![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Heresy?
The most recent flap about the religious beliefs of John Kerry (and how this supposedly makes it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, and remain catholics) has been irking me.
Why is it, I rhetorically ask, that Kerry's beliefs on abortion and gay marriage make it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, but Bush's views on the death penalty and agressive war don't disqualify him?
For a more complete lowdown (and funny as all hell if one is an educated Catholic, or religious historian George Bush, Heretic at NewDonkey.
To avoid making another political post, I was having turbid dreams this morning... end of the world stuff, with Jobian interactions with God (I took him to task for His wanting to wipe us out and start over... He made us, He has to live with us... it made more sense in the dream) and I awoke, in that state of reverie, realising that the Right knows is is going against the tenets of the Nation and the meaning of the Constitution; at least the ones at the top (reading Is that Legal, and Orcinus will tend to make one less sanguine about the future of the republic, but I digress).
When someone writes a law, they know that difficulties will lead to the courts reviewing it. It's one of the checks in the system. So when someone starts writing a law which tries to exclude itself from those checks, one has to wonder why.
The Right will say it's to prevent, "activist judges" from misinterpreting the law. But that's tough. The Constitution gives them the power to do that, and the truth of the matter is that it hasn't been happening, at least not to the detriment of the causes they espouse.
With the judges appointed to the federal bench, under both Clinton and Bush, it's also going to happen less and less. Which means they can only think the laws they are proposing are so severely out of step with the Constitution that even their pet judges will balk at them.
That's a scary thought.
The laws they are proposing Pecunium are even scarier. As I've said before, Nehemiah Scudder is waiting in the wings.
Why is it, I rhetorically ask, that Kerry's beliefs on abortion and gay marriage make it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, but Bush's views on the death penalty and agressive war don't disqualify him?
For a more complete lowdown (and funny as all hell if one is an educated Catholic, or religious historian George Bush, Heretic at NewDonkey.
To avoid making another political post, I was having turbid dreams this morning... end of the world stuff, with Jobian interactions with God (I took him to task for His wanting to wipe us out and start over... He made us, He has to live with us... it made more sense in the dream) and I awoke, in that state of reverie, realising that the Right knows is is going against the tenets of the Nation and the meaning of the Constitution; at least the ones at the top (reading Is that Legal, and Orcinus will tend to make one less sanguine about the future of the republic, but I digress).
When someone writes a law, they know that difficulties will lead to the courts reviewing it. It's one of the checks in the system. So when someone starts writing a law which tries to exclude itself from those checks, one has to wonder why.
The Right will say it's to prevent, "activist judges" from misinterpreting the law. But that's tough. The Constitution gives them the power to do that, and the truth of the matter is that it hasn't been happening, at least not to the detriment of the causes they espouse.
With the judges appointed to the federal bench, under both Clinton and Bush, it's also going to happen less and less. Which means they can only think the laws they are proposing are so severely out of step with the Constitution that even their pet judges will balk at them.
That's a scary thought.
The laws they are proposing Pecunium are even scarier. As I've said before, Nehemiah Scudder is waiting in the wings.
no subject
Anyway, this is only slightly beside the point. The point is that I trust my faith, my inner conversations with God. My passions as woman, as a survivor of rape compel me to support candidates that will protect my right to an abortion...or better said, my right to choose. I am compelled to support candidates and positions that treat every human being with dignity and love. I am compelled to support candidates that acknowledge that there are an ever-increasing amount of working poor in our nation that we are neglecting. That feeling is so deep inside me, I feel that they define me. I must be true to the gifts of intellect, empathy, passion, love, and equity that were given to me. I am to use those gifts, those talents, those feelings...my entire being to their fullest extent, to do what I think is right on this earth.
Ultimately, my choices will be the basis of any judgment against me and I cannot in good conscience vote for a man who shows little remorse over his decision to wage war, or to keep low income families locked in poverty, or to treat each human being with a minimum amount of decency. Instead, I will vote for someone who takes a stand, even at the behest of his "faith" (and who is to say that because he is standing against the Church, that he is standing against his faith?).
Thanks again for your statement.
no subject
And by what standards does Bush wage aggressive war? I mean, if we are going to start talking just war doctrine, the war in Iraq qualifies on every single count. Aquinas's rules are just authority, just cause, right intention. (ST II-II 40.1) Mr. Bush, after securing Congressional approval, had the authority to do so (Aquinas's rules on authority can be interpreted differently living in a secular democracy rather than an aristocratic autocracy). The just cause and right intention are easily demonstrated--Hussein was a bastard and based on the information available, a dangerous bastard. Good riddance. The military's conduct in Iraq has been, with a handful of exceptions, well beyond the norm in concern for civillians and limiting of damage to only active combatants.
Now, we can argue whether invading Iraq in MAR 2003 was a good idea or not. Demonstrably, it should have been done in the mid-90s. But the idea that it was immoral to do so (and hence questioning the morality of every soldier who served in Iraq) is ridiculous.
Part 1
As for it being jus ad bella, per Augustine, it fails again.
'A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly." We don't have that. The only claim there which comes close would be avenging the wrong of Hussein's gov't against it's people, but that wasn't the case presented.
The intent matters too, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace"
Since the actual claims for the war were being served without the use of actual war, there is again, no justification.
When we get to Aquinas refinments of Augustine's theories one might argue, that as he gives a pair of justifications, "either the furthering of some good or an avoidance of some evil,",Bush might have an out. But Doctrine argue one may not do evil, that good may come of it (from the comment, "What shall it profit a man, if he gain the world, but lose his soul).
That the Administration engaged in lies, and subterfuge to get the limited authorities it got from Congress, and then failed to live up to the requirements that authorization demanded before he actually used them, not only invalidates it on the first level, but also the second. The deceit means that furthering a good is not possible, and the lack of fufilling his obligations to Congress, who retain the soveriegn authority allowed to initiate a just war, per both Augustine and Aquinas.
Because the Legislature did not write Bush a blank check. The authorising resolution demanded that he do two things before he engaged in combat. 1: Exhaust all diplomatic options. Prima Facie this was not done. Condoleeza Rice saying Hussein had failed to completely describe his WMD because he hadn't accounted for the uranium from Niger, which was known to be a false charge, shows this.
2: He was required (though sadly, not compelled) to come back and detail the dimplomacy engaged in, it failures and the lack of any other recourse. He didn't do that either.
End part 1. You last argument needs more detail, and makes this too long to post in one block.
Part 2
The last sentence is strange. Esp. as we are discussing the Bella justum. The soldier is duty bound to follow his leaders. Those waging an unjust war doesn't taint the soldier who carry it out.
For a pretty phrasing of the argument
KING HENRY V
So, if a son that is by his father sent about
merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the
imputation of his wickedness by your rule, should be
imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a
servant, under his master's command transporting a
sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in
many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the
business of the master the author of the servant's
damnation: but this is not so: the king is not
bound to answer the particular endings of his
soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of
his servant; for they purpose not their death, when
they purpose their services. Besides, there is no
king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to
the arbitrement of swords, can try it out with all
unspotted soldiers: some peradventure have on them
the guilt of premeditated and contrived murder;
some, of beguiling virgins with the broken seals of
perjury; some, making the wars their bulwark, that
have before gored the gentle bosom of peace with
pillage and robbery. Now, if these men have
defeated the law and outrun native punishment,
though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to
fly from God: war is his beadle, war is vengeance;
so that here men are punished for before-breach of
the king's laws in now the king's quarrel: where
they feared the death, they have borne life away;
and where they would be safe, they perish: then if
they die unprovided, no more is the king guilty of
their damnation than he was before guilty of those
impieties for the which they are now visited. Every
subject's duty is the king's; but every subject's
soul is his own. Therefore should every soldier in
the wars do as every sick man in his bed, wash every
mote out of his conscience: and dying so, death
is to him advantage; or not dying, the time was
blessedly lost wherein such preparation was gained:
and in him that escapes, it were not sin to think
that, making God so free an offer, He let him
outlive that day to see His greatness and to teach
others how they should prepare.
Which addresses the issue of the soul.
The funny thing is, the very argument you are making is why the Swift Boat Boys are so mad at Kerry. They feel impugned because he said, and rightly, that some atrocities were committed. They can't seem to accept that not all soldiers are, to quote Shakespeare, "unspotted."
People in my line of work have been accused of terrible things, in Gitmo, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. Some of them are people I know, people I worked with. It pains me, but none of what they did (and they did real wrongs, if the evidence seen so far is true) taints me. I did what I was told to do, and did it within the limits of what can be done humanely, and justly, in war. Jus in bella is pernicious, even if one can rightly say that jus ad bella was fought, but so too is it pernicious to made the argument that a lack of jus in bella makes it impossible for the soldier to act, jus in bella.
Re: Part 2
We imprisioned and hung Nazi generals for planning and participating in "agressive war". There were defendants at Nuremburg charged only with that count. The defense that they were simply executing the orders of their head of state did not suffice.
Last time I checked, we got taught that illegal and immoral orders should not be followed. If your argument is that the entire war is immoral, than it follows that actions in that war cannot be moral.
Now, in a moral war, atrocities can be committed (Abu Gharib, or the 'dehousing' nightime incindiary bombing campaign of WWII), but Shakespeare to the contrary, an illegal or immoral war cannot be waged justly.
Re: Part 2
The distinction you are trying to make is the one of jus ad versus jus in bella, which is the argument Shakespeare addressed.
An immoral war is laid at the feet of the man who starts it. He must have a just cause for the war. But an order to do the will of the king (whom both Augustine, and Aquinas gave the authority; we give it to a legislative group, who delegate the management, once the decision is made) is a lawful order.
The soldier's duty is to be moral in the war. In how he conducts himself. No soldier of the Reich was charged with being a pawn in the war, even though it was unjust (in this sense). Those who were charged, were charged with going beyond the bounds of what was legal, in the framework of war. Once committed, the nation's call on her subjects means they lose some of the ability to protest (because it rarely happens that someone gives a war, and no-body comes).
TK
Re: Part 2
No, there were four counts. Count 1 was conspiracy to wage aggressive war. Count 2 was waging aggressive war, "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."
Count 3 was war crimes, Count 4 crimes against humanity. Hess was not charged with 3 or 4, only counts 1 and 2. Raeder was charged with 1, 2, and 3 and convicted only of 2.
Donitz was, IMHO, unjustly convicted of count 3 unless we are willing to put Admiral Chester Nimitz on trial for issuing precisely the same instructions to the US submarine fleet in the Pacific ocean. However, British sensibilities overruled common sense.
At any rate, the issue is whether to obey an illegal order (which you are arguing the order to initiate OIF was) is excused because of the pay grade of the person issuing it. If a officer issues me an order to shoot an unarmed civillian who is not doing anything threatening then I am wrong if I obey him. At the least, you are arguing that General Franks and his senior staff and component commanders are war criminals. Is this your intent?
Re: Part 2
And yes, we charged the leaders with that. But we didn't hang them for the war of agression, it was the counts 3 and 4 which got them the rope. And, again, it was not the rank and file who were reaped the fruits of that, but rather those who, as charge one states conspired to wage aggressive war.
Charge two can be misread, but it isn't aimed at those who were the pawns in the game, but rather those who managed the board.
As you point out with Raeder, 1 and 2 were not capital.
TK
Re: Part 2
Re: Part 2
On a different level, even if Congress had called him on the revocation of authority, he gets 30 days, under the war powers act to do what he wants, before he has to justify it to Congress. That he broke the law isn't relevant to the lawfulness of the order (in part because there are so many laws, in regards to what constitutes a legal order; and what recourse a soldier, or unit, has to defy one that isn't. Orders give a limited privilege to the soldier).
That Congress hasn't repudiated the attacks, means they gave tacit consent, after the fact, and so the illegality is being winked at.
TK
Re: Part 1
Good thing I'm not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
'A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly." We don't have that. The only claim there which comes close would be avenging the wrong of Hussein's gov't against it's people, but that wasn't the case presented.
We do have a couple hundred cease-fire violations to hand. Remember that we very well could have, with little further trouble, eliminated the Hussein family from power 12 years prior and did not do so on certain conditions. Those conditions were not met.
Since the actual claims for the war were being served without the use of actual war, there is again, no justification.
Who believed this? I mean, prior to Bush's decision to terminate the situation in Iraq, the UN certaintly did believe that the Iraqis had an active NBC program. It was cited every time the sanctions came up for review. The UN's own reports claimed Iraq had tons of mustard and nerve gas, and thousands of liters of Anthrax. Clinton, Kerry, Kofi Annan, even Chirac all claimed during the '90s that they believed Iraq had healthy NBC programs. It wasn't until Bush decided to smash Hussein's corrupt regime that all of a sudden the issue was in doubt. I understand about the UN and French. They needed the status quo to continue making billions off of the Weapons-and-Palaces-for-Oil program. The sudden reversal in the convictions of the Democratic Party can only be explained in terms of partisan domestic politics. Even the regional leaders (who might be presumed to have better HUMINT in the region than the US, but the gutting of the CIA is a seperate set of rants) warned General Franks repeatedly about the dangers of Hussein's chemical and biological arsenal. Frankly, if Hussein's programs were a series of complex bluffs, we can hardly blame George Bush for being one of 6 billion people taken in without mentioning any of the other 6 billion who should have known better.
1: Exhaust all diplomatic options. Prima Facie this was not done.
What had not been tried by his predecessors and the world community? Every concievable carrot and stick had been tried by someone at least once in the 12 years that Hussein danced circles around the rest of the world.
Re: Part 1
Good thing I'm not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
Well, it doesn't matter (which was the whole point of the question. The rantings about Kerry being a candidate the Catholics of the country can't vote for are specious. In fact they are pernicious... because the argument is the flip side of the one used against Kennedy... who was accused of being beholden to Rome, and so going to follow Canon Law, not U.S., now the flip side is being proffered, Kerry is not seen as being a strong enough adherent to Canon Law, so he can't govern in the U.S.)
Every concievable carrot and stick had been tried by someone at least once in the 12 years that Hussein danced circles around the rest of the world.
No, it hadn't. More to the point, the options at hand, at the time of the attack, were abrogated. We told the inspectors to leave, because we weren't going to wait for them to get the results.
As for who believed it (the lack of justification)... most of the intel community. Recall the CIA, and the DoD (apart from Wolfowitz' private back-channel boys, who had an agenda). I wish you had been at the briefings we got in Kuwait. Suffice it to say, no one who left that briefing wwas worried about a chemical attack, nor a biological one. On the 1st of April, 2003, all troops in the combat zone were allowed to go to MOPP 0.
The UN reports said he'd had them in the past. VX, has a shelf life of 10 years, his was, at it's newest, 12 years old, and he said it was destroyed. We had inspectors, to look it over, but then we pulled them out, before they could get the answers.
It was a con job, a set up.
I, and a few others, have said for years, that Hussein's best interests were to have no weapons, dick with inspections; so he could play both David, to our Goliath, and be able to play the victim when he was forced to show he had none (See, I told you they were gone, but you refused to believe me, and made my people suffer). Only problem was this adminstration wasn't willing to let that be an option.
Frankly, if Hussein's programs were a series of complex bluffs, we can hardly blame George Bush for being one of 6 billion people taken in without mentioning any of the other 6 billion who should have known better.
If I thought that was the case, I'd agree. But I don't. Honestly, with the information I have, and the other information coming to light (and the way the Adminstration is dragging thier feet on the Plame investigation, and the Niger fraud) I think Bush was one of the few people who wasn't hoodwinked at all. I think he knew, flat out, that Hussein posed zero threat, to either us, or the region, and so lied to us.
Wolfowitz as much as said so, in a Vanity Fair interview, where he said the WMD were used to sell the war, because people wouldn't go for humanitarian reasons.
As for the cease fire violations... if those had been used as the justifications, I would have fewer complaints about the start (but since those were UN terms, and the UN wasn't on board, we tossed them away). The casus belli was the threat to the US, and there was no threat.
And I think we (which is to say those making the decisions) knew that.
TK
Re: Part 1
Yes. They are nearly as specious as the accusation that George Bush is responsible for the flu vaccine, or that George Bush is going to start the draft in January if reelected, or the entire issue of who did what during the Vietnam War. I really don't think either party has a leg to stand on.
In fact they are pernicious...
As a fan of pluralistic secular liberal democracy, I have to agree. The idea that any particular religious organization should only vote for practicing members of their organization who are in accord with the prevailing views among their church's hierarchy is NOT something that is healthy for the Republic. Of course, very little that happens in an election campaign nowdays is.
I wish you had been at the briefings we got in Kuwait. Suffice it to say, no one who left that briefing wwas worried about a chemical attack, nor a biological one. On the 1st of April, 2003, all troops in the combat zone were allowed to go to MOPP 0.
All I know about were the briefings we got--which did not sound to me like there was much of a biological threat, but our BN S2 was pretty insistent on the mustard gas thing. Of course, I'm a combat engineer, and we don't get much good info, either. And true, I hit ground on 3 APR and did not actually wear the JSLIST overgarment. Not once. Of course by then, if there had been a chemical arsenal available, the military units best prepared to use it were already more or less combat ineffective anyway.
I, and a few others, have said for years, that Hussein's best interests were to have no weapons, dick with inspections; so he could play both David, to our Goliath, and be able to play the victim when he was forced to show he had none (See, I told you they were gone, but you refused to believe me, and made my people suffer). Only problem was this adminstration wasn't willing to let that be an option.
And what would have been in it for us if we had?
Wolfowitz as much as said so, in a Vanity Fair interview, where he said the WMD were used to sell the war, because people wouldn't go for humanitarian reasons.
As for the cease fire violations... if those had been used as the justifications, I would have fewer complaints about the start (but since those were UN terms, and the UN wasn't on board, we tossed them away). The casus belli was the threat to the US, and there was no threat.
That's the biggest thing I don't understand about this war. Hussein had been long overdue a spanking--we should have invaded in 95 or 96 IMHO. There were ample reasons to attack. I will never understand why the Administration used as the primary pretext the hardest thing to verify and the easiest thing to hide.
Re: Part 1
I don't think that's the case; which means discussing a draft is a fair question. Certainly we need more troops than we have right now.
The closest thing we got to threat was a warning that there might be some mustard. The warnig was about that solid. I was running V Corps HumInt OB, there was expectation of chem or bio... to mention nukes was to get giggled out of the tent.
And what would have been in it for us if we had? Oh, the good opinion of the world, a real coalition, Hussien rendered impotent, without our destabilising the region, and removing the focus of our efforts against the people who attacked us on That Tuesday, the avoidance of the damages being done to my/our Army, some 1,000+ casualties we didn't have to spend, a few hundreds of billions of dollars we could have better spent in other ways?
Those are the benefits which come off the top of my head.
That's the biggest thing I don't understand about this war. Hussein had been long overdue a spanking--we should have invaded in 95 or 96 IMHO. There were ample reasons to attack. I will never understand why the Administration used as the primary pretext the hardest thing to verify and the easiest thing to hide.
Have you seen the Suskind article in the NYT Magazine from last week? I think it explains it.
Suskind has asked a question, which reflected some doubts about some policy the adminstration was in favor of,"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
It really does seem the people in charge think that way.
TK
Re: Part 1
I don't think that's the case; which means discussing a draft is a fair question. Certainly we need more troops than we have right now.
Yes--but Kerry states, as if it is a fact, that the Administration is definitely going to institute the draft immediately upon reelection. That is just as bogus as most of the rest of the garbage the two canidates have been slinging at each other.
Do we need a draft? No. Do I want to deal with a bunch of sullen assholes who don't want to be in the Army, after removing the chain of command's authority to chapter out soldiers for misconduct and failure to adapt (which would remove the point of a draft). Thank you, but no. I'd rather deploy twice as often in a smaller professional army than to deal with some idiot in my squad who is nursing a conscript syndrome. The Army is not so much short on privates as it is short on experienced NCOs and that a draft will not fix.
The closest thing we got to threat was a warning that there might be some mustard. The warnig was about that solid. I was running V Corps HumInt OB, there was expectation of chem or bio... to mention nukes was to get giggled out of the tent.
My understanding is that the closest thing to a nuke program Iraq had was a couple shady PhDs on long-term retainer, but without much to do. And I don't know much about the raw intel--by the time it gets folded, spindled, and mutilated by every S2 in the chain of command and gets spat out to us, it has lost all connection with reality on the ground. As well as having lost any timeliness it might have once had. But the point stands--most people expected gas and maybe bio.
Hussien rendered impotent, without our destabilising the region,
How would Hussein been rendered impotent by letting him keep playing the same shell game he had been playing? And when was the region stable?
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
That's scary. The really scary part is that I don't see a real alternative.
Politician-wise, the anti-war crowd near as I can tell consists of two segments.
1)The Withdraw Now crowd, which would invalidate everything we have done over the past year and a half.
2)The I Don't Have A Plan, But I'm Pissed At Bush crowd. They are connected enough to reality to realize that having committed to Iraq we have to finish the job. But they don't really know how to do that, and can't articulate what they would do differently, other than the conviction that if Bush were removed the situation would miraculously improve.
Kerry falls into the latter.
I'm a single issue voter. Which candidate do I feel most comfortable returning to Iraq under? Because barring an Act of God, I'm going back at least once or twice. Kerry voted against funding the Iraq operation. He has also consistently voted against military appropriations bills through his career in the Senate. He has opposed both military pay raises and weapons systems. If I vote for him, I am voting against my own interests, and I won't do that.
Re: Part 1
I haven't seen Kerry say a draft will be immediately re-instated. What I've seen is accusations that it is being willfully ignored until after the election, and that with the present op-tempo, either a larger final manning has to be authorised, or a draft needs to be considered.
But the point stands--most people expected gas and maybe bio.
There are two points. One is the common perception, the other is the understanding of those who had better knowledge. Mine was that if those in my level of understanding (who've already had some spindling done) didn't really expect it (and only made plans for that which was possible, even though not likely) those higher up knew at least that much, and chose to discuss things which, q.e.d., they knew to be false, e.g. Cheney saying a nuke in Times Square, courtesy of Baghdad, was possible.
How would he have been rendered impotent? That question has a supposition that he wasn't already. His army was a shambles, the dreaded WMD didn't exist and bin Laden had issued fatwa calling him an apostate; only to be helped because we were worse.
As for regional stability... it was looking better in '99, and now... can you honestly say it's no worse than it was?
As for the things you say you believe about Kerry. I've looked at the parent bills, and at the reasons behind his votes... I don't see what you see. For a quick summa, take a gander at FactCheck.Org. Because Bush hasn't been so great to us, all things considered.
As for the alternatives, nope, we are going to be dealing with the mess for awhile (though it's possible the gov't elected in Jan will kick us out, which will solve one problem, but not the rest).
I too am a single issue voter... what will best serve the Republic, and right now, Bush ain't it. The sense he has tha this gut is the best way to make decisions, his insularity (for all his life) from the direct conssequences of his actions, his overwhelming secreretiveness, his unwillingness to admit to error; or re-evaualte his positions, inability to make those responsible for failure accountable (and the willingness to harm national security for political advantage, or revenge [viz. Valerie Plame]) and, and, and... make me convinced he, and; at this point, his party, need to be removed.
TK
BTW
Her comment?
"Don't completely alienate him, I still plan to invite him to the wedding."
Re: BTW
TK
no subject