his bread, now let him lie on it." Edison (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The US is slowly learning the sad lesson that to defeat the terrorists you have to sink to their level. They're never going to change their murderous ways, so the only solution is to kill them all. (I'm aware of the irony in that statement.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you missed them dancing in the streets in some Arabic communities when 9/11/01 happened. Sorry nothing personal but that's a terrible sentiment that I've heard a few times now to defend this behavior.. Since when is "they did it" become a valid excuse for base behavior? Maybe you missed them flying planes into buildings? Vespine (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case, Niccolò Machiavelli was right: the end justifies the means. Bin Laden wanted war and violence and he got it it. Morality is irrelevant here. I'm surprised people are even discussing it. Bin Laden brought about the deaths of thousands of people, left destruction and fear in his wake, the cost of his attack against our western society (which he had decided was "decadent" and therefore should be destroyed) cannot even be calculated. So why are people quibbling about morality and legal issues? It was obvious the US government would one day send him for his tea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we draw the line? Was the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko also legal, as he broke Russian Law? If Sarah Palin became president (god forbid) would it be legal for her to have Jullian Assange assassinated? Would Arab states be in the right to assassinate Israeli politicians who ignore UN resolutions? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only did Bin Laden fail to draw the line, I don't believe, in his fantaticism, he even knew there existed such a line.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think you can advocate acting in a lawless way towards those who act lawlessly. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A nation has the right to protect itself from the OBL's of the world, and it has to do what it sees as the best course of action to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So what is your criteria for deciding who is an "OBL of this world"? There are claims that Jullian Assange's leaks could cause deaths, so would it be right to hit him? Would it be right for India to hit people in Pakestan that they thought were responsible for the Mumbai attacks? Or for the Afghans to hit Americans responsible for things like the mistaken attack on a wedding party? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In most jurisdictions with a death penalty, it would only be applied to intentional premeditated murder. Thus, accidents and unintended consequences wouldn't be included. The one case you cited which might qualify is India assassinating the Mumbai terrorists. I wouldn't have any objection to that, although India would have to consider the risk of igniting another war with Pakistan by doing so. If you want a case where an American is the target, perhaps those soldiers who raped an Iraqi girl and then killed her and her family would have qualified, had they not been arrested and tried by the US. If that case had been covered up instead, I'd be all for extra-judicial executions. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden brought about the deaths of thousands of people - so did any number of other leaders, from Kennedy (Bay of Pigs? Vietnam?) to Bush-II (the conservative (by method, not politics) Iraq Body Count project reports over 10000 civilian dead). Now we may quibble about wether these actions are justified, and the "collateral damage" unavoidable, but the friends and families of innocent victims will find it hard to agree. Are there any circumstances in which you would consider a goon squad sent by some other state coming to the US, unannounced, to kill some person, acceptable? Pakistan is nominally an ally of the US, i.e. its not enemy territory. We can discuss the morality of the act, and the wisdom. But the fact that it is illegal is not seriously debatable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The comparison of a terror attack which killed over three thousand civilians at one stroke with the other incidents is asinine. Edison (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin laden was an international menace that the US Government decided had to be eliminated. That's the bottom line.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you weigh the different possible ways the living OBL and the dead OBL could have been handled, it appears so far that the US took the optimal approach. The fact of so many Muslims dancing in the streets and cheering tells you a lot about his true standing in the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no more reason to be surprised that lots of Muslims are opposed to bin Laden (who claimed to fight for their religion), than that lots of British people are opposed to the racist British National Party (who claim to fight, metaphorically speaking, for our country), or that lots of white American people are opposed to the KKK. An immoral cause is an immoral cause, and trivial details of what religion or nationality or race one is born into, don't always make much difference to that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a very apt comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to what Sturat has claimed above, there's no chance of anything happening in the International Criminal Court since the US has actively resisted any attempts to have them covered in its jurisdiction (and there's no chance they will allow themselves to be referred by the UN Security Council where they of course have veto power). If you are going to talk about international law, can you actually familiarise yourself with the basics first???? Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And deny you the obvious enjoyment you get from insulting others ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anybody has linked to Legal debate over the killing of Osama bin Laden yet. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And a lot of people have chosen to debate the morality rather than the legality of killing bin Laden. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for your answers. However, I don't understand some of them. You say that Bin Laden was responsible for killing thousands of people and so that makes his killing moral. But murderers in US society get the chance to go to court. The government doesn't gun someone down because he killed his son. They take him to court. Moreover, Bin Laden was unarmed so that makes the killing even more illegal.

Also what's wrong if someone supports Bin Laden in court? Is it actually illegal to openly support Bin Laden? (Not that I do but if someone says "hey Bin Laden was a great man" can he be prosecuted?) But if someone just says in court diplomatically that Bin Laden should not have been killed what's wrong?

Finally, is there any evidence that Bin Laden has actually committed these killings? He may have bragged about them but that doesn't mean he did them. Could there be a case against the US because they killed him for no reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The case that he organized and directed the 9/11 attacks is clear, except to conspiracy buffs.Edison (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it's that clear. The fact he personally supported it and people under an 'organisation' he nominally lead carried out the attack may be. This doesn't me he personally organised and directed it. There is strong evidence contrary to what some may like to believe, al-Qaeda is not some sort of centralised organisation where the topdog calls the shots but instead a collective of people with similar goals providing some degree of mutual support and going by the same name. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also if Obama decided tomorrow to reinstate the draft for whatever reason, couldn't he be accused of killing millions (not just thousands) of people? I mean any president who has authorized the draft in the past should be responsible for any deaths of conscripts. But they're never prosecuted. So why is Bin Laden considered to be so hostile that he needs to be gunned down without a Fair trial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reinstituting the draft is not a terror attack that killed 3000 civilians. It is in fact withont modern rules of warfare. Edison (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

First, let's make one thing clear: a person and a country have the right to defend themselves. This guy's organization committed an act of war against us. By knocking that guy off, which was also an act of war, we assure that he will never kill another person. I recall Bill Buckley once saying, "There is no such thing as a 'moral war', but there is such a thing as a 'defensible war'." Killing OBL was not necessarily "moral", but it was defensible. It was the optimal way to handle the guy. Put him on trial for war crimes (not for murder as such), and you'll have every nutcase in the world involved. Kill him but bury him on land and those nutcases will swarm around the burial place. Better to dispose of him like the garbage he was, as with Isoroku Yamamoto in World War II, and deal with whatever consquences may arise. And, no, you can't be prosecuted for making looney statements. There can be social consequences, though. FYI, the President cannot reactivate the draft by decree. It has to be an act of Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Isoroku Yamamoto, Bugs? Our article that you linked on that particular Harvard alumnus and anti-war activist, says that his ashes were buried in Tama, Tokyo and Nagaoka, Niigata, after a full state funeral. Presumably the ashes are still there, for anyone that cares to visit and pay their respects, as I'm sure some do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-war activist" who was the leader of the Pearl Harbor attack. Some "anti-war" activist he was. Whether cremated or buried at sea, they be gawn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he was such a prominent anti-war activist that the death threats against him for his opposition to the war (and to the alliance with Italy and Germany) grew so numerous that in 1939 he had to be moved out of the country because it was seriously expected he would be assassinated before the end of the year.

Yamamoto was no more responsible for the decision to wage a pre-emptive war in 1941, than Paul Tibbets was responsible for the decision to atom bomb cities in order to end that war. Responsibility lies rather more with Hideki Tōjō, for whom even his dentures were marked "Remember Pearl Harbor". He, too, is commemorated at a shrine where his ashes are located, but he met his death in a rather different manner to Yamamoto. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, gee, who should I believe... You? Or the wikipedia article on Yamamoto? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Either would be fine, since we say the same thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This argument is flawed on the basis that the killing of Bin laden was not the only viable option for homeland defense. He could have been captured. Amnesty international appears to have inquired the US government as to why the killing was absolutely necessary and why Bin Laden was not captured instead. He was apparently unarmed. So I still don't see the legality of the killing. Moreover no human being is garbage. Bin Laden may have been an extremely dangerous criminal but that doesn't make him garbage. The word garbage in any case is extremely subjective.

Wasn't Saddam Hussain put on trial? It doesn't matter if the whole world is involved. The Nuremberg trials existed even though the criminals involved were 100 times more dangerous than Bin Laden is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Saddam was put on trial by Iraqis for crimes against Iraqis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't either "unarmed". He was surrounded by folks firing guns at our folks. Had they immediately surrendered, maybe he would have been spared, then given a fair trial, and hanged the way Saddam was. That might have been more fun. But this was the optimal solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a little correction - the UK ITN News has just said that more details have come out, and it turns out he only had one guy with him. Only one guy was protecting him. They were massively outnumbered, to all intents and purposes. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess - the conspiracists are going to claim that nobody there had any weapons to defend with. Guess what: Neither did the 3,000 civilians he killed in the World Trade Center. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a handful of questions being asked here. 1) Was the killing of bin Laden legal? 2) Was the killing of bin Laden moral/justified? 3) Why didn't they capture him instead?

As for 1, because bin Laden declared war on the US, and the US is currently at war with the organization that he created, the incident is subject to the rules of war rather than criminal justice, and so there is no serious legal problem with the kill. (It's similar to Operation Vengeance, as Bugs suggested.) As for 2, the general opinion appears to be that the killing was justified, but this is a matter of opinion rather than law. Each person must decide this question for themselves. As for 3, that's really the most serious question. A captured bin Laden would have created thorny legal and policy challenges for the Obama administration. Did they want him dead and not alive, just to simplify matters? Or did capture prove to be too difficult or dangerous in the heat of the moment? We can expect to hear much more about this in the days ahead. —Kevin Myers 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You asked at the outset, was the killing of ObL legal. I believe it was. 9-11 was a direct attack on New York and Washington and therefore an act of aggression aginst the United States. The US Congress responded by passing legislation within 3 days of 9-11 allowing military force against terrorists.(Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 107–40 (text) (PDF), 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001). This sited the US's need to act in self-defence (the UN Charter specifically allows a nation or nations to act in self-defence). The legislation said: . . .the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. As ObL was the mastermind or at the very least heavily implicated in the attacks, he was always going to be hunted down. Up until now, there is no problem with the legality--does the use of the term approriate force mean the killing of an unarmed terrorist? That determination of appropriate force lies with the special forces on the ground. They are trained to act as if the terrorist could be wearing an explosive belt and act accordingly. So, yes I believe ObL was lawfully killed. Btw, the BBC World tv channel covering the story locally in Pakistan today said that the Pakistani newspapers have all used the term killed--not murdered, assassinated or martyred. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the killing of OBL was legal or not is a matter of no relevance. It's happened, it can't be undone, and no one is ever going to be punished for it even if it was/were illegal by U.S., Pakistani, or international law. Debating its legality is as useful as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Pais (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As a New Yorker who lost two good friends in the Twin Towers on 9/11, my response to those who question whether killing the SOB was legal or not is: "Who the fuck cares?" Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to stoop down to your low level but I'm asking a valid question here. If you don't care, don't answer. It's like if I ask what's the capital of France and you say: I don't live in France so who the **** cares? Oh and everyone dies sooner or later: deal with it. Your friends were in the wrong place at the wrong time: TOUGH LUCK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Who the hell is SOB? Quest09 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

wikt:SOB. Pais (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. And a flip-side question could be asked: Was Pakistan's harboring of this international fugitive legal? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Blueboar, I see you are an upholder of WP's five pillars of wisdom. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view--yes that response was very neutral. Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner--once again a very civil response. Congratulations. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be neutral point of view. Editors themselves need not be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If we want to interpret Wikipedia policy strictly, then no-one should post in this thread, as it is obviously a question more suited to an internet forum than this refdesk. To post is to feed trolls. Yet many of us have opinions we want to share. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP's detailed premise is flawed and naive, but the basic question is valid and needs to be explored and discussed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It would of course be helpful if people would actually stick to the question which appears to have primarily been about the legality yet most of this discussion seems to bring morality in to it. If you can't make an argument without bringing morality in to it, that makes it sound like you don't actually have a valid argument for the legality... Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been answered. The US Congress authorized it, so it's legal. If anyone dares to try and claim a violation of international law, the US can counter with Pakistan's having harbored an international fugitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it moral to question the death of bin Laden more than the death of unarmed Iraqi children? Quest09 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Or 3,000 unarmed Americans in the WTC? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone removed this comment and I have every right to reinsert it: You love America too much. Most of the 3000 unarmed Americans in the WTC were illiterate anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the original removal, but I'm pretty sure I can tell why it was done. Right now, I think I would support leaving your comment up there. It makes you look silly, which would seem to be appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care what other people think of me. We shouldn't allow illiterates to have an impact on this world. Simple as that. Don't know why people care so much about illiterates dying. At least Osama Bin Laden is educated. No I don't support the killing of illiterates. They have the right to live. All I'm saying is that 80% of Americans are functional illiterates. It's a fact. It's not my opinion. So most of the guys in the WTC were illiterates as well. End of story. America's illiterates dishonor the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe 80% of Americans are functional illiterates. Consider also that at the WTC, mostly corporate workers were killed. Were these also functional illiterates? You seem to be a mathematical illiterate. Quest09 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• At the WTC, hey were not 3,000, just 2752. And they were not all Americans. Quest09 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Does your total include the passengers in the airplanes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about all the victims, it's 2,996 deaths, including hijackers, excluding health related issues. WTC it's 2,756 (I said 2,752, but was wrong) and certainly not all Americans. Quest09 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You can add 1 to that count. In effect, OBL's death was caused by the 9/11 attacks. Just delayed a tad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the question has been answered by Mr. Reid: The U.S. Congress authorized the President to do whatever was necessary. So, yes, it was legal. And hence it was not murder, whether SOBL was physically armed or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal according to US law, yes, but possibly not international law, which is the concern of the rest of the world. We don't give a hoot about Congress. The OP's IP locates to Australia, so I believe this questioner is asking about the legality of the operation according to international law, and not US law. There are multiple concerns which need addressing, and one of them is the fact it was a covert operation over allied territory but without informing the local authorities (lest they alert the occupants of the target compound). Just this tiny little aspect needs to be looked into. Then there are the allegations by several of the women in the compound that bin Laden was indeed captured alive, but then executed - as an unarmed man, even though there were two weapons in the room. These allegations would need to be looked into. We all know your strong opinions about OBL and what he did to the WTC - but opinions just don't cut it. In law, it's not an eye for an eye - it's a bit more complicated. Actually, the simple fact that respected international experts are discussing this and disagreeing with each other shows that it not so straightforward. There are multiple aspects which need to be looked into first, before there is no shadow of a doubt of its legality (or lack thereof, should the case be). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be relevant (or it may not be relevant) to compare the capture (by Mossad) and the subsequent trial (by an Israeli tribunal) of Adolf Eichmann in the context. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Iranian Embassy Siege#Aftermath is also worth reading on how a coroner's inquest adjudged the legality of a previous execution-style killing - with government premeditation, or at least apparent approval - of unarmed Arab terrorists by the special forces of one of the Western Allies. In this case the Arabs in question were attempting to surrender at the time, but had recently murdered an employee of everyone's favourite Axis of Evil regime the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Fowzi Nejad was the one who narrowly avoided being killed due to an excess of television cameras, and instead got life imprisonment and then a government-funded new identity in south London (apparently having not changed his opinion about the Islamic Republic of Iran in the intervening 28 years that he spent in prison.) "They then took the two terrorists, pushed them against the wall and shot them" seems pretty clear about what happened. Apart from the similarities from a legal perspective, there's also every reason to think bin Laden would have been aware of this incident and its role in shaping how the West likes to deal with terrorists when they catch them. So he knew the score, at least.

In that incident, international law didn't come into play; in the case of Operation Flavius, which didn't involve Arabs but did involve a credible threat to civilian life, the European Court of Human Rights decided that the Irish terrorists who were shot dead instead of being apprehended, again by the SAS, had suffered a breach of their human rights, but that damages should not be awarded because they were engaged in an act of terrorism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If any of us here were to find ourselves on a plane heading towards a skyscraper the last thing on our minds would be the legality of killing Bin Laden. The fact of the matter is that #1. The US finally caught up with him. #2. He's been rubbed out. #3. He's past tense. #4. He no longer exists.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So let's all be vigilantes? That's nonsense. Imagine a burglar caught using this defence ("Sure, I stole the money. But I've spent it all, and the event in the past. It's over. No-one benefits if we discuss the legality of the issue. Let's all go home.") The problem with the extralegal proceedings are already beginning to show. India and Pakistan, now both nuclear powers, have been in in a very tense situation since their founding, with hot wars between them flaming up occasionally, and with a lot of activity that one side or the other labels "terrorism". Would it be ok for India to send military teams into Pakistan, taking out people India claims are terrorists? And vice versa? Including high state officials? Assume this escalates to a nuclear war, with 150 million dead and a billion refugees. I hope this is a remote possibility, but the example demonstrates that we cannot always go by short-term convenience. The rule of law is not always convenient. It's not even always just (although good legal systems will try to minimize the difference). We still support a rule of law because, even with its shortcomings, it is a lot better overal that the alternative. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The burglar in your scenario actually equates to OBL and his supporters. And just as citizens have the right to defend themselves against home-invaders, nations have the right to defend themselves against the OBL's of the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If playing with this analogy, it's worth being aware that legal systems in the rest of the world tend to have markedly dissimilar views to the USA on what is an acceptable method of defending oneself against a "home invader", as Tony Martin found out to his cost. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The response of calmer folks to those who just want revenge, no matter what, is to say that the terrorists have won. Revenge seekers have thrown away the values they argue that the terrorists were attacking. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal according to US law, yes, but possibly not international law, which is the concern of the rest of the world. We don't give a hoot about Congress. This is the most sensible thing that's yet been said. This reminds me of those who want Julian Assange tried for treason. U.S. law ends at the U.S. border. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A responsible government is a like a responsible parent in that its first and foremost duty is to protect the lives and interests of its citizens. Other issues like legalities and morality (this latter shouldn't even be an issue IMO) take a back seat. If someone threatened your child would you think about breaking the law or protecting your offspring? The US has been placed in the position of they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. I must needs summon Machiavelli to give an encore. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? You are saying that one man, one man, whose name is OSAMA BIN LADEN, can treaten the most powerful nation in the world so significantly that killing him is absolutely essential for survival? No. AL-QAEDA threatens the US. Not Osama Bin laden. The US has done absolutely nothing. Al-Qaeda will still be in existence. Killing Osama Bin Laden has few consequences. That's why the only reasonable thing to do is to put him on trial and treat him like any other criminal. Killing him is weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is unrealistic to expect a parent to put matters of law or morality ahead of protecting their child, the parent still must expect to face the legal consequences if they do the break the law to protect their child. If you kill an unarmed man who's threatening your child, you may be acting reasonably, but you're still going to jail. —Angr (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's called "justifiable homicide". And it's unlikely any jury would convict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If the man is unarmed (as I specified) it is unlikely a defense of "justifiable homicide" (a contradiction in terms if I've ever heard one) would hold water. —Angr (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you have a gun, and someone is threatening your loved one, and you do nothing??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything violent, and I certainly wouldn't have a gun in the first place. But nonviolent resistance is not "doing nothing". There's a video on YouTube (I don't have time to look for the link) of a man on the Berlin S-Bahn harassing and threatening a young woman sitting alone. Another man comes up behind him and panteses him. The aggressor flees in embarrassment, and no violence is done to anyone. There's always a nonviolent option. —Angr (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good in theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

By the Geneva Convention, it is illegal to kill unarmed enemy soldiers. OBL wasn't even an enemy soldier, by international law. He was head of a terrorist organization, making him a criminal. Since when have unarmed criminals been shot on sight (at point blank range with high-calibre weapons doing so much damage that releasing a photo would be 'gruesome')? Two weapons were found in the room where he was. He'd had plenty of time to pick them up from the time the attack began, to when he was finally discovered. He had chosen not to. Incidentally, the BBC has an interesting article here about whether catching him and trying him would have been the best thing to do. As it turns out, he couldn't even have been tried in the International Criminal Court for the 9/11 attacks, as it was only founded in 2002 and that is when its jurisdiction begins. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it legal to harbor war criminals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with Pakistan, BB - this has nothing to do with the legality of killing OBL - but is being investigated in any case. By your random answers, I fully understand that you do not understand how the legal system works. There are laws in place to deal with specific situations. We are discussing whether it is legal or not to kill an unarmed man without a fair trial for a crime he supposedly committed, here. We are not discussing the death penalty, which evidently you are confusing this with. Giving him a fair trial, and then, if warranted, the death penalty, is perfectly legal, but is not being discussed here. Please try to understand that before posting in this thread again, BB. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How were the SEALs supposed to know he was unarmed? How were they to know he didn't have a bomb tied to him, as per the usual terrorist trademark? When you're in a situation like that, you don't play games. Maybe unless the guy throws his hands high overhead and says "I surrender", you have to assume he's armed. I say maybe unless, because pretending to surrender could also be a ruse. P.S. Don't be trying to dictate to me or anyone else what they can post here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This was mentioned on the BBC news article about his killing - the fact that one of the women 'made a move' on one of the SEALs and was shot dead, as he had to presume she was armed in such a situation (our article says she was a possible human shield, though). At the time, it was a possibility that OBL was wearing a concealed belt (which he would have to have put on very quickly and then dressed over it - unless terrorists have a habit of wearing them permanently), but until his exact movements immediately before his shooting are fully explained, we can never know whether the SEAL had a legit reason to suspect this. I do believe these guys are well trained and probably spot a remote control (or lack of) pretty quickly, especially at point blank range. This is compounded by the fact that a second woman, OBL's fifth wife, apparently charged at the SEALs when they entered the room OBL was in, and was shot in the leg, before the SEAL turned on OBL - apparently disregarding the woman. If he had thought she was a suicide bomber, he would have killed her. The whole thing is further compounded by conflicting statements by numerous US officials, some of whom said it was a kill mission, and others said it was a kill-or-capture mission. If it was a kill-or-capture mission, then the above must be considered. If it was a kill mission, the the legality of that is in question, as it would be clear from the outset that they had no intention of bringing him to justice, but rather of killing him - and what happened within the compound or what the SEAL thought becomes irrelevant. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Congress had authorized the President to kill or capture OBL from the beginning. Were there any "international legal" complaints about that at any point? (I'm asking because I don't know the answer.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not clear on this either, and cannot find anything about it. I can only say I seem to remember that it didn't seem to be an issue. It has become an issue now, though. 'Kill or capture' is the main thing here, though. Kill or capture means killing him if capturing is not an option. I have no sources here, but I do believe this is perfectly legal. Refer to my post above this where I mention the legal questions surrounding a kill mission. And sorry for what appeared as a personal attack earlier. It was not meant as such. You know me as a regular editor here, and you know I don't make personal attacks. In fact, I was trying to help you understand something. I apologize again for appearing brusque. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I am nowhere near faultless myself. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Many people here are starting with the assumption that OBL was indeed executed. Some claim it was wrong, others that it was the best thing that happened this year. Independent of that, it's necessary to assume that OBL wouldn't let them catch him alive. A similar case happened in Spain as the police tried to arrest the Leganés' Islamic terror cell (see: [3]. The mastermind simply blew himself up, killing several other people with him. If the Navy SEAL thought that OBL was a danger to him, due to the same obvious reasons, shooting at him is perfectly legal. Also consider that it makes no sense to invade a compound if you just want to kill someone inside. For a simple killing, Tomahawks would be much better appropriate and they were already shot at much less important targets. Quest09 (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Firing missiles at a target straddling three villages (and therefore risking lots of collateral) in allied territory without your ally knowing, and the target being less than a mile from a major military complex is not an option. Also, when Al-Zarqawi was taken out, two 5,000lb bombs hit the house he was in and he was still alive when US forces arrived shortly afterwards. In order to make sure the target is dead and to make sure he doesn't flee (or get help fleeing by the security/intelligence forces of the ally you evidently don't trust), you need to send soldiers in. It would be best to do from the start, rather than bombing the place and killing civilians in the process first. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ISome people here are talking as if this is the first time a known terrorist (or criminal if terrorist is too politically-incorrect) had been taken out by soldiers. Has anyone ever heard of the British security forces Shoot to Kill policy in Northern Ireland? Read the article on Peter Cleary. British Military Intelligence has been alleged in the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings in which 33 civilians died, none of whom had posed a threat to global security. Then there were the four serving Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who murdered three unarmed band members of the Miami Showband in 1975.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about US actions here. Whether the Brits had such policies is irrelevant. As I said above, the UN Charter specifically says that any nation who is attacked has the right to respond accordingly so no-one can deny that the US acted within the context of international law. The US Congress acted to allow the President to determine what that response should be. Those responses as Commander-in-Chief are delegated to the front line combatants. As for the statements that legalities shouldn't even be considered is nuts. Vigilante killings is not what the US wanted levelled at it. The US had the legal right to retaliate and it did ending in ObL's death. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant question if killing him helped to resolve something or only made things even worse. Same applies to any other political action, like war in Iraq, etc. The most general answer: war and killings are usually a failure of good politics that tend to avoid extreme measure. Of course, there are failures, and therefore there are wars and extrajudicial killings. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A somewhat fitting quote: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin as reported by Isaac Asimov. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and that's why terrorism will ultimately fail - because it offers nothing except violence. OBL signed his own death warrant on 9/11/01, and it just took awhile for that warrant to be fulfilled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say Abbotabad was the last refuge of the violent. And speaking of incompetence...

What say the editors on this page... was Pakistan just incompetent, or were they culpable in allowing ObL to find refuge in a suburb of their capital? Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, anything said on this matter would be speculation, unfortunately. Well will find out in time. Also, see Abbottabad. I would hardly consider a group of villages 31 miles away from Islamabad to be a suburb of Islamabad. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And current discussion about the legality of the killing of ObL isn't speculation? (how many of us have actually studied International Law?). As for Abbottabad being a suburb of Islamabad.... perhaps I am letting my New York orientation show... the villages and towns that are 31 miles from NYC are all solidly within the suburbs of NYC (hell, there are towns that are over 60 miles from the NYC that are considered suburbs)... but I can see how that might be different for other cities. In any case, 31 miles isn't all that far away. I have a hard time believing that no one in Pakistan's Intelligence Service knew he was there. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion I've seen on the news pages suggests that there is a disconnect between the official stance of the higher-ups in the Pakistani government and the actual behavior of the lower-level figures in the government, at least some of whom were very willing to give OBL safe harbor. Assuming (possibly unwarranted) good faith on the part of the higher-ups, the lower-level players might have taken measures to keep the Pakistani leaders in the dark about it. I could imagine that ultimately something has to "give". In the extreme case, this could lead to violent revolution in Pakistan (what, again?) and when I hear that the survivors of the raid are being "interrogated", I wonder if that means they're just under house arrest and the "interrogation" consists of "What would you like for lunch today?" or whether they really are grilling those folks for info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

...or grilling them lunch. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me the US might have an escape clause. If they get taken to some international kangaroo court, they could hop away from it by saying, "Hey, we lied. We didn't kill Osama. He was actually working for us. We rescued him from his Pakistani captors, and now he's in the Witness Protection Program!" If nothing else, a statement like that might drive the conspiracy theorists crazy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

VERY likely wasnt as there was no specific sanction but as to where there will be any followup action HIGHLY doubt that. its an extrajudicial killing.l Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It was an act of war... a war that OBL declared on us. And he paid for it. That's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Safia Farkash

According to this, Safia Farkash's personal fortune is approximately $30 billion. What is the source of her wealth? She was only a nurse, so how she earned this money? And if it came from her association with Muamar Gaddafi, then why it is called personal fortune, not family fortune? --Reference Desker (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The implication of the short linked article is that, due to her marriage, Gaddafi's wife has accumulated $30 billion in her own name (presumably through gifts from her husband, corruption, and gains on investments). The total family fortune would be more. As to the accuracy of the article, I couldn't say. John M Baker (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the citizens destroy any tanks during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989?

I've heard from some web forums that some citizens "burned" some tanks, with the aid of some militia which had been taught anti-tank tactics. Is it true?--Inspector (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This account describes how a tank commander was flushed out of the hatch of his vehicle with the aid of a burning blanket. Otherwise, I haven't been able to find anything and don't remember any mention of it at the time. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

News coverage showed one armored personnel carrier which for some reason went driving around the occupied square alone. It was hit with Molotov cocktails and set on fire. The crew were killed when they exited. This film was apparently used to excite the troops to vengeful violence against the students when the troops entered the square en masse. It looked like a clever expenditure of one crew who must have gotten on some commander's wrong side, since the troops had been pretty nonviolent towards the occupiers previously. Edison (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

When I went to study in China a few years after the incident, a British friend of mine went searching the bookshops for any literature about the incident. All we could find was one book with photographs of the aftermath - and even though there were plenty of naked or semi-naked charred/mutilated bodies purported to be dead soldiers - I do not remember seeing a single destroyed tank. There were jeeps and lots of civilian vehicles, however. I really think that if a tank had been destroyed it would have been shown - even if only to show the brutality of the students (which, incidentally, was what this book was about). Having said that, I don't remember seeing the APC that Edison mentions above. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you watched all the news coverage which was broadcast at the time of the incident? A Google News archive search for "Tiananmen Square" APC burned turned up "San Jose Mercury News : BEIJING DIARY THE SIGHTS AND SOUNDS $2.95 - San Jose Mercury News - NewsBank - Jun 11, 1989 "An APC entered the square a few minutes ago and it's now burning on the northeast corner ... and dreading ever since the students moved into Tiananmen Square on May 13 ... of Democracy The light came from the APC which burned for hours ..." Changing the search term to "Tiananmen Square" APC burn also turned up this BBC account which said "At the top of the square just in front of the Forbidden City, an APC got separated from its column, and in its panic to get out of the crowd area, ran over several demonstrators. This, in turn, caused the crowd to grow violent. They disabled the APC, tore its crew from the vehicle, killed them, and torched the vehicle. All this was done in plain view of several PLA platoons about 150 metres away at the edge of the square. Standing beside the burning APC, I looked down the avenue and in the orange glow of the lights of the square I could see the PLA lock and load their AK-47s. " TV coverage appeared to show the Molotovs hitting the APC before it halted and the crew jumped out, despite what the BBC stated, and its entry into the square looked like an intentional provocation. It is hard for a group of students to "disable" a charging APC. Another eyewitness account says the crowd ripped a soldier limb from limb when he leaped from the burning APC, agreeing that the burning preceded the exiting. Edison (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't denying it happened. I said I don't remember seeing it - in the same way I don't remember seeing a destroyed tank - meaning, a tank may or may not have been destroyed too. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To casual commentators, a vehicle with some armor and a gun is a "tank." I only found info on the one burned APC, which the government then could have used to incite the previously passive soldiers to revenge, (think of "Remember the Alamo"), or to instill fear like the WW1 Germans had of partisans in Belgium (supposedly inspiring the Rape of Belgium atrocities by the Germans). Seeing an APC burned and the crew killed doubtless helped to inspire bloodlust among the soldiers, just before they were ordered to brutally clear the square. Edison (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost a saint, but stumbled on the last hurdle?

I was reading about Mother Theresa, and how Christopher Hitchens was called in during her beatification to act a bit like a "devil's advocate", arguing that she was not worthy of sainthood. I am not very knowlegeable in this topic, but it seems to me that if a person has come to this stage in the process, the road to sainthood is pretty straight. Are there any famous (preferably after 1900) examples of people who have "stumbled on the last hurdle", ie that something actually came up during the later stages of being declared a saint that made the church decide against sainthood? /Marxmax (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not answering your question directly, but there always used to be a position in the Vatican called "devil's advocate", whose job it was solely to dig the dirt on candidates for the sainthood. The last pope got rid of the post, I believe. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How very conveeenient. Pais (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, see List of blesseds. From my (non-catholic) understanding, it isn't really a slight to be "only" blessed and not be made a saint. Yes, someone like Mother Theresa most people expect to be made a saint, but what about someone like Joseph Gérard, who did good missionary work, but wasn't exactly well known and widely revered like Mother Theresa was. Buddy431 (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory theological pedantry: you offer a good link, and a good basic explanation, but I must just point out that people are not 'made' saints by the Catholic Church: the idea is that they are already saints, as are many others, but these particular individuals have enough 'proof' for the Church to declare them saints, which it tends to do only (as you say) when they are being widely held up as good examples and revered. The idea is that the declared saints are 1) good examples to follow and use as inspiration and 2) 'guaranteed' to be in Heaven, and hence ideally placed to pray on our behalf, so you can ask them to pray for you. The Church doesn't claim to be 'making' anyone a saint, nor that only those canonised are saints. 86.164.70.27 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. For the theology behind it, you're better off asking a Catholic who knows his religious teaching (I am neither a Catholic, nor am I particularly knowledgeable in the teachings of my own religion). As a practical matter, though, people who are likely to be made recognized as saints are those who have a lot of Catholics who like them and are able to push for their Canonization. Buddy431 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was raised in a relatively recently-established Protestant denomination, and we don't do saints. I've always thought of sainthood as the "Roman Catholic Hall of Fame". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Other denominations have saints, too. The Anglicans and the Orthodox Churches certainly do. Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family are now saints, for example. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that some of the older non-Catholic churches recognize sainthood. In my denomination, we would say, "The Apostle Paul", rather than "St. Paul", except when referring to the American city or the British cathedral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say Protestants don't believe in saints (I know, not exactly what Bugs said). For the most part Protestants don't believe in praying to saints. No dulia or hyperdulia, I think those are the words, and no need for saintly intercession with God, because you can just talk directly to God. But the word saint appears in the Bible, so sola scriptura Protestants would certainly accept them in the sense of whatever is meant there (seems to be just "good Christian" more or less). --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I would agree with that, the thing most Protestant groups do not believe in is that people get to decide who is a saint. Googlemeister (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea of praying to saints is essentially an echo of polytheism, and obviously we don't do that. I'd be curious to know where the word "saint" appears in the Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The word is used extensively in both old and new testaments, especially in Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel, and in most of St Paul's letters where a saint is any Christian. Dbfirs 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that "saint" comes from Latin sanctus, I wonder what Hebrew and Greek terms they decided to translate as "sanctus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a bible scholar, but I think the Greek word was άγιος. Wiktionary has the definition "One who is sanctified or made holy; a person who is separated unto God’s service" for the English "saint". I don't know whether this would be the exact meaning to the NT Greeks, but Paul probably meant something along the lines of Christian perfection. Dbfirs 23:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that really true, Googlemeister? I've heard the once Saved, always Saved crowd loudly criticising the Catholic Church for its uncertainty on this matter, and saying that they themselves were saints (of which they were certain). I assumed this 'all true believers are saints, and certain of Heaven' thing was fairly mainstream, and it is at least as 'deciding who is a saint' as the process the Catholic Church uses to recognise a few of the saints.

Oh, also Trovatore, I'm not sure, but it sounds like you've been told the strange claim that Catholics pray to saints because they cannot pray to God? Catholics pray to God all the time, like a lot, they just ask the saints to pray for them too. Even the Litany of the Saints, the most saint-heavy praying typically found in a Catholic church service, has prayers directly to God in it. It's an 'as well', not instead. 86.166.40.199 (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore didn't say that. He said Protestants don't believe in praying to saints because you can just pray directly to God. That doesn't imply Catholics don't or can't pray directly to God. As for Anglicans, they have a lot of people on their calendar of saints, but they have no process of canonization. Pais (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is why I wasn't sure if that was what he was implying, and he wouldn't be the first I'd heard say it. But since both Catholics and Protestants pray directly to God, I don't see how because we can pray directly to God is an explanation, as such, for Protestants not asking saints to pray for them? It feels like that's a justification, rather than an explanation. 86.166.40.199 (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear: there are, of course, explanations for why certain groups do not believe in asking saints to pray for them, such as: believing that it is too close to apotheosis, or that the teaching inevitably becomes corrupt and lay people end up praying to the saints, which would be proper apotheosis; believing that the statues are idolatrous, or that lay people inevitably start worshipping the statues and it becomes completely idolatrous; a belief in the final judgement with no particular judgement, hence no humans are in Heaven yet; a belief that those in Heaven have no way of hearing requests for prayers; a belief that the complicated theology involved once you look in more detail at the 'body of the Church' and Grace, etc, gets too legalistic; a belief that it is wrong to request prayers from others, because the benefit of prayer comes from praying, not being prayed for. I don't know which of these Trovatore's church holds, but 'there's no need, because we can pray directly to God' is like the explanations people give for why their culture does something different to another culture, or for why class differences work the way they do: it doesn't really explain, and it seems to be founded on a misunderstanding. 86.166.40.199 (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As I remember from growing up in one of the more extreme Protestant sects, their explanation of "why don't we have saints" is to quote from Romans 3:10 "there is none righteous, no, not one". As Jesus died for all humans, that puts us all on the same level and so praying to someone who was once human makes no sense: especially when God hears each and every prayer. Why speak to the monkey when you can have the organ grinder? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic approach seems to be kind of a heaven-bound extension of the organizational hierarchy they set up in the earthly church. Each saint kind of has a "specialty". The flaw in that idea is that it implies God is "too busy" to deal with everything Himself. The more modern view is that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and that the concept of God being "too busy" is obsolete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea isn't that God is too busy, so you ask a specialist saint instead, though I can see why it seems that way to many non-Roman Catholics. All you're doing (at least, all you're supposed to be doing) is asking the saint to pray with you and for you, the same way you might ask a living friend to pray for you. Most Protestants have no problem with asking a living friend to pray for them when they're going through a difficult time; Roman Catholics simply extend this to saints who may have had the same difficulties when they lived on earth. That is the official RCC line, I think (or close to it); but there is a risk that rank-and-file RCs, maybe especially less educated ones, won't grasp or remember the nuances of the difference between latria and dulia, and so may wind up actually asking the saint to help them directly, rather than merely ask the saint to pray for them. —Angr (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Catholics that I know say what I said earlier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have seen a Protestant ask a DEAD friend to pray for them... Googlemeister (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As regards Anglicans, the 22nd Article of Religion says "THE Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God."[4]. Since the mid-19th century, those Anglicans who follow the Oxford Movement in rediscovering their Catholic heritage, have taken this and several other Articles with a large pinch of salt. As the Articles themselves say; "IT is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike..."' (No 34). Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Lutherans, Anglo-Catholics... Well no, but the point is that that isn't because they 'can just pray directly to God', because the same exact reasoning applies to asking a living friend to pray for you: you could just say the prayer yourself. Most Protestants don't ask dead saints to pray for them for major theological reasons, not because they might as well pray directly themselves. The usual Protestant view of asking saints to pray for you is not that it is less effective, or not good use of your time, but that it is actively wrong, or completely ineffective. To pretend that this difference in behaviour is simply because "you can pray directly to God, so what's the point" is to trivialise fairly major theological differences, and thus trivialise the faith not only of that majority of Christians worldwide who ask saints to pray for them, but also that minority who do not. It also leads to certain Protestant youths making fools of themselves when they try to convert Catholics, as what they think is an absolute stumper leads to laughter... 86.166.40.199 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Searching for a hymn

I'm trying to remember a hymn, which is probably originally in Latin given that it is sung to a fairly standard Gregorian-chant-style tune, with the usual loose time values. The problem is, I only knew it in English and the only bit I can remember goes "If thou takest thy lo-ove away/nothing good in man will stay/all our(?) (something) flee-ee-ee-ee away." I've tried searching for these phrases, and parts of these phrases, but nothing relevant turns up.

Ring a bell for anyone? 86.164.70.27 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I've cross-referenced with someone else and I only got that half right. "If thou takest thy lo-ove away/nothing good in man will stay/all our goodness tu-u-urns to ill." and it probably starts Holy Spirit, lord of light. Possibly the Pentecost Sequence, veni sancte spiritus. 86.164.70.27 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking further, it is indeed a translation of Veni Sancte Spiritus (to which veni sancte spiritus should surely be a redirect), which is indeed the Pentecost Sequence. The problem was that I was remembering it even more wrong than I thought! (grace, not love) 86.164.70.27 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you found what you were looking for but I found the text and music here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Me again. The music is by Robert Loretz, a modern New Zealand composer. You may be used to a more traditional melody. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't come more traditional than Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, from this page. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see that score on this computer, but I'll check it out later. Thanks :) That sounds likely. 86.166.40.199 (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone mind me correcting the spelling of "Pentecost"? (It used to say "Pentacost" in 2 places.) Kenatipo ^speak! 14:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fort Knox

Since US currency is now fiat money, why does the US not sell its extensive gold reserves? Granted, as our article United States Bullion Depository states, the holdings in Fort Knox are worth a mere US$200 billion, but if it were sold cunningly, it would take a bite out of the US deficit; and it seems to me that it's just sitting there currently, serving absolutely no purpose except as a useful plot device for writers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as individuals keep savings for a rainy day, so do governments. Gold tends to hold its value whatever the economic conditions (it's known as a "safe haven"), which makes it a good choice for a reserve. --Tango (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

When the US defaults on the national debt, the dollar will lose it's value (and perhaps most other world currencies will, too). Then precious metals and gems will be the only liquid assets remaining. Enough gold could also be used to back a "new dollar" (by offering to exchange it for gold at a fixed rate, as most currencies originally did, including the US dollar). StuRat (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You've also realize that any sale of the "holy gold reserves" is no easy undertaking. In most countries it requires a special act of parliament. Few politicians (anywhere) have the balls to propose such a measure. Their political opponents will almost certainly twist such a proposal as "treason" and "betrayal" and the ignorant masses are so easy to manipulate. The politician who sold the "sacrosanct gold reserves" would certainly lose the next election (and that's something NO politician ever wants). It's way better to run a massive deficit and sell public debt (i.e.: borrow money from the international market with interest). Hereby I'm not speaking only of the US; believe it or not Portugal (who was just rescued from bankruptcy by IMF and the UE) has large gold reserves (~ 382.5 t). Read the article gold reserve; you will notice that several national governments with huge amounts of debt possess large amounts of gold. Flamarande (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points: (1) In response to StuRat, the US can never be forced into default on its national debt, because the debt is denominated in dollars, and the US has the power to print as many dollars as it needs whenever it wants. It can of course deliberately decide to default, for example by voting not to raise the debt ceiling, but that is very unlikely to happen. From a rational point of view it is always better to print money than to default. (2) The immediate effect of the US starting to sell its gold reserves would be to cause the price of gold to crash. The gains wouldn't be nearly as large as predicted, and there would be a large destabilizing effect on the international economy. Looie496 (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)_

1) Printing enough dollars to pay off the national debt would cause the dollar to collapse just as quickly as defaulting would. And I expect the US national debt to continue to grow to the point where the US is no longer willing, and then no longer able, to make even the interest payments. When smaller nations get into such trouble, they may be bailed out by the IMF, but the US debt is too large for that.

2) That's only true if it's all sold at once. If it was sold off at, say, 1% per year, then it wouldn't have much effect on the price of gold. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It would also take 100 years to get all your $$$. Googlemeister (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

StuRat assumes that the United States will default on its debt, but some constitutional scholars argue that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids default, according, for example, to this article. I agree that the United States is effectively insolvent, but I think that the much more likely outcome is that dollars will be printed (or uploaded onto servers) sufficient to pay off the debt. I agree that this would cause the dollar to collapse. In that case, the gold will come in handy, perhaps as backing for a new currency, perhaps also to pay for essential imports during a transition period. Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing that I can say confidently is that no major nation will ever again have a currency backed by gold: there simply isn't enough gold in the world. The current US baseline money supply is about two trillion dollars, which at current gold prices equates to about a third of the gold that exists in the world -- and over half of that gold is believed to be in the form of jewelry. The shortage of gold was the main reason nations went off the gold standard in the first place, and the problem is far worse now than it was in the 1920s. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

1) In addition to gold, money can be backed by silver or other precious (or non-precious) metals or gems. I suppose it could also be backed by any fixed asset, such as barrels of oil.

2) After the global economic collapse, there may be far less money to back.

3) After the global economic collapse, people will lose all faith in unbacked currencies, so they will no longer be an option. This has happened in many nations in the past, but not yet globally. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So far what I'm seeing is "there's no concrete reason, other than the general idea that it might come in handy some day." Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that you're right. Notice that it costs money to protect your gold. Remember always that the government is composed by people and that people sometimes behave irrational and that politicians are mainly in one thing: to win the next election. Flamarande (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not inconceivable to have a currency backed by gold. First, who's to say that current gold prices need apply in the future, or that the future dollar (or US GDP, or gross world product) must have the same price in gold that it does now? If the U.S. has 4600 metric tons (or about 147 million troy ounces) of gold, and it wants to maintain a money supply of $2 trillion, then it is a simple matter to set the gold price for a new gold-backed dollar (let's abbreviate it USG) at USG$13,605.44 per ounce, and the U.S. money supply would be fully backed by its gold. If the dollar's value has collapsed as the result of a monetary crisis, then there is no reason why this shouldn't work. Viewed from the perspective of today's prices, it might be terribly deflationary, but presumably such a move would entail some conversion ratio from pre-gold dollars to gold-backed dollars such that any debts surviving the monetary collapse would not be onerous.

What happened in the early 20th century was that the gold supply could not grow as fast as the world economy. One way to view that circumstance is to see a gold shortage. Another way to view it is to see a need for continual price deflation. Such deflation did in fact occur in the late 19th century, but the growth of the labor movement created political pressure to resist deflation, which was one of the factors that ultimately forced most countries off the gold standard in the 1930s. Many have questioned whether the world economy can continue to grow in the face of resource shortages, in which case price deflation might not be an issue. The real issue in that scenario would be the declining real value of the global median wage, but that would be an issue with or without a gold standard. Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There are also issues with one country having a gold standard and others not. If you are trying to use a gold peg to prevent your currency devaluing, you'll have to sell lots of gold to do so (to maintain a lower than market price for gold, you have to be willing to sell at that price to anyone that wants to buy). Sooner or later, you would run out. --Tango (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In that scenario, the central bank merely needs to raise interest rates on dollar (i.e. gold) deposits to the point where the country has a net gold balance or surplus. This will have the effect of deflating prices in a gold-backed currency to make the country's exports more competitive. If the United States were the only country on the gold standard and the public understood how it worked and the advantage of periodic wage and price deflation, the United States would attract gold because it would be the only place where interest could be earned on gold deposits. The steady loss of gold would be an incentive to other countries to adopt a similar gold standard. It would be in all countries' interests to cooperate on setting fair pegs to avoid a competitive deflationary spiral. Countries that didn't play fair could be subject to trade embargoes. Marco polo (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. The United States of America will not return to a gold standard because every year it runs a massive amount of External debt (and this is nothing new, it has done so for several decades). If it somehow returned to the gold standard countries with large amounts of US dollars would return large amounts of their dollar reserves and exchange them for gold. This was one of the basic problems of the gold standard and one of the main reasons why the US left it in the 1970's. Read the article Nixon Shock.

No, AFAIK there is no magic solution for the current mess. IMHO this time (when the US government becomes unable to pay/afford the increasing rates) it's going to hurt. Why do you think that many countries are changing their currency reserves into currency baskets? It's because they are realizing that to have all your monetary reserves (eggs) as a single currency like the US dollar (basket) is dangerous. The only question is if the US dollar will lose its value slowly or quickly. Flamarande (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) PS: Several of you believe that the price of gold is somehow going to collapse if a central bank announced that it was going to sell its gold reserves. However that would largely depend how much and how fast it sold its gold. If you sell large quantities of gold in a very short amount of time the price would take a serious beating. However if you sell small quantities over a larger amount of time the price will remain relatively stable.

[slight unindent] Agreed that there is no magic solution. I'm not even necessarily advocating the gold standard as a solution, though I think we are going to need some alternative to faith-based currencies once that faith is broken. I never suggested that the United States would "return" the gold standard with the current imbalances or the current currency in place. I know all about the collapse of the gold standard in the 1930s and the Bretton-Woods standard in the 1960s and 70s. I indicated clearly in preceding posts that a dollar collapse would precede the adoption of a gold standard or some other reality-based standard, as opposed to the current faith-based standard. In such a scenario, as I indicated previously, the United States would have printed (or uploaded to servers) dollars sufficient to pay off its obligations in old, faith-based dollars before adopting a new, reality-based currency. It is kind of absurd to think that the United States is going to agree to pay off its debt in dollars with a steady value with the stagnating or shrinking economy that would result from fiscal contraction (despite supply-side theory). If Greece cannot pay off its debt even within the straitjacket of the euro, it is silly to think that the United States would voluntarily attempt such a thing when it can just print its debts away. Obviously, after the United States has a monetary crisis, it would no longer be able to build up external debt and will be forced to live within its means. That is what will be painful for the United States, though it will also be painful for countries like China whose reserves will lose their value and who will lose an important export market. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your plan is that you seem to believe that the other countries (like China) are going to passively look how an enormous amounts of US dollars are printed and that they are going to accept to be paid by these dollars just before the US government declares that it has paid its debts and that now it's going to issue a completly new currency (I might be mistaken with my summary). No, the other countries are watching the US economy (and the printing machines) carefully enough. Remember that just a couple of months ago the US government announced that it was going to print more money and that China and the UE reacted quickly upon this news. The other countries are not blind, they are watching carefully what one of the biggest debtors of the world is doing. The stakes are too high to take this upon faith. Flamarande (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But what could those other nations ultimately do, other than complain ? If, by that point, the US no longer is able to pay the interest, then no amount of complaining will fix that. Just like in personal bankruptcy cases, it's irrelevant whether the creditors want to accept reduced payment, there's just no other option. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You've to realize that it takes lots of time to print enough money to pay of the enormous debt (unless its done secretly - fat chance of that). The other countries will find out and will complain (loudly). If the US government persist they will sell their US dollar reserves asap, just before the US tries to pay of its debts (they would probably exchange their reserve dollars for other currencies - the value of the US dollar would plummet in the international market). Then the US is flooded by a money deluge, its currency becomes less valuable than toilet paper and the US economy (and the world economy) will simply collapse.

Another thing you're neglecting is the important detail that your plan not only hurts the other countries (like China). It mainly hurts the average US citizen whose economies in his local bank are in US dollars and who is paid in US dollars. Your plan clearly makes his economies worthless and his vague will become insufficient to pay food. He will not forgive that in a 100 years. As a matter of fact your plan reminds me of what happened to Germany after WWI. As I said: IMHO there is no magic solution for this problem. There is no cunning plan clever enough to pay of the public debt, ignore the external debt and save the US economy; all at the same time. Flamarande (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC) PS: Don't ask me for magic solutions. I like to think that I'm a realist and a cynic, not a wonder-maker.

When we talk about "printing money" we don't mean actually producing notes and coins. It's all done electronically, so it doesn't take any time at all. --Tango (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's NOT all done electronically (where did you get that idea?). While a large portion of wealth is registered in computers there still is huge amounts of paper money and coins. The national prints still print tremendous amounts of banknotes every hour. Don't ask me about the exact ratio, but AFAIK a bank is obliged by law to keep a certain amount of paper money in their main vaults. Flamarande (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course some money is printed, but those bank notes are just being printed to replace existing worn out notes (with a few extras printed to allow for economic growth and inflation). When we talk about a government printing money in order to pay its debts, we don't mean it literally. It would be done electronically. The US national debt is around $10 trillion. The total amount of US dollar notes and coins in circulation is about $1 trillion. Transactions on the scale of a significant proportion of the national debt could never be done in physical currency. --Tango (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tango: you are right on this. This bank reserve requirements that Flamarande alludes to are a completely different thing, completely unrelated to the central bank issuing money, which is more than 90% electronic. Paper money is there for convenience only, the real money is moving in the form of bit and bytes. 212.169.191.38 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect it to be painless or "magic". I fully expect a global economic collapse to occur. The question is, though, how the world and US will recover after. A much smaller supply of "new dollars" backed by gold, silver, or whatever, might be a way forward. StuRat (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words: The US has "a cunning plan" which will somehow solve all its problems: United States public debt, huge trade deficit and tremendous external debt. The cunning USA will somehow cheat the other countries because these are obviously blind and stupid. The other countries will end up with huge piles of worthless toilet paper with the faces of dead American presidents printed upon it, while the US gets a new currency as a free bailout. Never mind that the main victim of this "cunning plan" is the average American taxpayer and voter. He will certainly understand that his live savings have become suddenly worthless. He won't be mad as hell because the money that he saved for the education of his kids simply vanished and that the money he gets paid at the end of the month is just enough to pay a couple of chewing gums. He will understand that there was no other way to save the US economy because hey he ended as healthy and wealthy as ever. Riiiiight.

Sorry to be blunt, but you are seriously underestimating the intelligence of the other countries. They have economists too, and as smart as American ones (except for Venezuela, Bolivia and a couple of others who are determined to become bankrupt to follow the great Cuban example :( ). IMHO they're already acting to prevent a global currency meltdown. Whereas in the past most countries kept the majority of the foreign currency reserves in the from of US dollars these days they are reducing the their piles of US dollars and are busy buying other currencies, thereby investing in currency baskets. Have you ever wondered why they are doing this? Haven't you ever wondered why the dollar's foreign exchange rate has been in a steady fall for the past couple of years? Now, fell free to call me crazy, but IMHO this is happening precisely because the other countries (and the economists, the wealthy, the speculators...) already know that US currency has huge problems. Certainly, I also believe that the current situation of the US public finances is unsustainable on the long run, and that something is bound to crack sooner or later but the US will not take the world economy down with it. I know that I wrote that world economy will simply collapse. But let's get real: this isn't the 1980's. These days the world has other large economies (China, EU and Japan even India, Brazil, Russia, etc) which will hold the tide. It will cost them a lot and the world economy will certainly take a beating but it will survive. They have learnt some painful lessons with the American subprime crisis. Try to give them some credit: they are not blind and they are not stupid. Flamarande (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored everything I said and decided that I must have meant something completely different. The US won't do this because they think it's an EASY way out, it will be the ONLY way out, when it's no longer possible to make interest payments on the debt. It will cause the US economy to collapse. As for the effect on the rest of the world, that depends on how soon it happens. Certainly if it happened today, the world economy is highly dependent on the US economy and would also suffer a collapse. This includes India and China, which depend on sales to the US. China also holds a huge chunk of US debt. Selling it off is problematic, too, as they would have difficulty finding buyers and it would also bring the crisis forward, if the US could no longer "borrow from Peter to pay Paul". StuRat (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything (but let's be honest: everyone interprets the data individually - everyone is free to reach different conclusions). You seem to defend that the only way out for the US is a return to the gold standard. Forget it: there is not enough gold for such a step. IMHO the US government has three main options: 1st) raise taxes, spend less, sell more and pay of its debts. That might mean to sell valuable stuff like a major part of the gold reserves. The president (and party) who takes these steps loses the next election. 2nd) declare bankruptcy and renegotiate the repayments like Greece. 3rd) (the easiest one) is to do nothing, keep borrowing money and wait until the interest rates become unsustainable. The last option ends up a major financial and economic collapse. Flamarande (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you seem to have ignored my earlier 1-2-3 post, where I mentioned specific ways in which a backed currency could be restored. Also note that I don't expect this only to be an issue in the US. After the global economic collapse, people will lose faith in many currencies. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your claims are not backed by data. When I look at the chart comparing the dollar to the euro:

[5], I don't see any "the dollar's foreign exchange rate has been in a steady fall for the past couple of years". The same is the case with the pound. 212.169.191.38 (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's because you focused yourself solely upon the problematic Euro and your site only shows the last 5 years at best. There are other major Reserve currencies out there and for a history of the Euro/dollar exchange you should rather use this site and then select the option all (to show the history of the last 11 years). The US dollar started on the 4th of January 1999 valuing 0.8482 Euro and 11 years later it's worth 0.6896 Euro. The US dollar seems to be losing ground since 2000, and remember there are other major currencies too. Try the Swiss Franc for example [6]. Flamarande (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't focused on the "problematic Euro". I said Euro and Pound. And you clearly stated "past couple of years." Now you decide to change that to 11 years, so it still makes - a little bit - sense. A "steady fall" is certainly only a product of some fertile imagination. Furthermore, all your comments seem to be based on the wishful thinking that the US will fail. What about admitting that the US deprecated its currency on purpose? And that that is causing others some problems, but at the same time helping the US pay its debt? 212.169.191.38 (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you clearly focused yourself upon the Euro. You only provided a single chart (which compared the dollar to the Euro), so please forgive my assumption (you only mentioned the Pound). If you return to the ECB site and use all provided options (1 month, 3 months 6 months, etc) you will see that this not "a product of some fertile imagination": the dollar is falling in all time periods (past couple of years). This isn't a case of "my wishful thinking that the US will fail". This is a case of "We believe that a simple cunning plan may solve all the financial problems of the US. The US may simply return to a gold standard or simply print enough money to pay all its debts in one swift stroke. In the end the US economy will survive largely unharmed while the other countries will hold large piles of worthless US notes." My reply is: "No, worldwide economics and currency exchange rates simply don't work that way. There is no easy way to cheat and somehow beat the system. All countries are watching each other carefully (and especially the USA) and will react quickly enough. There is no easy way out of this mess." Flamarande (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You invented something out of your own imagination and then replied to it. I never said anything about a "cunning plan". StuRat (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am having the same problems with Flamarande as StuRat above. It's difficult to assume good faith in such a situation. I just ask me what kind of belief/bias/error in reasoning is that, we must have a list here in WK somewhere. Anyway, I didn't "focused on the Euro". I linked to a a Euro chart for the last 2 years. I clearly mentioned the Pound. Definitely, if you choose a random period to compare the Dollar with the Euro or Pound you'll see that it goes up and down. Even if the Dollar has temporarily a weaker value, that doesn't mean it is "steadily falling." It is related with the interest rate and that is to make US goods cheaper and more sale-able as exports. 212.169.186.192 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)