The Salvation War: Pantheocide Epilogue Up

[Edward Yee]

Yes, I do actually, because there's nothing legal about it. If you look at various laws as written, it is clearly illegal to "order a hit" on someone in secret with no due process, no judicial review, and no opportunity to defend oneself. The closest a "hit" comes to being legal is during a time of declared war. You know, that thing Congress hasn't had the balls to do since December 8, 1941. It is supposed to be Congress' responsibility to declare war; instead, they have pissed that away, allowing the President to do pretty much whatever he wants.

Which in turn raises an interesting point. So far the only official declaration of war shown in TSW has been the United States' declaration of war, which was in fact done through normal channels, officially done and by Congress at that, specifying Satan's regime in Hell and Yahweh's regime in Heaven as the enemy... both conditions of which have been fulfilled, with human-installed regimes in their place (albeit with strong hidden influence by a former regime member in the latter case). On the other hand, while the US military as of chapter 84 may see itself as performing military operations other than war (MOOTW) or "counterinsurgency" (COIN) or security and stability operations (SASO). On the other hand, where's the continued legal authority to have US troops in Heaven coming from? And that's being even going into the legal nitty-gritty (well, if it actually exists as opposed to being by fiat) of other countries' "declarations of war"...

And that's true not just within the US. I see no attempt raise the issue in the world court either. World leaders cover each other's asses, because think of the can of worms it would open up if someone actually tried bring charges against former Bush admin officials in the Hague. It will never happen.

Haven't there been several attempts already?

So yes, I'd like to keep this a nation of laws instead of men. It's not the easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.

Wouldn't be surprised if a LOT of people (both in TSW and IRL), and not just the fat cats, are mentally adding to that, "... up until it conflicts with my privileges"... notice that I said privileges, NOT rights.

Besides, hits on terrorist leaders is treating the symptom, not the illness. Leaders will simply be martyred and replaced, and the terrorist group carries on. Treat the underlying illness (which is usually crippling poverty), and the terrorists become irrelevant and loose their local support. That's why terrorists attack humanitarian aid workers and supplies, because they know allowing real aid to get through will undermine their power base. It's much easier to find and arrest the bastards if the people they claim to be helping want nothing more to do with them.

This part sounds like it's more suited for N&P, and is actually quite interesting considering the recent Pakistani Taliban threat to do just that (to foreign aid workers).

[GrayAnderson]

Setting aside the morality of the matter, I do think that something along the lines of what Yee drew up will probably make a comeback. With that said, I expect severe blowback as soon as the government gets caught overreaching. It's one thing to, say, remove Hitler or Stalin. However, let's assume that they get caught in some form going after somebody seen as inoffensive by most people (or at least someone who can make a plea of "It's been a thousand years since I hurt anyone") if not held in decent respect (Alexander the Great leaps to mind as a candidate for this).

The key here is that the blowback is likely to carry back onto Earth if it seriously unsettles Heaven or Hell (or anywhere else we have Second Lifers showing up). To put it bluntly, I very much suspect that you're going to get a lot of voters who will want a comfortable existence on Earth, yes, but they also want to see a stable place to shuffle off to. Put another way, nobody cares what happens in Afghanistan unless they either plan to go there or they can see how it would affect them. If you get Alexander the Great (or heaven forbid Julius Caesar) surviving a botched hit and then going on TV to raise Hell, you can bet there's going to be damage...particularly if that shouting match results in attacks against, say, Americans in Hell.

Two other (brief) points:
1) Yee: Yes, there have been attempts, but primarily by local judges with limited jurisdiction. As far as I can tell, nobody's paying them much heed.
2) A thought came to mind: I suspect that the two-hour delay (I think Stuart said it was about that) in resurrections is something of a failsafe mechanism against duplicate resurrections (as I don't think many people have been legally dead for more than an hour or so and then resurrected). That said...are there any instances of someone being rather deceased (dying on the OR table), brought back, and still having a second life body generated? This of course leads to an odd spin on resuscitation orders: "If it is practical to do so, attempts at resuscitation are to continue until such time as I am found to have resurrected."

[Edward Yee]

As well as they shouldn't (care that is), since said attempts will most likely go nowhere; it's only "universal jurisdiction" claims that anyone will notice.

I'm sure that this will come up more than once at some point in TSW: It Ain't Cheating Unless You Get Caught.

Setting aside the morality of the matter, I do think that something along the lines of what Yee drew up will probably make a comeback. With that said, I expect severe blowback as soon as the government gets caught overreaching. It's one thing to, say, remove Hitler or Stalin. However, let's assume that they get caught in some form going after somebody seen as inoffensive by most people (or at least someone who can make a plea of "It's been a thousand years since I hurt anyone") if not held in decent respect (Alexander the Great leaps to mind as a candidate for this).

My hypothetical "presidential finding" I recognize probably left out a lot of caveats, disclaimers and details that might be in an actual one. Possibly a notice as to when the intelligence committees are to be notified (I'm gonna guess that bcoogler doesn't like the IRL "as soon as possible"), as well as specific examples of how the target had become a clear and present danger. Based on the example I gave ("by means up to and including"), since the capability to perform nonlethal operations to the desired effect is implied, there could also be a caveat that immediate notification of the committees was required if a decision to kill the target had been made by the executive had been made at any stage of the operations sanctioned by this finding, even if the actual tactical direction of such an attempt was left out of Congressional hand, or even left entirely to the shooter(s).

Though, I can also see such findings being issued but backdated to selectively cover any unsanctioned incidents that the USG does find out about... which is a double-edged sword. At no point have I written the hypothetical finding with intent of it being a "get out of jail" coupon, even "written such a way in-universe."

The two most justifiable criteria would most likely be: #1 Recalcitrance (with regards to past crimes... though yeah, "crimes" will most likely be defined based on how recent), and #2 if they're trying to stir things up in Hell. It's not like the HEA leadership is above deposing (publicly anyway) a non-Earth regime that's practically bending over for them, so it'd be interesting as a thought experiment to see what'd happen if Second-Life Hitler somehow got enough followers still believing in him to kick off a "Fourth Reich" in Hell... but relatively geographically isolated, hence the possibility of lebensraum without "having" to invade other Hell nations (and thereby possibly increasing the unacceptability of doing so).

Basically if Second-Life Hitler decides that he wants to kick off an aggressive Fourth Reich that would encroach on the Hell nations (not just the New Roman Republic), and especially if he declares this up front -- then that kill order can't come soon enough. If Second-Life Hitler decides that he just wants to fade into obscurity and not make any political moves, though... well, considering that he's Hitler, that'll be interesting to see how people (both First-Life and Second-Life) react, in particular to see whether it'd be a sign of slippery slope or not...

Like with Petraeus' decision about infantry, we need to start asking these questions, if not finding out the answers, fast before some unsanctioned operation blows up in First-Life Earth's face.

[Deebles]

A further couple of points on the crime and punishment issue:

1) Ex post facto law, or retroactive law, is very rare, on the basis that you cannot justly punish people according to rules that did not exist at the time they acted. It's even forbidden in many countries, e.g. by the US constitution. So, for instance, if there's a law made in 2011 that makes using some new designer drug invented this year a crime, you can't punish someone for using that drug this year. This means punishing people for the acts of the past by the laws of the past, if at all. And the lawyers would have a field day with that one.

2) Lesser offenses would largely have expired visavis statutes of limitation/prescription. This doesn't cover the most severe crimes, however (genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity).

3) One man's villain can be another man's hero. Stalin killed tens of millions, but I'd imagine Putin would put his foot down if anyone tried to prosecute him for doing so. Mao is nearly as controversial. And on the flipside, there are some people we'd widely support who still have their detractors (there are Indians who view Churchill as being as bad as or worse than Hitler, on account of his neglect of a famine in Bengal mid-WW2). So other than very senior Nazis, there aren't many people that the consensus might be expected to support singling out (maybe Pol Pot and a couple of Rwandan genocidaires).

Overall, though, I reckon the largest obstacle to trying to punish further and/or lock away for the common good those whom we find most guilty in Hell is the established argument that time in Hell should count as time already served (it would certainly be hard to find a harsher prison anywhere on Earth).

I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a move at the UN, if not Yamantau, to try to set up interdimensional criminal law, complete with an interdimensional criminal court (IDCC) to address the issue of the very gravest crimes.

(And on the topic... what would happen if New Rome and other new states in Hell apply to join the UN?)

[Bayonet]

So far the only official declaration of war shown in TSW has been the United States' declaration of war, which was in fact done through normal channels, officially done and by Congress at that, specifying Satan's regime in Hell and Yahweh's regime in Heaven as the enemy... both conditions of which have been fulfilled, with human-installed regimes in their place (albeit with strong hidden influence by a former regime member in the latter case). On the other hand, while the US military as of chapter 84 may see itself as performing military operations other than war (MOOTW) or "counterinsurgency" (COIN) or security and stability operations (SASO). On the other hand, where's the continued legal authority to have US troops in Heaven coming from?

While we have an, at least theoretical, method for starting a war, there is no legal mechanism for ending one. The clearest cases at hand, WW-I and WW-II ended in armistice and surrender respectively, but those did not terminate all military activity, especially in the case of WW-II. I don't think any government has ever declared peace.

Like old soldiers, old wars kinda fade away. Or not. The best indication of the internal legality of a war in the US, is whether Congress continues to pay for it.

[Deebles]

While we have an, at least theoretical, method for starting a war, there is no legal mechanism for ending one. The clearest cases at hand, WW-I and WW-II ended in armistice and surrender respectively, but those did not terminate all military activity, especially in the case of WW-II. I don't think any government has ever declared peace.

Like old soldiers, old wars kinda fade away. Or not. The best indication of the internal legality of a war in the US, is whether Congress continues to pay for it.

There are such things as peace treaties, you know.

[Darth Yan]

wait, are there still any chapters left?

[DKeith2011]

Supposed to be 2 more I think.

[bcoogler]

Basically if Second-Life Hitler decides that he wants to kick off an aggressive Fourth Reich that would encroach on the Hell nations (not just the New Roman Republic), and especially if he declares this up front -- then that kill order can't come soon enough. If Second-Life Hitler decides that he just wants to fade into obscurity and not make any political moves, though... well, considering that he's Hitler, that'll be interesting to see how people (both First-Life and Second-Life) react, in particular to see whether it'd be a sign of slippery slope or not...

I confess: On an emotional level, yes, I'd like nothing better than to see someone like Hitler get whacked. And worse thoughts come to mind. Imagine turning Hitler over the New Roman Republic for execution (assuming they would actually follow through, and not welcome Hitler with open arms). We know the Romans were very imaginative when it came to torture -- I'd hate to think what Romans could do with modern power hand tools, or a power planer, a band saw, etc.

Okay, stepping back from the dark side....

I see kill orders as taking the easy way out. And yes, it leads to a slippery slope. If we can justify a kill order on Hitler, that opens the door for the next killing, the one after that, and with each killing, the door is open further still. Do we whack the SS clerks who maintained death camp statistics? Members of the Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst (Jewish Ghetto Police)? The business men who kept the death camps supplied with Zyklon B?

That's the thing about keeping a democracy. It isn't an easy thing to do. When we do the easy things, like concentrating power in the President -- which sadly has been going on for a very long time -- we do so at our own peril.

[bcoogler]

Setting aside the morality of the matter, I do think that something along the lines of what Yee drew up will probably make a comeback.

I suspect you are right, which is why I felt the need to make an argument against it. Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. Or at least an adviser to the President submitting just such a recommendation.

A thought came to mind: I suspect that the two-hour delay (I think Stuart said it was about that) in resurrections is something of a failsafe mechanism against duplicate resurrections (as I don't think many people have been legally dead for more than an hour or so and then resurrected). That said...are there any instances of someone being rather deceased (dying on the OR table), brought back, and still having a second life body generated? This of course leads to an odd spin on resuscitation orders: "If it is practical to do so, attempts at resuscitation are to continue until such time as I am found to have resurrected."

I like this. Oddly enough, this reminded me of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, when Buffy died (temporarily), triggering the activation of a second Slayer. It would definitely be a twist if two of somebody were running around, both here and in Hell/Heaven. Too Star Treky?

[rdfox2]

Yes, I do actually, because there's nothing legal about it. If you look at various laws as written, it is clearly illegal to "order a hit" on someone in secret with no due process, no judicial review, and no opportunity to defend oneself. The closest a "hit" comes to being legal is during a time of declared war. You know, that thing Congress hasn't had the balls to do since December 8, 1941. It is supposed to be Congress' responsibility to declare war; instead, they have pissed that away, allowing the President to do pretty much whatever he wants.

Which in turn raises an interesting point. So far the only official declaration of war shown in TSW has been the United States' declaration of war, which was in fact done through normal channels, officially done and by Congress at that, specifying Satan's regime in Hell and Yahweh's regime in Heaven as the enemy... both conditions of which have been fulfilled, with human-installed regimes in their place (albeit with strong hidden influence by a former regime member in the latter case). On the other hand, while the US military as of chapter 84 may see itself as performing military operations other than war (MOOTW) or "counterinsurgency" (COIN) or security and stability operations (SASO). On the other hand, where's the continued legal authority to have US troops in Heaven coming from? And that's being even going into the legal nitty-gritty (well, if it actually exists as opposed to being by fiat) of other countries' "declarations of war"...

See, there's a little something that's a simple explanation, which anyone who served in the Berlin Brigade knows quite well: "Army of Occupation." Basically, the same sort of status that the US Army has been in in Iraq since the end of Major Combat Operations (though in Berlin, it was a lot quieter for most of the Occupation--remember, the Occupation of Berlin continued until 1991 or 92). It's basically acting as a stabilizing force while the nation is rebuilt. Depending on the natives, it can be either very, very simple duty (think Berlin after about 1950), or very, very hazardous duty (Tikrit, anyone?), but it's a status that can continue after the final peace treaty is signed.

[wickeddyno]

A good lawyer could probably make an argument along the lines that Congress, by virtue of paying for the military cost of an armed conflict, is declaring a sort of de facto war.

[Edward Yee]

Setting aside the morality of the matter, I do think that something along the lines of what Yee drew up will probably make a comeback.

I suspect you are right, which is why I felt the need to make an argument against it. Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. Or at least an adviser to the President submitting just such a recommendation.

What TSW Yee is thinking: "Wait, what? An act? That has to be debated in public and voted on, then publicly signed by the President? But putting this into law would ruin the point... you know, for the people who actually would want this in the first place."

*awkward silence*

"But seriously, this is something that we should be asking right the heck soon, if not answering... yet."

If ever confronted by the implications of this, he'd probably go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and craft it as a more generic authorization to perform influence-degrading operations, with a more firm "tripwire" with regards to a kill order (i.e. congressional notification of its consideration, not just that such a decision was made).

A good lawyer could probably make an argument along the lines that Congress, by virtue of paying for the military cost of an armed conflict, is declaring a sort of de facto war.

TSW Yee: "Wait, a war? On what now? We killed Satan, Yahweh's dead (so far as we know), and we're going to initially and sincerely extend the olive branch to any pantheons we do find... right?"

Incidentally, I can see operators who've been already performing DA for remnants of Satan's regime (particularly Belial) to be the first "tapped," or at least the first asked about their capability and willingness to change targets. Ironically, if I had any influence in selection I'd actually be disqualifying those whose alarm bells didn't go off at the implications of their new target selection criteria, if that makes any sense?

[Bayonet]

A good lawyer could probably make an argument along the lines that Congress, by virtue of paying for the military cost of an armed conflict, is declaring a sort of de facto war.

That argument has been made, and I believe that SCOTUS found it persuasive.

[FDW]

I've been a lurker on this story for some time Stuart, but now I feel need to congratulate you for all of the effort you've put into both of the Salvation War stories, so keep up the good work!!! (And I can't wait for the next part of the saga.)

[Michael Garrity]

Gentlemen:


Enough of this fiddle-faddle and hyperbole, Cry Havoc! and let slip the Lords of War...

Mike Garrity

[ehenders]

The situation was that Jeshua went around preaching his message while his disciples were fermenting mash and selling the product (moonshine has been known for a very long time; people didn;t know they were distilling things but production of strong spirits goes back a long way). They "forgot" to pay the tax and the one thing the Romans took seriously was tax evasion. That's always been a hole in the Biblical accounts that greated with me; the Romans didn't really take people who went around preaching seriously. If they had a lot of support, their god sort of got incorporated into their Pantheon, if he didn;t, he wasn't a problem. If the preacher was lecturing on the virtues of peace and non-violence to the subject peoples, then YIPEEE. He's doing the Romans job for them.

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Sorry if I'm bringing up something old here, but that's not how it happened at ALL, Stu. Pontius Pilate, the roman in charge of the area, would have preferred Jeshua/Jesus to live! He was presented a case by a bunch of religious leaders against this one travelling teacher who was saying stuff about how he was a king. He asked him "are you a king" and the guy says "if you say so". He was impressed, he went to the people and said "I have two prisoners and one is going free. Which?" and found some horrible scumbag to pit up against Jesus. The religious elders and community leaders stirred up the crowd though because they were jealous. "For he knew that for envy they had delivered him." The religious leaders envied his charisma, his "je ne sais quoi"! Then they used what influence they had over the crowd to incite them into getting the guy killed. The roman authority then scorns them, basically saying that they're killing an innocent man!

In short, Romans didn't kill Jesus. Religious leaders did, for envy.

TRH

[Edward Yee]

You realize that you're quoting a later interpretation of in turn the disciples' own (and in TSW untrue according to Peter) account of their teacher getting busted for tax evasion?

We don't even know if Pontius Pilate existed in TSW, much less under that name.

[nobody_really]

wait, are there still any chapters left?

I found this statement over here:

Was this the last chapter?

Two more to go but we are tying up loose ends now and rounding things off ready for the next book.

He said that shortly after putting out Part 83 (the part before the latest.) That makes me think there's an epilogue still to come, unless he's changed his mind.

Hope this helps.

[Edward Yee]

By the way, bcoogler, I should note that any authentic written anything regarding the "presidential finding" thing actually written by TSW Congressman/advisor Yee would have "RED CALL RED CELL RED CELL" scribbled all over the page.

[ehenders]

You realize that you're quoting a later interpretation of in turn the disciples' own (and in TSW untrue according to Peter) account of their teacher getting busted for tax evasion?

We don't even know if Pontius Pilate existed in TSW, much less under that name.

I'm not challenging what happened in universe, that's entirely up to the creative talent. I merely challenge the author's interpretation of the inspirational/source material - he presents the argument that the Romans were the most responsible for Jeshua's death according to the gospel, I present a different one.

TRH

[Stuart]

That makes me think there's an epilogue still to come, unless he's changed his mind.

The epilogue is still to come. It should be up tomorrow. Then, the third part will start next year sometime. I have to get back to the TBOverse with two stories there to finish, one to pubich (along with a short stories anthology) and another to write.

[ehenders]

Sorry, after rereading my post I realize I wasn't terribly clear in my intent. I wasn't drawing offense to the tax evasion, was mentioning a train of thought I had at what Stuart had said never sat well with him, the idea of Romans doing in a wandering preacher who taught peace and harmony. My argument is that there are biblical accounts that contradict the notion of the Romans killing him, that they make it clear the local Roman governor didn't want him to die and that his hand was forced by the religious/cultural leaders of the area.

Question for you stuart - in the TSWverse, was Jeshua aware of what they were doing? Did they hold his approval? I kind of got the sense that Peter et. al. were kind of using him as a front and a means of legitimately skipping town. Essentially - were the disciples in it for the message or the money? Also, I LOVED the thirty-pieces-of-silver tie-in, and the hanging bit.

Incidentally, have you read this?

TRH

[atheistcanuck]

That makes me think there's an epilogue still to come, unless he's changed his mind.

The epilogue is still to come. It should be up tomorrow. Then, the third part will start next year sometime. I have to get back to the TBOverse with two stories there to finish, one to pubich (along with a short stories anthology) and another to write.

NEXT YEAR! Nooooooooo! (goes off to sob in the corner)

Guess I need to get down to reading The Big One and sequels if I want more Stuart. I already have a copy of the TBO lying around which I bought off Amazon and have yet to get around to reading (lots and lots of other books to read)

[GrayAnderson]

My general interpretation had always been that Pilate didn't want to kill Jesus, but that the priests at the Temple (who had just had a royally bad week with Jesus turning over the tables and whatnot) wanted him moved against and stirred up a street mob to try and twist Pilate's arm. Pilate seems to be looking for an excuse not to kill Jesus (the way he asks the questions at least comes across that way, though knowing Latin constructions the Vulgate might be more informative on this...by the way, this is also probably why most questions seem to have a yes/no answer expected: All Latin questions tended to be this way), but between the mob and Jesus' silence ends up taking no action (and effectively letting the Temple priests have their way).

Note importantly that Pilate fails to find him guilty of anything, and that the same is true of Herod. It's always seemed to me to be a case of "You convict him!" "No, you convict him!" "Will somebody please convict this man! No? Fine, I give up! This isn't my problem."