Whether it is always sinful to wage war? (Aquinas on Just War)

I don't think he addressed that issue, though I think the same criteria would have applied. The tribal chief would have been regarded as the sovereign. I don't think he would have approved of aggression against the Indians. He certainly wasn't a cultural relativist, and would have regarded missionary work as a good thing. But I doubt he would have condoned the wholesale taking of Indian lands. That's a thorny one.

The question that interests me is the criteria for beginning a civil war. I don't think the American Revolution met the critieria for a Just War. I'm interested in arguments pro and con.

As for the failure of the congress to declare war, . . . The U.S. was not attacked by a nation.

While the US was not attacked by a nation, it was attacked as a nation. These people have a distinct political and cultural aim—to destroy the U.S. and institute a theocracy.

Would a declaration of war be made if the perpetrators of terrorist acts were found holed up in Carlsbad Caverns? Was the capture of the Unibomber a result of a congressional act?

Let’s look at a domestic group that would illustrate your concept: La Raza. Using the Kosovo model as an example, La Raza takes over San Antonio, claiming prior historic title and the majority of population. They have killed 5000 US citizens and threaten nuclear or biological warfare if their demands for an independent nation state are not met. In the meantime, they are perpetrating terrorist acts throughout the SW.

In such a scenario, civillaw enforcement would not make any sense. These are not citizens and shouldn’t be accorded the same rights and immunities as such. The other thing is that these acts of war are occurring on U.S. soil.

Since the military is (properly) proscribed from participating in civil law enforcement, how do you constitutionally deal with these actions?

. . . it was not an act of war, nor can and should it be treated as such. . . Bush calls it a war, but it is not, no more than poverty and drugs are belligerents in a war. In this case, the perpetrators should be regarded as mass murderers who must be prevented to commit their crimes again, and by any means necessary, including the US military. I believe the president is definitely acting with the proper constitutiional authority in seeking out the murderers and those that harbor them.

One of the ironies of the WOD is that it has brought sharp focus to the difference between civil and military law. What started as simple rhetoric and braggadocio has resulted in the destruction of a vital doctrine: the separation of military and police powers.

Why are hundreds of innocent people (not convicted in a court of law) killed in the WOD? The government truly has been prosecuting a war against its citizens. Constitutional safeguards have been thrown on the ash heap and the motto of many police departments seems to have changed from “To protect and serve” to “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.” This is not how police should view the people they are pledged to protect.

OTOH, the military has fallen prey to the other extreme. They have been constrained by civil law concerns and deployed on missions that destroy their battle hardness. This is why we have situations like OSB’s henchman getting away because a “lawyer” didn’t think taking him out was “proper.” We have the spectacles of Somalia and the Cole bombing because we don’t want our military to “intimidate” the locals. We don’t want anyone to think that our military represents a threat to any “peaceful” people.

Sorry, but war is about killing our nations enemies. It is not about truth, justice or any other such lofty goal. War is for the protection of the state and its people. You don’t have time for niceties such as trials and black robes—it is kill or be killed. That is why we need to declare war officially. To prove we are serious. We should not grant these animals the decency accorded to our citizens or even our domestic animals.

Your concern of granting terrorists equality with a nation state is misplaced. The fact they have no state, means simply that they are wholly without protection under treaty or law. In other words, the Geneva Convention does not apply.

And as far as Bush’s Constitutional authority, that doesn’t extend to prosecuting a war without Congressional authorization. I am sorry, but the facts are indisputable. I don’t believe in sidestepping our law for any purpose. Conservatives are too quick to confuse precedence with legitimacy. They are miles apart in both definition and practice.

Here are the notes I took. They give you an idea of what Fr. Perricone said (but they don't do justice to his oratory skills).

Revelation

Some of the Lord's closest friends were Centurions (mentioned 4 times in Matthew, 3 times in Luke, twice in Mark). He never counsels them against beimg soldiers. They had the duty of laying down their lives for others.
The Lord was angry at times; Truth requires justice; in the temple He assaults the moneychangers for defiling His Father's house.
Lord's conduct on Calvary; the good theif's testimony -> the state has the right to punish those who threaten the common good

We can be angry when moral good is violated.

Reason

Natural moral law; just war doctrine; double effect

Conditions for just war:

Certain an injustice has occurred - clear and unambiguous
Rulers of nation must pursue peaceful, reasonable, negotiations until all reasonable means have been exhausted
War is declared by the legitimate authority of a nation
In execution, must only use force that is proportionate to offense
Innocent non-combatants must never be intended for destruction (a war is not illicit just because civilians die - collateral damage)

Double effect conditions:

Act is morally good or neutral
Good effect can never be a direct effect of an evil act
Evil (unintended) consequence must never be intended
Even tolerated, unintended consequence can only be tolerated for a sufficiently grave reason

Example

Hiroshima - if "the bomb" hadn't been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then at least 100,000 US soldiers and 10's of millions of innocent civilians would have died. This is based on what we know of Japanese military techniques/procedures of that time. The civilians, if not directly bombed, would have died from famine and neglect. When we blanket bombed Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, & Nagasaki we knew innocent civilians would die. There is a continued moral ambiguity among orthodox theologians over the use of a nuclear bomb in WWII. Fr. John Ford, SJ was one of the strongest proponents of the argument that it was wrong to drop "the bomb".

Some comments and observations made during the lecture and Q&A session:

Augustine in 5th century - conditions for moral war; then Thomas Aquinas
Revolution can never be justified - authority is illegitimate (tradition/Thomas Aquinas)
Bernard Johnson, an expert on Islam - from its birth (630-640), Islam has been extremely violent
Paul Johnson, historian - there have been few Muslim peaces; they occurred when Islam had quenched subjugation
By 2015, France & Italy will have Muslim majorities (Fr. Perricone encouraged Catholic couples to have all the children that God wants them to have)
The "War on Terrorism" IS a holy war

Note: An audiotape of this lecture will soon be available. Check the ChristiFideles Web site. The Q&A session was very lively and some very good questions were raised.

When you listen to father's talk about their willingness to give their kids up to Altar of the war and the state, it sheds a certain other slant on Abraham.

Abraham understood that the bottom line is conformity to God's will. God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill" assures us that those who mean to kill should be prevented. Sometimes the means and motivation of organized and determined killers are such that they can be prevented only by lethal force. This is regrettable, but insofar as it prevents the killings of more and more innocent others, not illicit.

Of course, Askel5 assures me war is acceptable provided it is waged by adults and not children.

To suppose one can abstain from warlike responses to acts of terrorism is to impose a paradigm of stasis on a dynamic world. The point of war is not vengeance for past injuries, but self-defense against prospective, opportunistic aggression. A communal option for comprehensive and dogmatic pacifism is indefensible because it inevitably condemns to death innocent others incapable of undertaking their own defense.

About the need for a sovereign, I believe that what Aquinas says amounts to a proper delegation of warmaking power to the government. What makes the delegation proper varies from epoque to epoque; today we insist on a democratically elected leadership with separation of powers, but in the Middle Ages a dynastic claim of sovereignty was probably the proper method. Aquinas explains what it gives us:

- proper separation between private grievances that may be adjudicated and national causes that cannot;
- unified military strategy through single leadership;
- protection of those unable to bear arms themselves.

Note that a war waged by a leader who doesn't represent a nation (a warlord) cannot, obviously, be just, and a leaderless guerilla war cannot be just because it exposes non-combatants with which the guerilla intermingle, to retaliatory violence.

epoque -> epoch

Some of those considerations would be better described as matters of prudence. I guess I don't see as a much of a distinction between warfare and other violence as you do. I think mine might be the better perspective because of the nature of the war we're in. Look, for example, at the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Neither the attack nor, in that case, the defence was a traditional act of war. The people on the plane found out it was nevertheless, as Bush later said, an act of war and made a warlike response, without waiting for any other authority to give them permission.

When your sons start to die, the cause is the failure to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. Not as a general principle at least.

The assumption that if we did nothing the Moslems would not hurt us again is absurd on the face of it at this time, but in this case we would continue to persecute them anyways through the auspices of Israeli expansionism, the quartering of troops on their soil, and the unending bombing and sanctions in Iraq.

I happen to believe that Islam has peculiar defects, and adherents peculiarly susceptible, to the temptation (I use the word in a spiritual sense) to jihad (in a very non-spiritual sense). In the absence of a long record of American blunders and abuses in statecraft, this temptation might have remained latent amongst all but the most extreme zealots (or the most cynical and manipulative operators) and have failed to spark popular enmity amongst people whose poverty and powerlessness renders them otherwise apolitical.

"If we concentrated on what we had in common -- in the way of objective truth and the Tao -- it's quite likely they might understand the abject errors on which those who've co-opted them have capitalized."

I think that's a large part of the Bush campaign, that's why Cheney mentioned long time frame that one could expect to see results from their actions. The only military part of the campaign now is in Afghanistan. That's an action to shut down the world's only openly safe base of operations for the jihadists.

Bush knows the the west is under assault on several authoritarian fronts. The 2 largest, and most threatening, are the leftists and the jihadists. Bush's campaign is focused and the main strategy is exactly as you summarized in the above quote. Bush is well aware that this is a struggle between good and evil forces, but he's not going to directly address the fact that Mohammed was a false prophet and his followers are nitwits.

Re: putting a smile on satan's face.

I thought you might have recognized his work and who was behind it.

" Same M.O. as always for any "Front" (for communist repression and terror) ... violence, terror, assassination and -- the dead giveway -- a wealthy son of the wealthy whose consciousness had been "raised" into radicalism to serve as leader, spokesman and enjoy certain privileges re: freedom of movement and from prosecution in the EU world."

If you recall Job, satin is that angel in heaven that challenges God. The moral choices made by individuals on earth are going to honor one of the two. Along with whatever temptations, pestulance and wicked teachings(figurative satan) that exist as a general feature of this world, there is also direct temptation by satan(the angel himself).

Luke 4:5-8
" The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is written: `Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

All men are given Free will. Jesus was a man. In order for this to be a real temptation for Him, His knowledge and understanding must have been such that it was a real moral choice. His choice was between using His great power He knew He had for His own designs, or keeping it for His Father's design. The "worship requested" was the honor and glory either the Father, or satin would recieve from the decision. Jesus knew that satan existed, but did not know it was he who tempted Him and what was requested, until He understood His choices. Only then could He respond with, "It is written: `Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

Jesus also said in John 8:44 " You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

satan is real and is a player here in this world. Just as the Holy Spirit comes to all men, so to does satin. Jesus is the Light of the world, satin is it's darkness.

Although the campaign and strategies against these authoritarian forces is secular, the underlying forces and enemy should be recognized and known. Only then is decisive action possible. Failure to do so will result in defeat. Again, focusing on what you said above is the key to a successful campaign against these bozos.

Re: the sovereign and warfare

Each individual is a sovereign of his own will. Warfare is a clash of wills that involves coercion. Determining whether one is justly participating in warfare amounts to determining the rights violations occurring and who is instigating them.

I think that's a large part of the Bush campaign, that's why Cheney mentioned long time frame that one could expect to see results from their actions

Huh?

The folks who brought you federal funding to perpetuate the pop-control window of Non-Personhood with a little "hopeful ECSR" on the human beings who WERE NOT CREATED EQUAL but, instead, were created for research and profit?

Please.

I doubt very seriously Satan gets much in the way of amusement from but BUT I ASSURE YOU he bust a gut to hear folks ooohing and aaahing over Bush's using his prime-time ECSR announcement to "inform consciences" and quote a little Scripture from the Book the third Person of his Favorite Philosopher inspired over the course of 3,000 years.

P.S. Islam's got some strictures re: human life which blow the "Personal Interpretation", depends on your meaning of IS crowd of Christians all to hell.

Some of those considerations would be better described as matters of prudence.

In a war, rights of noncombatants are different from the rights of the soldiers, and not every enemy's act is deserving a military response. Thus the three points Aquinas made about the need for civil leadership in a just war pertain to individual rights and are not mere prudence. His "sovereign" is one who can make a judgement and take on the responsibility for potential war crimes as he dispatches the soldiers to kill people and break things. Soldiers that make ethical determinations on their own will not be an effective fighting force and thus will violate the rights of their own citizens who delegated them to fight; soldiers that receive a blanket dispensation from the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment will violate the rights of noncombatant enemy.

That's an interesting point.

" The folks who brought you federal funding to perpetuate the pop-control window of Non-Personhood with a little "hopeful ECSR" on the human beings who WERE NOT CREATED EQUAL but, instead, were created for research and profit?

By that I think you're referring to his decision to allow research funding on existing fetal stem cell lines...Bush is being pragmatic. If he had not operated like that during the election he would've lost. He is operating the same way now to reverse the gains made by the two main enemies.

The topic of this thread is "what is a just war". That is quite easy to outline and define. I have also defined what war is.(above to AJArmitage) What is of ultimate importance concerning war is winning. One must operate with a firm grasp of the reality of the situation and make realistic decisions, else failure is guaranteed. The US is the only country on earth that can resist the forces assaulting the world. A Gore win would have been a victory for those forces. The war would have then been of a revolutionary nature(Aquinasfan's next ?) They lost, now we have Bush leading the campaign. The situation has improved.

Regarding post # 62, you bring up some good points. Particularly the blurring of the lines between law enforcement and the military. I suppose the lesson to be learned is that in the global nation there is no difference and that it is completely arbitrary which is applied and where. The nation state as we know it is disappearing. The republic is all but memory. Sigh. Thanks for your post.

"In a war, rights of noncombatants are different from the rights of the soldiers, and not every enemy's act is deserving a military response. Thus the three points Aquinas made about the need for civil leadership in a just war pertain to individual rights and are not mere prudence. "

War is a clash of wills that involves coercion. The status of rights doesn't change because a war exists. All individuals also retain their rights during that war. The primary function of civil government during war remains the same as it is w/o being in a state of war. That's because in reality war always exists, it's just a matter of what intensity exists at any particular time, between whatever particular parties.

" Soldiers that make ethical determinations on their own will not be an effective fighting force and thus will violate the rights of their own citizens who delegated them to fight; soldiers that receive a blanket dispensation from the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment will violate the rights of noncombatant enemy."

Individuals are sovereigns of their own wills. If you're talking about a group that is waging a just war, then the individual participants retain their sovereignty of will. That means they make their own ethical decisions. They will make their own ethical decisions even if their is no war. If they make the wrong ones, it's a crime, but they still make their own decisions.

Commanders determine campaign strategies and announce goals and intents. Successful armies operate with only that much. Then their subordinates act on the commanders intent. US soldiers traditionally make their own ethical decisions. There have been very few problems with that, and they are certainly an effective fighting force.

What I mean is this. The civil leadership decides to go to war on country X, but not on Y. It further formulates the rules of engagement. In that environment a soldier would determine that shooting X's military on sight is ethical; shooting Y's military or civilians is unethical; shooting X's noncombatant may be ethical under the rules of engagement in given circumstances. Thus, although individual ethical decisions are the soldier's to make, the overall environment in which he makes them comes from Aquinas' "sovereign".

Recall Senator Kerry's trepidation over his killing of civilians in Vietnam, reflecting the conflict between his individual conscience and duty as a soldier. In absence of a "sovereign's" decision on what to do with villagers that harbor Viet Cong that war would have been either not prosecutable at all, or it would have been a My Li style free for all, or some mixture of desertions and massacres depending on the temperament of the GI's involved. Aquinas says that no war can be just unless the right and wrong conduct is established centrally for all.

This article would be much more useful (and helpful)if it was strictly Aquinas' words, unfiltered and not garbaged up by anyone's opinions or commentary.
Adults ought to be able to do that, and this topic is extremely difficult to obtain otherwise.