-Caveat Lector- http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/02-25-2002/vo18no04_justice.htm
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! How Best to Achieve Justice? by William Norman Grigg A military response to the Black Tuesday atrocity was necessary, but the ongoing "war on terrorism" fails several critical moral and constitutional tests. "Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun," declared President Bush in his January 29th State of the Union address. "This campaign may not be finished on our watch - yet it must and it will be waged on our watch." While the president's display of resolution drew enthusiastic bipartisan applause, it provoked a more ambivalent response from those who recall that throughout history, war has been regarded as a curse - a pitiless scourge that depletes national wealth, constricts individual freedom, and devours the lives of the bravest men. James Madison observed in 1795, "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." President Bush's address seemed an ironic tribute to the accuracy of Madison's dire warning. Set against the backdrop of a potentially endless war, Mr. Bush's speech outlined vast new expenditures for the military and the new "homeland defense" apparatus, as well as a new "national service" initiative that would accelerate the regimentation of our nation's domestic life. The address also acknowledged that the "war on terror" would require a new round of deficit spending. Of course, our nation should not remain passive in the face of the Black Tuesday atrocity. The blood of our innocent dead cries out for justice - both the eternal justice that God alone can provide, and the temporal variety that our government was intended to pursue. But a righteous cause does not consecrate morally defective means. When measured against the U.S. Constitution and the Christian "Just War" tradition, the ongoing "war on terrorism" must be judged a morally tainted exercise. Moral Tests of War Although the Just War concept is most strongly identified with the Catholic faith, its principles have been widely accepted throughout Christendom. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are regarded as the fathers of the Just War doctrine, and notable scholars of the "law of nations," such as 17th-century Dutch legal commentator Hugo Grotius and 18th-century Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel, have also elaborated on the concept. "The just-war tradition is not an algebra that provides custom-made, clear-cut answers under all circumstances," notes Catholic scholar George Weigel. Rather, it is intended "to provide guidance to public authorities on whom the responsibilities of decision-making fall." Just War theory involves two sets of moral criteria: the jus ad bello, or "war decision law"; and jus in bello, or "war conduct law." To be regarded as morally sound, a "responsible public authority" must make the decision to go to war. It must be the product of a "right intention," such as "re-establishing justice when offended, repairing an injury, or defending oneself against aggression," observes Msgr. Luigi Civardi. The envisioned war must also be "proportionate" - meaning that the good accomplished by war would be greater than the evil that would result were another alternative pursued. And all other reasonable avenues of redress must be exhausted before a nation resorts to arms. A morally sound decision to go to war being made, the ensuing campaign is subject to the "war conduct law." This standard deals, once again, with the test of "proportionality," as well as the principle of "discrimination." Dr. Charles Rice, a professor of law at Notre Dame University, explains that "Proportionality relates not only to the war itself (i.e., the whole enterprise must be for a proportionate good), but also to the use of particular tactics or weapons...." Under the principle of "discrimination," Dr. Rice continues, "it can never be justified intentionally to kill innocent noncombatants" - although "it could be morally justified to attack a military target of sufficient importance and urgency even though the attacker knows, but does not intend, that innocent civilians in the vicinity will be killed." Significantly, the Bush administration has insisted that its conduct of the opening phase of the "war on terrorism" - the bombing campaign against Afghanistan - comports with the Just War doctrine's "war conduct law." Writing in the December 24th issue of The Weekly Standard, Joe Loconte, a religious scholar with the Heritage Foundation, described a meeting at the Pentagon between Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a group of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic clerics. After reviewing details of the military campaign in Afghanistan, the group concluded that "the United States has waged a war on terrorists while mostly avoiding civilian casualties - which is to say it is fighting a just war with just means." Having attended the meeting, evangelical leader Charles Colson insisted that the military campaign in Afghanistan "would fit the Augustinian-Aquinas playbook perfectly." Many neutral observers on the ground in Afghanistan, whose access to the battlefield has been unfiltered and much more comprehensive, have come to drastically different conclusions. But the conduct of the war is the subject of the next article (page 29). The present discussion will examine whether the ongoing "war on terrorism" satisfies the first set of Just War criteria, the "war decision law." In our republic, such questions must be examined in light of the assigned powers set forth in the U.S. Constitution. One Man's Decision? "When I called our troops into action," observed the president during his State of the Union address, "I did so with complete confidence in their courage and skill." That the murderous aggression against our country justified a military response is beyond dispute. But was it the president's proper role to commit our nation to a war against Afghanistan? The Black Tuesday attack was an act of war, and President Bush acted in accord with his constitutional responsibilities by taking steps to protect our nation against further assaults. Before the day was through, however, the president and his advisors had mapped out a lengthy military campaign that could involve military action in 60 countries, beginning with Afghanistan - where terrorist chieftain Osama bin Laden based his operations. "Let's pick them off one at a time," Mr. Bush told his emergency "war cabinet." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld informed the president that it would take weeks to organize an effective military campaign. The president had ample time to seek a congressional declaration of war, as the Constitution dictates. Such a declaration would have received nearly unanimous support. President Bush, however, chose a different course. Early on the morning of September 12th, Bush called British Prime Minister Tony Blair to confer about the possibility of assembling an "international coalition" to carry out the military campaign. "The two leaders agreed it was important to first move quickly on the diplomatic front to capitalize on the international outrage about the terrorist attack," reports the Washington Post. "If they got support from NATO and the United Nations, they reasoned, they would have the legal and political framework to permit a military response afterward." (Emphasis added.) The Bush administration acted quickly to obtain the approval of the UN and its regional affiliate, NATO. The North Atlantic Council invoked Article V of the NATO charter, describing the Black Tuesday atrocity as an attack on the entire alliance. And the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1373, a measure drafted by the Bush administration's UN representative to authorize the "war on terrorism." One gets authorization from a superior, not from a subordinate. In seeking permission to take our nation to war, President Bush was willing to defer to the UN Security Council, but not to Congress. Nine days after the attack on our country, the president made a dramatic televised address to a joint session of Congress in which he identified the Taliban regime then in control of Afghanistan as a state sponsor of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network. The Taliban junta, the president declared, "is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder." This statement is in harmony with the established principles of the "law of nations," as understood by the Constitution's Framers. By providing shelter and material aid to terrorists within its borders, a government becomes party to any violations of international peace they commit. Accordingly, the president acted properly in presenting an ultimatum to the Taliban regime: "They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." However, the president failed an important Just War test when the Taliban suggested that it might be willing to surrender bin Laden and his henchmen - if the United States provided evidence of their guilt. While the Taliban's offer might not have been made in good faith, the Just War doctrine required that we make a good faith effort to obtain satisfaction by means other than war. If the Taliban offer proved insincere, then a Just War could be declared and prosecuted to its conclusion. *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! Write to same address to be off lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
