Showing posts with label Just War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Just War. Show all posts

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Libya, News, and Change

Update (April 4, 2011)
This isn't - as I've written many times - a political blog. I don't think that one person, or party, or country, is always right. I don't say that everybody who dislikes my favorite person, or party, or country, is stupid.

I even think that politicos whose policies I have little praise for can be right now and again.

Which is, in part, why I think America should be involved in hindering Colonel Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi's efforts to exterminate Libyans who won't say he's a great leader.

Even though it's happening during President Obama's administration.

Why Pick on Libya?

The Libyan colonel isn't the only north African/Middle Eastern leader who tries to maintain loyalty by killing folks who disagree: but he's the one who alienated enough of his neighbors to make the U. N. mandated coalition possible.

I've heard that Qadhafi has been playing his 'victim of the West' card. Never mind that the The Arab League supported the no-fly zone. Or didn't: it depends on who they're talking to, perhaps. (March 21, 2011)

'Victim of the West?' I think this article, from 2008, shows a somewhat more plausible view of America's efforts to accommodate the colonel's style of leadership:
"Libya pays $1.5 billion to settle terrorism claims"
CNN World (October 31, 2008)

"Libya has paid $1.5 billion to the families of terrorism victims, overcoming the final obstacle to full relations with the United States, the State Department said Friday.

"The payment ends Tripoli's legal liability in U.S. terror cases and paves the way for increased U.S. involvement in the oil-rich nation.

"President Bush signed an executive order Friday restoring Libyan immunity from terrorism-related lawsuits and dismissing pending cases over compensation as part of a deal reached this summer.

"David Welch, the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, who negotiated the agreement, called Libya's rehabilitation from a terrorist nation to a U.S. ally 'historic.'

"The pact closes the book on a contentious period in U.S.-Libyan relations, which began in the 1980s with a series of attacks involving the two countries, including the bombings of Pan Am flight 103, a German disco and U.S. airstrikes over Libya....

"...Congress unanimously adopted the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, sponsored by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, which cleared the way to end the feud and created the victim compensation fund."
Okay: maybe that deal was some kind of plot by Big Oil. Or Big Cheese. Or something. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 22, 2011)) I don't think so: but I'm no conspiracy buff.

After all the effort that went into opening relations with Libya, why go after Qadhaffi now? There's U. N. Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011). (March 21, 2011) That's important, in my opinion.

I also think that it's wrong for a national leader to kill people who won't praise him.

No More 'Business as Usual'

Many folks who live in north Africa and the Middle East seem to have had enough of 'business as usual:' and have been swapping out old-style autocrats. This change of heart ended Tunisia's permanent presidency in January. Egypt's old-school leader was next, and now folks want something better in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, and - Libya.

I don't think it's right for the Bahrainian boss to have his less-docile subjects killed: but he hasn't ticked off enough of his neighbors. The last I heard, he's even getting Saudi Arabia to help purge Bahrain of folks who disagree. (March 18, 2011)

There won't, I think, be an international coalition acting to protect Bahranian citizens from their boss. Not any time soon.

It is possible, however, to protect Libyans - and give the folks there who give a rip about turning their country around a chance to do so.

Libya: Risky? Of Course

Do I think that, with Qadhaffi gone, Al Qaeda or a similar group could take over? Yes. That's possible.

I also think that with Qadhaffi still in power, Al Qaeda or a similar group could find a safe haven in Libya. He's not, in my opinion, a particularly reliable, responsible, national leader.

Do I think that the folks who oppose Qadhaffi are 100-percent pro-American supporters of constitutional rights, equality under law, and vehicle emission standards?

Hardly.

I do think there's a good chance that the folks who oppose the colonel will not replace him with another autocrat. They might: but I prefer to believe that they want a serious change.

News May be Biased: and Still be True

I've discussed my view of old-school journalism before. Briefly, I think that very few journalists and editors deliberately lie. I do, however, think that they have their own assumptions about what the world is like:
Still, I seriously doubt that many stories are, essentially, fiction. Which ones are published, and which aren't - I've discussed that before.

All this is to introduce an article appearing on CNN today. It's possible that CNN decided to publish this because their editors believe that America's involvement in the efforts to frustrate Qadhaffi needs support. I also think that what's described actually happened: and shows what the colonel and his enforcers have been up to in Libya.
"Libyan woman bursts into hotel to tell her story of rape"
CNN (March 26, 2011)

"Breakfast at a Tripoli hotel housing international journalists took a decidedly grim turn Saturday when a desperate Libyan woman burst into the building frantic to let the world know she had been raped and beaten by Moammar Gadhafi's militia.

"Her face was heavily bruised. So were her legs. She displayed blood on her right inner thigh.

"She said her name was Eman al-Obeidy. She was well-dressed and appeared to be a well-to-do middle-aged woman. She spoke in English and said she was from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and had been picked up by Gadhafi's men at a checkpoint east of Tripoli.

"She sobbed and said she was held against her will for two days and raped by 15 men. She showed the journalists how she had been tied at her wrists and ankles. She had visible rope burns.

"CNN could not independently verify al-Obeidy's story but her injuries appeared consistent with what she said....

"...International journalists, including CNN's staff, are not allowed to move freely in the Libyan capital and are escorted out of the hotel only on organized outings by government minders. This was the first time a Libyan opposed to Gadhafi attempted to independently approach the journalists here.

"What followed was a disturbing scene of how Gadhafi's government operates.

"Security forces moved to subdue the woman. Even a member of the hotel's kitchen staff drew a knife. 'Traitor!' he shouted at her in contempt. Another staffer tried to put a dark tablecloth over her head.

"One government official, who was there to facilitate access for journalists, pulled a pistol from his belt. Others scuffled with the journalists, manhandling them to the ground in an attempt to wrestle away their equipment. Some journalists were beaten and kicked. CNN's camera was confiscated and deliberately smashed beyond repair.

"Security men said al-Obeidy was 'mentally ill' and was being taken to a 'hospital.' They dragged her unceremoniously to a waiting white car.

"She kicked and screamed. She insisted she was being carted off to prison....

"...Later, a government spokesman said al-Obeidy was 'safe' and 'doing well.' He said her case was a criminal one -- not political -- and that she has been offered legal aid.

"But his assurances did little to assure the journalists who had witnessed Gadhafi's firm and pervasive grip on Libyan society. A woman who dared to speak against him was quickly silenced. Journalists who dared to tell her story paid a price.

"It was one tale that perhaps went a long way in illuminating the need to protect Libya's people...."
Somewhat-related posts:
In the news, now and in 2008:
Background, how I form my views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, June 20, 2009

A Digression, About This Blogger

I must be conservative, right?

This blog is on Urban Conservative's list of 'Best Conservative Blogs,' and I've been referred to as 'some conservative guy.'

If "conservative" means an American who is not liberal, and not 'moderate,' then I'm conservative. That definition depends, however, on there being only three possible philosophical positions: four, if you count disinterested.

In some respects, particularly regarding the subject of this blog, I resemble an American conservative. I:
  • Think that America is, materially, a better place to live than many others
  • Do not think that
    • America is to solely to blame for
      • The global economic crisis
      • Islamic terrorism
      • The extinction of the dodo
    • America is a racist country
  • Regard the American armed forces as a group of intelligent, (self-) disciplined people with a sense of duty
  • Think that war is
    • Exquisitely unpleasant
    • Sometimes the less unpleasant option
  • Think that personal responsibility exists
    • And is a good idea
'Obviously,' by some standards, that makes me a conservative.

By the standards of contemporary American political philosophies, I may be more nearly similar to a typical conservative, than I am to a typical liberal.

And I'm certainly not, I trust, a 'moderate.'

But there are issues on which I am not so clearly a contemporary American conservative. This lack of conformity to cultural standards comes from my beliefs, and the views which arise from them. I am a convert to Catholicism, and have continued the study of Catholic beliefs and practices which led me to that conversion.

Not all Catholics see the world quite the way I do - which is a topic for another blog - but I try to form my views as closely as possible to what the Catholic Church teaches. (More about that at "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic, A Catholic Citizen in America (November 3, 2008). )

'Real' Catholics are Pacifists! / The Catholic Church Causes Wars!

Someone, in an online discussion thread, expressing shock and surprise that a Christian could be anything but a full-bore pacifist, asked, "wasn't Jesus a pacifist?" Apparently, that person wasn't aware of, or overlooked, that incident with moneychangers in the Temple.

Other people earnestly believe that religion is bad, particularly Christianity. It doesn't take much of a push, and that view would have it that without the Catholic Church, Europe would have war-free zone until 1776, when America started causing wars.

It's not easy to justify a war while following Catholic beliefs, but it is possible. The Catholic Church does not require predominantly Catholic countries to be overrun, until non-pacifists come and rescue them. (More, again, in "About the Just War Doctrine," (June 7, 2009), which is mostly an introduction to someone else's work: "Just War Doctrine," Answer Guide, Catholic Answers.)

Want Simple? Watch Television

If that sounds less than simple, welcome to my world. I didn't become a Catholic because it would let me stop thinking.

And now, back to my views on the War on Terror:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 11, 2008

Does "Death to America" Warrant "Death to the Terrorist?"

I'm pretty sure that this post is going to attract criticism from both liberal and conservative camps. Since this is a rather long post, here's a sort of index:

The Event

The news broke this morning: "Pentagon charges six in Sept. 11 terror attacks Death penalty will be sought against alleged mastermind, others"

The Players

The six people charged are:
  • Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is suspected of - and has bragged about - planning the 9/11 attacks on the New York World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and whatever target Flight 93 was bound for
  • Mohammed al-Qahtani, the "20th hijacker"
  • Ramzi Binalshibh, the alleged middleman between the hijackers and leaders of al-Qaida
  • Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali AKA Ammar al-Baluchi, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew and Mohammed's lieutenant for the 2001 operation
    • Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, al-Baluchis, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali/Ammar al-Baluchi's helper
  • Waleed bin Attash AKA Khallad, alleged screener and trainer of some of the hijackers
One of the reasons that a trial of these six alleged suspects is controversial is that the plan is to try them in a military court.

Why is this controversial?

There are Americans who disapprove of anything military. Others, including the suspects' lawyers, say that it isn't fair that the trials be conducted in secret. In a way, I don't blame the lawyers. First, open courts are supposed to encourage judges and juries to behave responsibly. Besides, this is a high-profile trial, and one can hardly blame a lawyer from wanting as much publicity as possible.

An argument against an open trial is that information which might help the colleagues of the suspects stage another major attack.

And, of course, here's the matter of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's treatment. Instead of asking him nicely, it seems that he was subjected to "waterboarding." That's an unquestionably unpleasant experience, involving temporary immersion in water. It's been called "torture." On the other hand, forcing detainees to sit on the grass in Guantanamo was called "torture," so the term seems to have a rather low threshold of application.

Two Issues

What strikes me as the two most important points are
  1. Whether these six people should be tried in military or civilian courts
  2. Whether they should be subject to the death penalty
Although I don't think it would be the height of folly to trust a civilian American court with the trial, I think that such a decision would be close to the ragged edge of madness.
Civilian or Military Court?
If I didn't know American culture better, I'd say, "you're kidding, right?"

The American court system has, for most of my life, had an appalling record of placing the rights and desires of those who want to harm others over the welfare of the people who are being harmed. A very short list of the accomplishments of American "justice," in and around Massachusetts:
  • Leeland Eisenberg, convicted rapist, released after his sentence in 2005, took hostages at a Clinton campaign office in 2007
  • Daniel Tavares, who killed his mother, was a violent prisoner, faced two charges of assaulting prison guards last year, was released on personal recognizance, and killed a newlywed couple
  • Michael "Stix" Addison, whose rap sheet shows that he started trying to kill someone when he was 16: violated parole, but remained free, and finally achieved his goal at age 26, when he shot a police officer
A catch-and-release policy for dangerous criminals isn't limited to the the New England states, and this deplorable practice has been going on for quite a while. For example, Lawrence Singleton cut a California teen's arms off in 1978 after raping her. He was sentenced to prison. It was pretty obvious that he was nuts. And, he was given treatment. He killed a prostitute in his home nine days after he was released from a psychiatric hospital. In fairness, note that Mr. Singleton's lawyer said that killing the prostitute was an accident. 'It could happen to anyone?' Besides, the teen survived, and Mr. Singleton served 8 years, 4 months of a 14-year-prison sentence for that assault.

Unlike the civilian court system, the American military seems to have retained the concept that people who hurt and kill Americans are not, by and large, very nice people, and should, in general, be stopped.

A military court seems a fairly obvious choice.
  • Military courts are seem less likely to make daft decisions about dangerous lunatics
  • There's a war on - It's an uncomfortable idea, but very much a fact
  • The defendants are, like it or not, very likely enemy combatants
I do understand the theoretical value of civilian courts: But this is a case where I am very concerned about how many lives may be lost, should American judges be allowed access to these cases.
Death Penalty?
On the other hand, I'm not in favor of capital punishment. For one thing, it's all too obvious that the judicial system can make mistakes. One example, this year, was the case of Steven Charles Phillips. He was the 15th person in Dallas County, Texas, exonerated by DNA testing since 2001. The rapist was a transient named Goodyear, who died in 1998. A "Dallas Morning News" article says, "Mr. Phillips had also pleaded guilty to eight related cases that authorities believe were committed by Mr. Goodyear. Mr. Phillips' attorneys say he pleaded guilty to the other crimes because he feared an even longer prison term after losing two jury trials."

I don't find as much fault in the American court system for this sort of mistake, as for the common-as-cockroaches 'mistake' of releasing dangerous felons. The courts are run entirely by human beings: And human beings sometimes make mistakes.

In Mr. Phillips' case, if he's cleared of all the charges, he may be released. That's one of the good things about prison sentences. They can be reversed, at least to an extent. No judge can give back the time lost, but at least someone wrongfully imprisoned can, later, be released.

If Mr. Phillips had been executed, I doubt that even the United States Supreme Court believes it could successfully order him released from death.

The important argument, for me, against the death penalty in America is my faith. I'm a Catholic, and there are some fairly clear statements about when it is okay to kill people, and when it isn't. (What follows is a layman's statement: I have no authority to speak for the Church.)

The Catholic Church values human life: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person--among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270.)

A key word there is innocent. The Church does recognize that sometimes it is necessary to defend the innocent from others. "Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2266, 2267.) [Emphasis is mine.]

I think a reasonable way to boil part of that down is this: If a country has no other way to protect its citizens, it is permitted to kill people who are a real threat to others. IF there is no other way.

I find it difficult to believe that the United States of America cannot keep malefactors behind bars. That it's moderately expensive and somewhat inconvenient, yes: impossible, no.

That the United States of America is unwilling to restrain dangerous individuals is obvious: but that's a topic for another day, and probably another blogger.

The point is this: America has the ability to restrain killers, and people who train killers. These people do not need to be killed.

One More Thing

If I'm against the death penalty, how can I possibly support the War on Terror?

"... For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2266.) This is related to the "just war" idea.

The United States does not control the internal affairs of Pakistan, Afghanistan, or even Iraq, now that the latter country has a mildly stable government of its own. If America did, it is possible that terrorism could be handled strictly as a law enforcement issue.

That's not the world we live in. America, and every other country threatened by terrorists, must sometimes use force to defend its people. And, I seriously doubt that a nice chat over tea would convince Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or any other leaders of terrorists, to stop what they're doing, and play nicely.
("The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" is a four-page online pamphlet made by United States bishops: More at www.faithfulcitizenship.org.)

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, September 21, 2007

Preemptive Strike: Am I a Hawk, or a Dove?

Yes, and no.

Actually, I think I may be more of a turkey.

In the Franklinian sense of the word. In a letter, comparing the eagle and turkey as national emblems, he wrote (in part): "the turkey is in comparison a much more respectable bird, and withal a true original native of America."

I'm hardly a "true original native of America," although my Norwegian and Irish ancestors have been here for a few generations, at least.

Franklin went on, observing that the turkey "... is, besides, (though a little vain and silly, it is true, but not the worse emblem for that), a bird of courage, and would not hesitate to attack a grenadier of the British guards, who should presume to invade his farmyard with a red coat on."

Truthfully, I might hesitate. I am acutely aware how precious and fragile life is. But I do believe that self-defense is a legitimate option, on the personal as well as on the national level.

A comment on an earlier post, "Diplomacy: A Noble Ideal," observed that "... I get the idea that you are just a couple of steps removed from saying 'Pre-emptive Stike'. I might be wrong though."

My response at the time wasn't the best I've ever written. It was about 2 in the morning at the time. The point raised was a good one, so I'm taking another go at it here.

Traditionally, in American culture at least, 'the good guy' waits for 'the bad guy' to strike the first blow. That's a fine attitude to have.

These days, however, quite a few people can die in that first blow.

Let's assume, as a hypothetical situation, that an Islamic group, in an excess of zeal, decides that San Francisco should be wiped from the face of the earth.

This isn't as wild a stretch of the imagination as it may seem. San Francisco prides itself on a progressive and enlightened policy with regards alternative lifestyles.

This doesn't seem to be consistent with views expressed from some of the more extreme Islamic groups. In fact, Iran recently executed a couple of gay men. It's not quite as simple as it seems, of course. One homosexual publication ran a curiously conciliatory article on how Iran is really very tolerant.

At any rate, let's assume that some imam decided that San Francisco had to go.

A nuclear device, detonated in the sky over San Francisco, would very likely kill a sizable percentage of the three-quarters of a million people who live there.

Would it be right to stop such an attack by destroying facilities that make and maintain the weapon? Even if some people who make the weapon and maintain the weapon are killed in the process?

Well, maybe San Franciscans deserve it. After all, they're Americans. Many of them, anyway. And you know what Americans are like

Okay, let's pick another city: Bandar Lampung, in Indonesia. Isn't quite as big as San Francisco, but is home to over a half-million people. There's no particular reason, so far as I know, for wanting to destroy that city. But let's assume that someone with nuclear weapons decided that it wasn't sufficiently Islamic.

Again, would it be be right to stop such an attack, even if people involved in making the attack possible might be killed?

That's a tough one. Let's say there are two options.
  • Maintain high and noble ideals, and let a sizable fraction of a half-million people experience, briefly, the inside of a nuclear fireball. And let others witness the spectacle of a shattered and burning city: up close and personal.
  • Abandon hopes of being a 21st century Ghandi: Trade the lives of terrorists, and people hired by terrorists, for the a city-full of (relatively) innocent people.
I'm glad that I'll most likely never be in a position to make that sort of decision.

Making things more complicated for me, I'm a devout Catholic. The Catholic Church has a 'just war' teaching. A good place to start looking at this teaching is in the Catholic Catechism, 2309: "The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain
  • All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
  • There must be serious prospects of success
  • The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine."

"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

Notice: "Just war" doesn't forbid all warfare. Self-defense is allowed, under carefully-defined conditions.

Back to hawks, doves, turkeys, and a "preemptive strike."

As I said, I'm more of a Franklinian turkey, than a hawk or dove.

I have no more information about what's going on in Syria, Iran, North Korea, or any other country with a regrettable policy regarding terrorism, than any other citizen can have. I don't know enough to say 'strike now.'

But, I very sincerely hope that the leaders of this country understand that they are dealing with people who are not at all nice, not at all reliable, who have demonstrated that they like to kill infidels: and that most Americans are infidels.

Ironically, if our leaders decide to maintain the high road of diplomatic non-violence, letting thousands, or millions, of people get killed in the next major attack, they are unlikely to receive the award they deserve.

Even if they survive, the Nobel Peace Prize may be abolished, for being insufficiently Islamic.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.