Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[Machjo]

What would be your thoughts on this? Ought there to be a constitutional amendment that clearly defines a just war and restrains the military within those constraints?

[wyly]

What would be your thoughts on this? Ought there to be a constitutional amendment that clearly defines a just war and restrains the military within those constraints?

it's a good idea but how do define it...how do you decide..who decides, the people/plebiscite, parliament, the PMO?

[Moonlight Graham]

What would be your thoughts on this? Ought there to be a constitutional amendment that clearly defines a just war and restrains the military within those constraints?

Wow, that would be quite difficult to define. I dunno.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[kimmy]

What would be your thoughts on this? Ought there to be a constitutional amendment that clearly defines a just war and restrains the military within those constraints?

No.

If there's a fight that's important enough to risk our soldiers' lives in, then we need to be there, regardless of whether it fits some legal definition.

-k

[Smallc]

I'm with Kimmy on this one.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Agree with Kimmy one this as well.

[Machjo]

it's a good idea but how do define it...how do you decide..who decides, the people/plebiscite, parliament, the PMO?

Considering that the moral questions involved, I don't think I'd go for a simple supemajority vote.

One idea would be to consult with various communities that do concern themselves with moral matters, religious organizations come to mind. One problem there though is that even among them, dependin on the religion, they won't agree. For some, a holy war would constitute just war. for others, though they agree with just war, they reject holy war. And yet others reject all wars as unjust, as they believe in pacifism.

So I agree that the definition would be a tough one. One possibility would be to consult with vaious religious communities but still let the government make the final decision, taking the ideas shared in the consultations into account. That might be a start. Perhaps we could come up with some kind of definition that most Canadians could agree to. This could be beneficial for both soldiers and the government too. If a soldier is forced into a war that doesn't meet the criteria, he could refuse to fight. On the other hand, if the criteria are met and can be proven to have been met in a court of law, then there would be no recourse for that soldier. One possibility would be to require all new recruits to read the definition of a just war and sign that they will obey order to fight in any war that meets those standards, before he is recruited, so as to eliminate all amiuity there. This would still require obedience on the part of the solider but not blind obdience and certainly not absolute power by a government ruled by a mob majority.

[Machjo]

No.

If there's a fight that's important enough to risk our soldiers' lives in, then we need to be there, regardless of whether it fits some legal definition.

-k

If the legal definition conforms with the broad definition of a just war, then if the war is just, it will fit that legal definition. So in the end, what would there be to fear from this unless we intnd to use our troops as political fodder?

[wyly]

No.

If there's a fight that's important enough to risk our soldiers' lives in, then we need to be there, regardless of whether it fits some legal definition.

-k

that's pretty much the point...if it's good enough to risk our soldiers lives in...what are those issues we consider good enough to risk our soldiers lives in?....who gets to make that call?...

[bush_cheney2004]

If the legal definition conforms with the broad definition of a just war, then if the war is just, it will fit that legal definition. So in the end, what would there be to fear from this unless we intnd to use our troops as political fodder?

Sometimes, that's what "troops" are for.....negotiation by another means.

[Guest TrueMetis]

that's pretty much the point...if it's good enough to risk our soldiers lives in...what are those issues we consider good enough to risk our soldiers lives in?....who gets to make that call?...

The Government and the Soldiers. Don't know about the Government but I trust the Soldiers not to toss themselves into a pointless war.

[Machjo]

Sometimes, that's what "troops" are for.....negotiation by another means.

So we should approve of sacrificing the lives of our men for petty political squabbles with no regard to justice, and then stand up proud and sing the anthem to such a Sodom and Gomorra? Or would we rather have our children stand up prooud to sing to a country worthy of our pride?

[Machjo]

The Government and the Soldiers. Don't know about the Government but I trust the Soldiers not to toss themselves into a pointless war.

Have you ever been in the military? The first thing they teach is obedience. If told to fight, they fight. They're not taught to ponder the moral and ethical viability of the war?

[wyly]

The Government and the Soldiers. Don't know about the Government but I trust the Soldiers not to toss themselves into a pointless war.

so do I but as it is now the government decides...what guidlines do we have to control them from doing something stupid...what if in mid term of a government an issue develops that a decision needs to be made, that particular government does not have a mandate to take us into a war they we may not want...what is there to stop a majority government from taking us into a war

[bush_cheney2004]

So we should approve of sacrificing the lives of our men for petty political squabbles with no regard to justice, and then stand up proud and sing the anthem to such a Sodom and Gomorra? Or would we rather have our children stand up prooud to sing to a country worthy of our pride?

Pride doesn't mean anything if you lose against an enemy not too proud to kick your ass.

[Machjo]

so do I but as it is now the government decides...what guidlines do we have to control them from doing something stupid...what if in mid term of a government an issue develops that a decision needs to be made, that particular government does not have a mandate to take us into a war they we may not want...what is there to stop a majority government from taking us into a war

It shouldn't be a question of whether we want the war or not. A just war can bea noble cause, and in some cases is a moral imperative whether we want it or not. To define a just war could risk becoming a double-edgedsword for the government. On the one hand, a war that does not conform to the definition of a just war could not be fought. On the other hand, a war that fits the definition may very well have to be fought.

[wyly]

Have you ever been in the military? The first thing they teach is obedience. If told to fight, they fight. They're not taught to ponder the moral and ethical viability of the war?

ah,h ethics yes they are, ethics/geneva convention...send in our soldiers to slaughter innocents and almost all will refuse...send them in to a suicide mission(attack the USA) and they will all refuse..

[charter.rights]

The Government and the Soldiers. Don't know about the Government but I trust the Soldiers not to toss themselves into a pointless war.

That contradicts the whole point of having an armed forces. One cannot build a military without exercising it. Games just don't cut it.

As to a just war, the Constitution could be amended to require government to hold a referendum before becoming in any war, or threat outside of Canada. Justice is left to "the people" and government would have no option but to abide by a democratic choice.

[Guest TrueMetis]

so do I but as it is now the government decides...what guidlines do we have to control them from doing something stupid...what if in mid term of a government an issue develops that a decision needs to be made, that particular government does not have a mandate to take us into a war they we may not want...what is there to stop a majority government from taking us into a war

I assume if it's a really bad war our guys will just refuse to go. They have that power, there the ones with the guns.

[Machjo]

Pride doesn't mean anything if you lose against an enemy not too proud to kick your ass.

Well, if the enemy attacks us, then it would seem that by definition it's a just war, no? I'm thinking along the following lines: I'd rither fight the noble fight against an evil enemy an lose over fighting a war of aggression against a hapless victim and win for oil, money and resources. That's more the point I was getting at.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That contradicts the whole point of having an armed forces. One cannot build a military without exercising it. Games just don't cut it.

As to a just war, the Constitution could be amended to require government to hold a referendum before becoming in any war, or threat outside of Canada. Justice is left to "the people" and government would have no option but to abide by a democratic choice.

We are exercising it in Afghanistan our soldiers chose to go, it's a volunteer basis only. Allowing "the people" to decide is moronic I say we give ultimate authority on whether or not we go to war to the soldiers.

Edited October 22, 2009 by TrueMetis

[wyly]

That contradicts the whole point of having an armed forces. One cannot build a military without exercising it. Games just don't cut it.

As to a just war, the Constitution could be amended to require government to hold a referendum before becoming in any war, or threat outside of Canada. Justice is left to "the people" and government would have no option but to abide by a democratic choice.

there could be a scenario where there is no time to hold a referendum the enemy may not e so kind to wait for your vote, you would need a back up plan...

[wyly]

We are exercising it in Afghanistan our soldiers chose to go, it's a volunteer basis only. Aloowing "the people" to decide is moronic I say we give ultimate authority on whether or not we go to war to the soldiers.

ultimately the people must always maintain control...

[Guest TrueMetis]

ultimately the people must always maintain control...

The army is made up of the people difference is these people are willing to put their lives on the line.

[Machjo]

That contradicts the whole point of having an armed forces. One cannot build a military without exercising it. Games just don't cut it.

As to a just war, the Constitution could be amended to require government to hold a referendum before becoming in any war, or threat outside of Canada. Justice is left to "the people" and government would have no option but to abide by a democratic choice.

In the event thatour own sil ere attacked, there'd be no time for a referendum. This is where a constitutional definition would be preferable. It could be consulted at a moments notice for the litmus test. Though generally speaking, an attack against Canadian soild would e grounds for a just war unless that attack were retaliatory for something we'd done to them. ut then again, if we only fight a just war, that should never be an issue.