« National Debt is an Unpopular Topic Among Candidates | Main | Pro-Life Blogs Launches »
Initial Thoughts on Saddam's Deception and the U.S. Led Invasion
There is a point that I've been mulling around in my mind and contemplating related to the war in Iraq. I would appreciate some peer review prior to pursing the ideas further.
There is a principle in Deut. 19 that penalizes a false witness according to the nature of his false claim. For example, a false witness in a murder trial would receive the same penalty as if he had done the crime because his testimony, if accepted, would lead to the punishment of an innocent person.
In 2 Sam. 1:15, an Amalekite messenger bears false witness against himself in the fabled mercy killing of Saul. He produced a second witness by carrying with him Saul’s crown and his bracelet. Because the Amalekite testified that he killed the King of Israel he was executed by David’s decree.
Later, when it was learned that the Amalekite did not kill Saul, was David questioned and called hasty or unjust? The answer is no. King David was fully justified in ordering the just penalty on the Amalekite messenger who falsely testified against himself on the basis of Deut. 19.
Based on the Duefler report, it is clear that Saddam Hussein was engaged in a campaign of widespread deception. To intimidate neighboring countries, one of his objectives was to continue the appearance of having WMD. He appears to have been successful and even fooled his own generals (in addition to Sen. John Kerry, Pres. Clinton and Pres. Bush).
While attempting to gain a favorable status, the Amalekite messenger misunderstood the seriousness of what he claimed to have done. Similarly,
If Saddam did indeed portray Iraq as having WMD he testified against himself to the peril of his own nation and people. He wanted the world to believe he had WMD and was capable of using them. The U.S. and 30 other countries believed him and acted upon Saddam’s misinformation. Who bears the blame for Saddam’s deceit? It would seem, based on Deut. 19 that it is Saddam.
It is on this basis that I agree with Jeremy (Parableman) that the Duefler report does not undermine Bush’s position at all. I also found the entry at the Evangelical Outpost to be helpful. It considers in some depth the legal basis for the U.S. led invasion.
Posted by tim at October 12, 2004 12:10 PM
- We’ve been deceived in the most profound manner - Jul 30, 2007
- Don't Live Your Faith - Jun 25, 2007
- Thanksgiving Praise - Nov 23, 2006
- False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel - Oct 07, 2006
- Islamic Cartoons - Feb 09, 2006
- A Belief System - Dec 20, 2005
- Those Bleating Sheep - Dec 19, 2005
- Blessings to you on Thanksgiving Day - Nov 23, 2005
- A Lesson from the Life and Death of Terri Schiavo - Jun 20, 2005
- Happy Father's Day - Jun 19, 2005
Comments
It shouldn't be of too much surprise that I agree with you. I hadn't thought of the connection with false witness against oneself in the OT, but that makes my point even stronger. I can imagine a few different ways to make the sentence grammatical, so I won't presume any one of them is the one you meant to write.
Reread your last sentence. You left a word or part of a word out or something.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at October 12, 2004 12:41 PM
Thanks - I always appreciate your comments and have attempted to correct the last sentence. Hopefully it is clearer.
Posted by: tim at October 12, 2004 12:47 PM
Site map