JUST WAR AND THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

Lesson 3: Applying the Just War Criteria (December 2, 2001)

LESSON OUTLINE

For the conscience hath been set free and is reserved for God alone, that he and no human being may be Lord of the same. (Peter Ridemann, 1506-1556)

From the last lesson:

Today, we will try directing some Christian thinking, including the just war criteria, at common war situations.

1. Conscientious Objection

[There doesn't seem to be much formal "conscientious objection" to the War Against Terrorism, in part because there's no draft, but more so because there's no need: so far, the only sacrifice Americans are being asked to suffer is that they should go shopping more. Nevertheless, American should, in my opinion, treat this war like they would any other -- if this is not something that I would personally involve myself and my sons, then it's not right for other people and their sons.]

History of Conscientious Objection: The term "conscientious objector" is fairly recent, being coined in England in World War I, because "conscientious objection" was an exception to the Conscription Act of 1916. CO's (usually shorted to "conchie") in England and France suffered greatly (harassed, discriminated against, beaten, imprisoned, sometimes even shot as deserters, with next of kin sent a malicious note that so-and-so "died a coward"). During World War II, the U.S. had about 50,000 CO's.

PERSONAL VIEW: This rasies the issue of civil disobedience and the superiority of conscience. My opinion is this: (1) If the matter is one on which I humbly, prayerfully, and reluctantly conclude that there can be no legitimate disagreement, that the other side has not even a fairly debatable position, then I have no choice but to ignore the law and follow my own conscience. (2) However, if the matter is fairly debatable, if it is a subject on which reasonable minds can differ and ethical men can disagree, then my recourse is to "speak my mind and go along." I.e., in all but undebatable cases, one's duty to preserve a society of law, not men (i.e., to avoid lawlessness and anarchy) outweights one's right to follow the debatable conclusions of conscience.

2. Assassination.

When is it Christian to assassinate the leader of another country, either before or during the course of a war?

Note, Article 23, paragraph (b) of the "Annex" to the Hague Convention of 1907, which is the law of the United States (36 Stat. 2295), says, "It is especially forbidden ... to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army." This is generally construed as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price on an enemy's head, or offering a reward for any enemy "dead or alive." In addition, Executive Order 12333, issued in 1981, says, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

There are technical, legal arguments that might serve to create a "loophole" in the above prohibitions sufficient to allow assassination under certain circumstances.

3. Justice in Settlements.

A question is often presented, just how far can one go in settling the war? Can one go beyond the status quo ante bellum to establish a "better peace"?

Consider the case of the Korean war:

On June 25, 1950, a vastly superior and better-equipped army from North Korea invaded South Korea. The U.N. called the invasion a violation of international peace and demanded that the North Koreans withdraw. Eventually, 16 U.N. countries sent troops to South Korea and 41 countries sent military equipment and supplies.

At the outset, it was repeatedly stated that the sole military purpose was to drive the North Koreans back to the 38th parallel (the partition line) and to restore the status quo ante bellum. Senator Flanders stated that President Truman "would not be within his rights in pursuing the Korean forces .. north of the 38th parallel." The administration "wholeheartedly agreed."

Nevertheless, in October 1950, U.S. troops drove across the 38th parallel, north to Pyongyang (the North Korean capital), and nearly to the Yalu River (which formed the border with China). At this point the stated polices abruptly changed; the American goal (sanctioned by the U.N.) became to unify Korea (by force of arms) and to establish a new democratic government.

There appeared to be two justifications for this decision. From a military view, the thinking was that to halt at the old line would have surrendered military initiative to the enemy and allowed him to rebuild his army for a new offensive. The second reason was something akin to a law enforcement model, that it was necessary to "round up the people that were putting on the aggression" ( quoting Secretary of State Dean Acheson) and displace the criminal government that had precipitated the war.

4. Next week, we will apply the general principles we have discussed, and the results of these specific analyses, to the War Against Terrorism. Be prepared to discuss the questions below. (Note, for all of these, the discussion will be, what is the Christian answer? We will not focus on politics, international relations, or military questions.) (For some factual background in connection with the below questions, see the referenced materials. Also, add whatever other factual sources, editorials, analyses, whatever, you can find.) (A good starting place for background information would be the CNN archives on this issue, located at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/afghan.section.html.)

[To Next Lesson] [To Topic List]

11/24/01