Cindy Sheehan, writing in an article titled At What Price, Safety? at Buzzflash today made some excellent points arguing against the use of aggression by the US military against the people of Iraq. She, like many others, realizes that the illusion of security that the federal government claims to provide could never justify its current actions – killing, violations of liberty and the like.

From the article:

One of the more morally reprehensible notes from the supporters of death I receive is the one that goes something like this: “I am for peace, too, but not at the expense of my family.” These people are saying that it is okay to ruin my family and thousands of other families in the U.S. who have been torn apart like the bodies of our loved ones to keep other families “safe.” I have news for these people, as bad as the sacrifices have been for some families in America, the people of Iraq have suffered far more for the deceptions and greed of BushCo…

…What makes Mrs. Safety think the Iraqi babies are less precious than her babies? Does the geographic accident of her baby’s births give them more right to be safe than the Iraqi babies? Maybe Mrs. Safety thinks her babies deserve more protection because they are white and Christian? Or just maybe because they are hers?

She’s absolutely right. Long ago, people realized that the “divine right of kings” was morally repugnant; that it’s absurd to accept the idea that, by some accident of birth, certain people have more rights than others. Sadly, this way of thinking is still pervasive in the halls of government, and we see its results in Iraq every day.

Bush and his criminal cohorts in the Republican and Democratic parties seem to think that as long as they can create what we believe to be a “secure” America, that it’s within their rights to violate the most basic rights of men, women and children in other countries. This becomes more and more obvious every day – politicians from both sides overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq, and much of the recent opposition to it has risen only in response to “failure” or “mismanagement.”

But, this war would be a moral abomination whether it ended in victory or defeat. The problem doesn’t lie in how the war is waged, but in the idea that killing people to achieve political goals is acceptable.

The solution to this madness is not simply a change of course in Iraq (or Afghanistan), but rather a complete change in our point of view. No person has any right, whatsoever, to use aggression to take the life of another.

It is morally acceptable to go after criminals, but it is a crime to kill their families, their friends, their neighbors, or anyone else not criminally complicit. Murder is murder whether it’s committed by a person or a king.

Every person has a right to do what they want with their person or property as long as by doing so they don’t infringe on other people’s rights to do the same. We, as a society, need to start living by that principle – and realize that criminals are criminals whether they’re robbing banks or getting elected.