Al Kresta's Blog, page 325

Just-war scholars: Killing of bin Laden justified

by JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND

The term "just-war doctrine" never surfaced in President Obama's announcement Sunday night that U.S. forces had killed Osama bin Laden.

But his precise remarks underscored the U.S. government's awareness that the world would scrutinize the killing of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks from many different vantage points, including the just-war doctrine.

Introduced by St. Augustine of Hippo, this doctrine has traditionally provided the moral framework for guiding and evaluating "the just defense of a nation against an aggressor."

It does not directly address the issue of individual or collective guilt of the aggressor, or how a just punishment should be established. The teaching allows aggression to be stopped by proportionate means and nothing more; the president implicitly acknowledged this criterion when he noted that bin Laden was only killed after a 40-minute firefight in which he resisted capture.

"Justice has been done," the president told the nation. He identified bin Laden as the leader of a global terrorist network "which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends and our allies."

The president reported that the team of Navy Seals and CIA operatives who conducted the raid on bin Laden's compound "took care to avoid civilian casualties."

Experts on just-war doctrine — also called just-war theory or tradition — have only begun to assess the full scope of the operation to kill or capture bin Laden. But several leading scholars stated that the action appeared morally justified, while noting that they were taking the president's remarks at face value.

Yet, as the television news depicted boisterous scenes of celebration in front of the White House and at New York City's Times Square and Ground Zero, these scholars stressed that the moral justification for killing a terrorist did not include a denial of his fundamental human dignity. The killing should provoke solemnity, not jubilation, they said; they stressed that the world's pre-eminent military power must carefully adhere to the moral guidelines for responding to aggression and conducting warfare.

At the Vatican, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, issued a statement May 2, saying that Bin Laden "claimed responsibility for grave acts that spread division and hate among the peoples, manipulating religion to that end."

But, the brief statement continued, without voicing a judgment regarding the morality of the attack, "A Christian never takes pleasure from the fact of a man's death, but sees it as an opportunity to reflect on each person's responsibility, before God and humanity, and to hope and commit oneself to seeing that no event become another occasion to disseminate hate but rather to foster peace."


The Changing Face of War

James Turner Johnson, a professor of religion at Rutgers University and a leading scholar on just-war theory, in a telephone interview, called the killing of bin Laden "an execution of justice, plain and simple, carried out under the authority of one who can properly use bellum [war] in the service of good."

Following the 9/11 attacks, when President George W. Bush first declared his administration's "War on Terror," some scholars and political commentators questioned whether just-war criteria could be applied to non-traditional warfare against a terrorist movement. Could the United States declare war on al Qaeda and justify U.S. military actions accordingly?

One scholar thinks so. "We have to understand that, in the kind of world in which we live, the just-war tradition needs to develop and 'stretch,'" said George Weigel, author of Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism and co-author with Johnson of Just War and the Gulf War. "That means recognizing the circumstances in which non-state actors can nonetheless engage in what is properly called 'war,' with the subsequent consequences."

Critics of President Bush's military policy once argued that the U.S. response to terrorism should fall within the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement and be taken out of the hands of the military. President Obama's statement regarding the killing of bin Laden appeared to set that argument aside, at least for now.

"Attempts to portray this action in Pakistan as the equivalent of the Chicago Police Department breaking into a crack house and shooting a crack-cocaine dealer rather miss the nature of what has been going on between bin Laden and the United States since the mid-1990s," contended Weigel. "This is not criminal activity/police work, but war."

Johnson agrees that just-war criteria can be adapted to evaluate both the purpose and prudence of the "War on Terror," as well as the actual conduct of specific military operations.

"Some contemporary usage tries to restrict the meaning of 'war' to the now somewhat outmoded black-letter international law definition, by which it is a state-on-state conflict marked by certain formal procedures. On this definition, there is war, there is peace, defined as not-war, and there is an intermediate status or status mixtus," said Johnson.

"But in the concept of justum bellum as originally understood, bellum referred to the use of force on the authority of the leader responsible for the common good of the political community (the original meaning of sovereignty), whether against external threats or against internal ones. Any other person's use of force was not bellum but a case of duellum, a kind of dueling or feuding," he noted.

The author of such works as Morality and Contemporary Warfare and The Holy War Idea in Western and Islamic Tradition, Johnson argues that just-war doctrine, which places the responsibility for initiating and conducting war with legitimate leaders, should be defended at a time when terrorist movements claim to represent the common good, and thus demand moral equivalence with legitimate states.
"It is misguided to open up the use of armed force to such persons, whatever the nature of the cause they claim to be serving," said Johnson. "Classic Islamic tradition on jihad of the sword says much the same thing: The right of resort to such use of force belongs only to the leader of the community, the one responsible for its overall good."


'Requires Anguish'

But threats to the integrity of just-war doctrine can also arise from other quarters, and scholars stress that U.S. political and military leaders must resist any effort to water down the moral framework for guiding America's military role in the world.

"The United States is the most powerful nation on earth. Even when the cause is just, we must act with humility and sobriety," said Jean Bethke Elshtain, professor of social and political ethics at the University of Chicago and the author of Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World.

"The just-war tradition is not something you drag in every time you use force and want to justify it. It has to shape deliberations before the decision to use force is made and the military operation moves forward. It's a tradition that requires anguish and moral debate," said Elshtain, a leading public intellectual and a Lutheran who said she would become a Catholic this June.

In 2003, Bush justified the invasion of Iraq as "pre-emptive war." The official goal of the mission was to block Saddam Hussein from engaging in further aggression and to prevent his use of weapons of mass destruction.

The weapons were never found. At the time, Pope John Paul II strongly opposed the invasion, while some Catholic scholars like Weigel and Michael Novak endorsed it.

Msgr. Stuart Swetland, a professor of ethics at Mount St. Mary's University and Seminary in Emmitsburg, Md., and a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he also opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, arguing that "pre-emptive war did not meet the criteria of last resort" — exhaust every means possible to avoid war.

But he believes that the killing of bin Laden was morally justified, though he admitted that the scenes of mostly youthful jubilation at Ground Zero and the White House gave him pause.

"It's important not to take delight in the death of another. In Ezekiel 33:11, we're told to 'take no pleasure in the death of the wicked,'" noted Msgr. Swetland, who was preparing for a class discussion on the killing of bin Laden.

In an age of moral relativism, the virtues and painstaking analysis dictated by the just-war doctrine may look like a holdover from another age. But Msgr. Swetland remains cautiously optimistic that just-war criteria will be passed on to the next generation.

"If we don't have it, we'll be reduced to pragmatism, and then we'll justify whatever we want to get away with," he said. "But we also need levelheaded people in the White House and Congress that speak truth to power."

St. John of Avila to be next Doctor of the Church?

US House approves ban on taxpayer funding for abortion

The US House of Representatives has passed a comprehensive ban on the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.

The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," approved on May 4 by a 251- 176 vote, would make permanent the ban on public funding for abortion known as the "Hyde Amendment," which now requires annual renewal. The bill would bar the use of federal funds to pay for abortions under the new national health-care plan. The legislative also includes a "conscience clause," preserving the right of health-care workers to refuse to be involved in abortions.

The proposed bill was passed by the House on a mostly partisan vote, with every Republican member supporting the legislation and Democrats opposing it by a 175- 16 margin. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is Catholic, argued against the bill and especially against the conscience clause.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act now moves to the Senate, where analysts expect that it will be defeated.

Of the 125 Catholic lawmakers who voted on the bill in the House, 60 supported it (all 60 Republicans and 8 Democrats), and 57 Catholic—all of them Democrats--opposed it.

Outrage of the Day

Another example of "zero tolerance" stupidity. A kid brings a BROKEN BB gun to school property while the school was CLOSED and for that he gets time in jail. Ridiculous.

Cartoon of the Day - Under Your Nose

Today on Kresta - May 5, 2011

Talking about the "things that matter most" on May 5

4:00 – The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know -- and Men Can't Say
What if everything you've been told about women in America is wrong? What if what your college professors taught you - along with television, movies, books, magazine articles, and even news reports - have all been lies or distortions? Since the 1960s, American feminists have set themselves up as the arbiters of all things female. Their policies have dominated the social and political landscape. The "spin sisters" in the media (aptly named by Myrna Blyth in her book of the same name) and their cohorts in academia are committed feminists. Consequently, everything Americans know -- or think they know -- about marriage, kids, sex, education, politics, gender roles, and work/family balance, has been filtered through a left-wing lens. But what if conservative women are in the best position to empower American women? Suzanne Venker is here to discuss it.

4:20 – The Life of a Warrior
Sergeant David Hack is an Army Veteran who served in Vietnam and has marshaled his love of country, love of the military, and love of his faith into his company US Wings, the only official licensee for government-issue aviator jackets. He joins us in studio to discuss his life and mission.

4:40 – Inside the Hunt for Osama Bin Laden
For many years, Michael Scheuer headed the CIA's Bin Laden Unit. He has been in high demand this week for analysis of the Bin Laden operation, death, burial, photographs and more. He joins us today.

5:00 – The Catholic Church and Science; Answering the Questions, Exposing the Myths
In The Catholic Church and Science, Ben Wiker takes on the most common errors that modern materialistic thinkers, convinced that faith and science must be mortal enemies, have foisted into popular culture. With great learning, clarity, and wit he tackles stubborn confusions many people have about the relationship between Christianity especially Catholicism and the empirical sciences, and separates truth from lies, the factual from the fanciful. He joins us.

5:40 – There Be Dragons
Arising out of the horror of the Spanish Civil War, a candidate for canonization is investigated by a journalist who discovers his own estranged father had a deep, dark and devastating connection to the saint's life. The film is There Be Dragons and it explores a part of the life of St. Jose Maria Escriva. Steven Greydanus represented Ave Maria Radio at the premiere and press junket for There Be Dragons. Today he gives us his formal review.

Shock Report: Nearly Half Of Detroiters Can't Read

According to a new report, 47 percent of Detroiters are "functionally illiterate." The alarming new statistics were released by the Detroit Regional Workforce Fund on Wednesday.


WWJ Newsradio 950 spoke with the Fund's Director, Karen Tyler-Ruiz, who explained exactly what this means.

"Not able to fill out basic forms, for getting a job — those types of basic everyday (things). Reading a prescription; what's on the bottle, how many you should take… just your basic everyday tasks," she said.

"I don't really know how they get by, but they do. Are they getting by well? Well, that's another question," Tyler-Ruiz said.

Some of the Detroit suburbs also have high numbers of functionally illiterate: 34 percent in Pontiac and 24 percent in Southfield.

"For other major urban areas, we are a little bit on the high side… We compare, slightly higher, to Washington D.C.'s urban population, in certain ZIP codes in Washington D.C. and in Cleveland," she said.

Tyler-Ruiz said only 10 percent of those who can't read have gotten any help to resolve it.

The report will be used to provide better training for local workers.

View a copy of the report

Oh Nancy

Here's Nancy Pelosi from a press conference on September 7, 2006:

[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer.

And here's Nancy Pelosi yesterday:

The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .

'Playing Jesus wrecked my career': Passion of the Christ actor said Hollywood has shunned him

From UK's The Daily Mail

Actor Jim Caviezel has claimed his Hollywood career was wrecked by playing Jesus.

He said he was 'rejected in my own industry' after taking on the lead role in Mel Gibson's controversial movie 'The Passion of the Christ'.

Since playing the son of God in the 2004 film he said offers had dried up and he is shunned by many within the industry.

Although a box office hit taking more than $400 million worldwide it was condemned as being anti-Semitic.

Gibson, the film's director, was later accused of making anti-Jewish remarks after being arrested for drink driving.

Caviezel said he was warned against taking the part by Gibson who warned him he would never work in Hollywood again.

'He said, "You'll never work in this town again." I told him, "We all have to embrace our crosses".' Caviezel told an audience of churchgoers in Orlando, Florida.

Since Passion of the Christ, the 42-year-old has only appeared in a handful of films.

Prior to playing Jesus he was considered one of Hollywood rising stars and appeared in The Count of Monte Cristo' and 'ngel Eyes with Jennifer Lopez.

One of his biggest hits was in 2000 with time-travel thriller Frequency opposite Dennis Quaid.

Caviezel, a devout Roman Catholic, said he knew playing Jesus would be risky.

'Jesus is as controversial now as he has ever been,' Caviezel said. 'Not much has changed in 2,000 years.'

He said he wasn't worried about the stalling of his career.

During his 20 minute talk, Caviezel spoke of the troubles that have dogged Gibson.

'Mel Gibson, he's a horrible sinner, isn't he?' Caviezel said. 'Mel Gibson doesn't need your judgment, he needs your prayers.'

Caviezel said that his faith is his guide, both personally and professionally.

He said it was no coincidence that 'in my 33rd year, I was called to play Jesus,' and joked about his initials also being the same as Jesus Christ.

The actor spoke about the film and its negative effect on his career while at a megachurch in Orlando to promote a new audio book of the Bible.

Pointing to a DVD of his famous film, Caviezel said 'This is The Passion of the Christ.'
Pointing to the CD boxed set of the new audio book of the Bible, Words of Promise, he said: 'This is The Passion on Steroids."

U.S. House readies for vote on No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Pro-life members of the House of Representatives are preparing to introduce legislation this week that could have an historic impact on the future of the pro-life movement.

HR 3, known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, would codify the Hyde amendment that is renewed every year in the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bills, making it permanent and applicable to the entire federal government. The Hyde amendment prohibits use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape or incest.

Sources on Capitol Hill say the bill is likely to be introduced on Wednesday. The bill has 218 sponsors in the House.

Ending taxpayer funding for abortion has proven consistently popular in American polls. A CNN poll this month showed that 61 percent of respondents opposed public abortion funding, a number consistent with data in recent years.

Faith Family Freedom Fund, a political action committee associated with Family Research Council Action, launched a radio ad campaign in 12 congressional districts today, calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to approve H.R. 3

"On Election Day, the American people made clear their opposition to using their hard- earned dollars to pay for abortions and most especially during a time of such economic turmoil," said Faith Family Freedom Fund Chairwoman Connie Mackey.

"We call on these House Members to vote to ensure that American taxpayers are not complicit in a lethal assault on the most fundamental of all human rights - the right to life."

Passage of a government-wide Hyde amendment became particularly urgent after President Obama's health care reform was passed in March 2010; it deviates from the Hyde principle by allowing premium assistance credits to be directed to health insurance coverage that includes abortion.

In addition, the health care reform sets up new structures by which taxpayer funds could be channeled to abortion if the original Hyde amendment is eliminated in any budget bill - an explicit goal of the abortion lobby.

"The Obama administration has tried to muddle the message when it comes to ObamaCare's coverage of abortion and his Administration's support of taxpayer funding of abortion on demand," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "H.R. 3 sends the message that Americans are tired of these games: No taxpayer money for abortion, not here, not now, not ever. It is long past time that taxpayers get out of the abortion business."

Some critics have accused the bill of attacking small businesses and others by disallowing tax credits for insurance plans that cover abortion.

"H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of small businesses now offering health insurance to employees and eligible for the new tax credits," wrote Frank Knapp, President and CEO of The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, in an op-ed for The Hill on Monday.

However, pro-life leaders on the Hill point out that H.R. 3 is considered tax neutral, and was scored as having a negligible tax impact by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Americans for Tax Reform, a group that opposes tax hikes, has acknowledged that the lobby has "no problems or issues with H.R. 3," which has "no net tax change whatsoever."

Another of the arguments against the bill was voiced by NARAL Pro-Choice America, which blasted the legislation as "the rape-audits bill," claiming that the bill's language would "force sexual-assault survivors who choose abortion care to prove the assault occurred to the IRS."

Pro-life leaders on the hill, however, say that the "rape audit" argument is a stretch, since tax returns do not prompt individuals to disclose the nature of a medical expense, and that other federal agencies such as Medicaid have not required special reporting to distinguish an abortion due to rape from other abortions.

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, urged the passage of the bill, pointing out that it would save countless lives. "By conservative estimate, more than one million Americans are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment," he said. "If the principles of the Hyde amendment are applied in permanent, government-wide fashion, the lifesaving effects we have already seen will be multiplied."