I may have compassion for the man who breaks into my home and starts beating my children, but the bottom line is I will use whatever force necessary to preserve them.

If I need not use lethal force, great. If the man is in a drugged stupor and nothing short of a deadly blow to the head with a blunt object stops him from strangling my child. There goes the swing with the blunt object.

Morality is different for everyone.

Some folks might stand back and believe they are letting "nature" take it's course as the man strangles their children. People like that, IMHO, generally don't deserve children or deserve to be in charge of preserving others' collective welfare. Other's might call the UN 911 and let them deal with it and hope it turn's out OK. Of course, by that time your children are dead and the police arrive too late.

Other's will risk doing an "evil" and "illegal" act to prevent another "evil" act. Fortunately, our laws takes circumstance into account and realizes that if one's swing was not done with malice but was done to preserve others it is no longer illegal. When that happens the act ceases to be evil from one's objective frame of reference. Self-preservation and the preservation of others from violence is the most fundamental "right" of mankind.

That makes all the difference in the world and why I do not lose any sleep over the detainees at Guantanamo.

Once you let nihilists create moral equivalence and rob you of your own frame of reference - you lose.

Sure, the drugged out killer may believe he is being moral too. That's why this is a violent world. With no end of violence in sight. Laws and morals only have meaning when people obey them. When your laws are disobeyed the lawbreakers are punished. However when the lawbreakers are from foreign lands and don't give a fig about your laws, then what happens next is what has happened since man evolved on Earth - violence. Each side trying to force others to conform to their beliefs.

You and Tom are doing the same thing here. In lieu of physical violence it has been softened to verbal violence. That is the gift of western civilization. But western civilization confronts a dilemma when dealing with folks who do not verbally engage, but instead "debate" with deadly force.

Objective morality means one must first fix a center, a real frame of reference, from which to determine right and wrong as they apply to one's own existence.

The US has the moral right to fix that center towards our own self-interest, and preserve US lives, as other nations bend morality to serve their own interests.

Exceptional circumstances dictate the threshold of objective morality. Our government has done what it has felt was necessary to protect Americans from a steady diet of terror attacks. So far it seems to be working. For any American that is a real, tangible and objective result. That the US is constantly reviewing these things is part of the process and welcomed and evidence of our relatively high moral standards. Just like any investigation into the death of an intruder in one's home would be expected as well.

No sane person wants to kill, injure or inflict suffering on others. That is why we are at a tactical disadvantage in dealing with those who do.