www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News A Byzantine Response to the Military Tribunals

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Today I read the following quote in the New York Times that caused me to pause about the Byzantine Christian response to this proposal:

"An official said one difficulty in finding an overseas base for the tribunals was that many military installations, especially those in Europe, were leased from countries that prohibit the death penalty. Holding the trials on ships remains an option, although another official said that was being thought of as a last resort."

The reason for this quandry is the United States wanting to use the death penalty to punish Bin Laden and his followers. What should our response be as the Byzantine Community?

In my view, the use of the death penalty was always very limited in Byzantium (except in the case of Palace intrigue)---rather the case was always left open for the repentence and recovery of the sinner as shown by Byzantine thought and practice. Would it not be more appropriate to sentence these men to Life, with the hope of rehabilitation and recovery, rather than vendetta and vengence killing through legal execution? It seems that the followers of Bin Laden and other Islamic Terrorist groups wish for martyrdom that our greatest "punishment" would be a long life and denial of that martyrdom they so badly seek.

We know that the Lord has told us, "Judge not, Lest ye be judged" perhaps as Byzantine Americans we need to advocate for justice tempered in Mercy.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Thomas ]

The Universal Pastor has been extremely articulate for us on this matter. I would hope our civil authorities give his teachings due consideration.

K.

I must say that I agree with Kurt on this one. The DP is not supported by Christian teaching -- either Orthodox or Catholic (although the witness of each of these communions has not been consistent on the issue over the course of 2,000 years).

There's a pragmatic aspect of the problem. If these Talibs are being held, are they POWs? Probably don't meet the definition of POW per the Geneva Convention because they are not acting on behalf of a state. Normally, a POW would be held and then returned to the state of origin in an exchange of POWs at some point. But, again, these are not acting on behalf of a state. I supppose that the US could release them to a newly-formed Afghan government at some point (no protection against the DP there, though -- probably much worse fate/much less fair than a US military tribunal), or perhaps to their respective states of origin (again, not a very happy solution for them, because in places like Saudi they would probably be looking at the DP, too).

Brendan

As I understand it, a Catholic Christian should be opposed to the death penalty unless no other way exists to stop the spread of further violence/crime by the prisoner.

Therefore, for people such as John Walker the American Taliban, and other low level Al-Qaeda and Taliban folks, I would say the punishment should not exceed "life in prison without parole".

With Bin laden, though, I seriously doubt that even if we locked him up, we could effectively stop the al-Qaeda network from getting messages from him, etc. So I believe that the death penalty *may* be necessary for him and his top aides. But that would be only if we can't stop him from running al-Qaeda in jail.

anastasios

Some people say (of course not in the USA) that Bin laden must be judged according to the Islamic Laws and an Islamic Tribunal and not by the secular authorities of the USA, because he and his followers wouldn't have a right defense; or by the International court in Holland.

By any definition, my political viewpoints qualify me as a conservative, but I have always been ambiguous about the DP, except (I said this before 9/11) in cases of treason.
I don't think the Taliban qualify as POW's-they are terrorists who should be executed. We are fighting a war against them, and the usual standards of conduct don't apply to terrorists.
I certainly don't feel too sad about OBL biting the bullet, though we obviously shouldn't rejoice in bloodthirsty behaviour. That is why I'm glad military tribunals are being set up-these sorts of executions should be private. The spectacle of death is not something to be glorified.

In Christ,

Michael

For me, the question is clear: "Thou shalt not kill."

There's no footnote on the commandment.

Despite what Osama bin Laden and his cohorts have done, we, as Christians, are held to a higher authority. Restrain him and hold him incommunicado in prison? Sure. Prevent him and his buddies from ever doing anything like this again? Ab-so-freakin-lutely! (We'd be nuts if we did otherwise.)

But we must not harm him or any other human being. The Commandment is clear.

Blessings to all!

I propose that the Byzantine perspective is the same as the Roman perspective. The Just War concept as originally proposed by St. Augustine (remember he is esteemed by both West and East) comes into play.

The risk associated with Bin Laden is not associated with his personal freedom any more. It is now associated with his very existence. His incarceration would place his guards at risk, many innocents who may be the victims of terrorist acts enacted to gain his freedom, the new political leaders of Afghanistan, as well as those previously involved in underground resistance. He has become an iconic representation of the Jihad, the Holy War. As such, I am reminded of the icons of St. George and St. Demetrius which very often show them slaying a dragon, or a human foe, respectively.

With that said, it must also be questioned as to whose responsibility it is to perform the execution. Is it mine, one who holds no official position or function in securing and maintaining the peace? It would seem that my only motivations for carrying out the execution would be a personal retribution or a desire for vain glory. His crime is "against humanity" and his sentence must be carried out by those placed in the position to represent humanity. They must act, not individually, but on behalf of all.

There are exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill." One is not burdened with mortal sin in the case of an accidental death. Similarly, one has not sinned in the case of self-defense. In the situation of a just war against an individual, a country, or some other corporate structure, the defense is in the name of the innocent victims. At this holy time, we are reminded of the innocents who were slaughtered by Herod.

Christ is born!
Glorify Him!

Fr. Dcn. John

Not quite.

The original Hebrew text for the Fifth (Sixth if you use the reckoning of Exodus 20) Commandment of the Decalogue is simply "Lo tikh.", which literally means "no-murder". We would render this as "Thou shalt not murder."

Indeed, Mosaic law was replete with laws requiring the death penalty. Obviously, the ancient Israelites understood the Fifth Commandment did not forbid the taking of human life for purposes that served justice. In fact, Mosaic law allowed a private citizen related to the victim of a murder to kill the perpetrator - the person who sought to kill the murderer was called the go'el hadam (avenger of blood).

Now, whatever you might say about Christ demanding a higher standard of mercy from us, or that customs such as lex talionis or go'el hadam are unnecessary in this day, I truly believe that such a simplistic, out-of-context (and badly translated, to boot!) quoting of the Fifth Commandment does not amount to an argument against the death penalty. In fact, I think such an argument on that basis undermines the concept of justice.

In short: Whatever your opposition to the death penalty, base it on something other than lifting a badly-translated quote of the Fifth Commandment out of context.

Disclaimer: This post does not indicate my support of, or opposition to, the death penalty.

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: NDHoosier ]

OK. But since the commandments are oftentimes cited as the 'base' of our morality, I get real uncomfortable when one adds codicils. "bear false witness" -- but if it serves my purpose, I can lie. "honor thy father and thy mother" -- unless it's inconvenient or interferes with my life. "honor the Sabbath" -- unless I need the money and so I work. "not commit adultery" -- well my spouse is ill or not fulfilling my needs.

Sorry, I don't water the commandments down.

Certainly the Jews had all kinds of exceptions.

But Christ's two major commandments of love of God and love of neighbor don't merely supercede the Commandments, but rather raise them to a much higher level. We follow the Commandments; and we understand them in the light of the Gospel teaching which does not, in my opinion, allow us anything else but to be perfect in love.

Surely, murder is an evil. But for us to kill another as a recompense for murder reduces us to the level of the Old Testament Jews. Although the Hebrew National (hot dog) commercial says "we answer to a higher authority", we Christians answer to that same higher Authority, and in a more perfect way.

The earliest Christians didn't hesitate to offer their own lives as witness to the faith; nor did they seek 'revenge' or the more PC: 'justice' when they were persecuted. And they would have been justified in doing so -- but they chose not to.

Can we do less?

As for bin Laden, putting him in a jail at an undisclosed location, or moving him periodically from place to place, would substantially reduce the danger to his jailers. And hold him in solitary confinement, and incommunicado.

Happy New Year!

Blessings!

I think you owe me an apology for that asinine and uncalled-for statement.

The implication in your statement is that I *do* water the commandments down.

I simply presented a contextual and linguistic correction and challenged you to come up with a legitimate basis for your opposition to the death penalty. I didn't say you were wrong in opposing it - I just said you need to find a better reason. Maybe YOU don't need a better reason, but if you're going to convine anyone else, you probably will.

to continue...


OK, now you're starting to give a more cogent argument - one that puts the Commandments in the context of the Gospel.

There is one thing that just rubs me the wrong way. In this country (and much of the West), we seem to get our panties in a knot over how we should treat the perpetrator, and lose sight of how we should treat the perpetrator's victims. Somehow, telling a victim he or she should just "take it on the chin for Jesus" doesn't seem very charitable to me at all.

I'm not Byzantine or Christian and maybe I am transgressing by posting on this subject, but if Usama bin Ladin is (1) taken prisoner, and if (2) he is sentenced to life in prison and squirreled away "incommunicado" (actually an impossibility in America, what with a free press and the insatiable hunger for "news"), America and the world at large, including the Muslim world, will be faced with a never ending string of hostage takings and terrorist attacks to free Usama bin Ladin from his American "Bastille."

How many lives are Christians willing to sacrifice to keep bin Ladin ( Abu Kafir) alive? And is it moral to inflict death and mayhem on the rest of the world in the name of your (I admit) highly moral (but impractical and even lethal) position?

I agree with the position of a young Pakistani Muslim poster, who loves Islam but despises Mullahs and self-chosen Saladeens, as many of us do, that Abu Jihad ibn Kafir (Usama) should be sent to his death with a pork chop in his mouth mounted on a sow! I don't know if any of you can understand that, but Muslims certainly do.

Bottom line: Are you willing to see more terrorist killings of innocent people in order to spare yourself the (admittedly odious) task of executing (killing) bin Ladin? That is the moral quandary, in my opinion. And is it "love of neighbor (in a broad sense)" to expose them to death by terrorism?

Abdur


Unapologetic Muslim savage (who probably speaks for the majority of Americans and Muslims.)

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends" (Gandalf, The Lord of the Rings).

This topic deals with what is a very complicated situation. As Brendan points out the teaching of the Churches has not been consistent. It has developend within the past fifty years within the Catholic Communion in my personal experience.

I think it possible that the application of the Law of Love which underlies all the commandments will develop even further in the teachings of the Churches as they deal with an unprecedented kind of war. I concur with Brendan as he points out in another thread; there can be disagreement about how one shows love.

As Dr. John points out, we are commanded to love without reserve. We are commanded to love Usama and those engaged in the unprovoked violence visited in all parts of the world. We are commanded to love those whom he and others have had part in killing and those whom they have threatened. We are called also to care and protect in love those to whom his existence is a continuing threat even to this moment.

I believe that Bin Laden, if not killed in resisting capture or other military or investigative actions, will be brought to trial and will be condemned to death.

In my personal estimation, those who have legitimate civil authority on any level have the responsibility in love and justice to protect those for whom his incarceration will increase the danger of death like those which happened on 9/11. In this context, it seems to me that those with such authority have the right to impose the death sentence in the name of justice and of protection of the innocent.

I believe, though, that even in the case of Usama Bin Laden, his death, and the wishing of it, wrought in vengence is wrong! It seems to me that that attitude toward taking life is the same on the part of Ben Laden who murders from a sense of revenge on perceived evildoers and on the part of those who also wish his death simply from a sense of revenge.

On one hand, I'm not sure that anyone can completely eliminate that element from thinking about and discussing this topic. Certainly, in that part of me which I have, in my sinfulness, kept from realizing the power of Christ's Redemptive Love, I am not yet able to so so.

On the other hand, I think that we must try to eliminate that element in our judgement process. As Dr. John reminds us we are commanded to love and forgive. One of the measures of how much we have grown in love and deserve His forgiveness ourselves, I think, is the degree to which we can come to view Ben Ladens' death, deserved though it may be, with sadness that another human has died in this evil episode.

I don't post this as a Byzantine. After all, I am Latin. I post my reflection in the hope that others here can help to clarify it in the spirit of fraternal correction in a Byzantine theological perspective.

Fraternally,
Steve
JOY!

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear Abdur,

I understand your reference to pork and contact with it in living and prepared forms that you wish upon Usama. At least, I think I do. If I do, it is in truth a most serious curse hoping that he will die without possibility of salvation.

To wish eternal separation from God for Ossama does nothing to what God will work for him in His mercy and justice. As an unthinking and unprayerful reaction, it is an understandable human reaction. For Christians, wishing it in any other context, in my opinion, puts one in conflict with the commandments that set the minimal standards of behavior for us.

I ask without meanness or insult, is the principle the same or different in either the new or other forms of Isalm? This is simply a request for information and not a baiting question.

In Peace!

Steve
JOY!