Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, if the enemy attacks us, then it would seem that by definition it's a just war, no?

No, that is not automatic by any means.

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.

Why...so you can die in a morally superior way?

[M.Dancer]

The constitution already has a just war clause.

War can only be declared by her majesty. She rules by the Grace of God and the will of parliament. Ergo, she declares war, it's just that, a just war.

Any further chit chat on this subject is blatherskite.

[Machjo]

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

As do police officers, fire fighters, and even just good samaritans helping neighbours in distress. It's nice to put one's own life on the line, but one major difference is that unlike firefighters and plain goodsamaritans, police officers and soldiers put not only their own lives on the line but others' too. That is why police officers have certain protocols. In some extreme cases for example, a police officer might break a police chace for the safety of passes by if the chase risks putting too many lives on the line. Why should we not have similar restraints on the military? Is it because police officers deal with the lives of Canadian citizens whereas soldiers are dealing with the lives of 'sub human' foreign 'savages' who can't even speak English? Why have so many laws protecting citizens from the police but not others from our army. Are they lesser peoples owing to lack of citizenship? If a Canadian child gets run over in a police chase, it's a tragedy and the police will be questioned. Bomb a school abroad, and it's colateral damage.

[wyly]

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

and they'll always go where we send them, it's their job and they're dedicated to it...but we should be sure there is very very good reason to send them, the cause must be a just one...that they are properly equiped to do so... and there is an end point to the conflict...if we can't assure them of these then we have no business sending them in harms way...

[Machjo]

No, that is not automatic by any means.

So what would be an example of a country attacking us and it being i teh right and us in the wrong, asuming of course that we never did anything to harm that country?

Why...so you can die in a morally superior way?

So would you be happy to be fighting in Afghanistan knowing that the WMDs, Hussain's relation to Bin Laden, etc. were all a propaganda ploy?

[bush_cheney2004]

So what would be an example of a country attacking us and it being i teh right and us in the wrong, asuming of course that we never did anything to harm that country?

That's a big assumption.....Germany didn't attack Canada.

So would you be happy to be fighting in Afghanistan knowing that the WMDs, Hussain's relation to Bin Laden, etc. were all a propaganda ploy?

Few soldier's are "happy" to be fighting, but yes, the terms of duty are well defined and not negotiable for moral equivocations.

[wyly]

No, that is not automatic by any means.

it would depend on the type of attack...military attack sure...terrorist no...the USA used the military after 9/11...Canada used the Police after Air India...

Why...so you can die in a morally superior way?

if you can die in a immoral way ...you can certianly die in a superior way

[Guest TrueMetis]

As do police officers, fire fighters, and even just good samaritans helping neighbours in distress. It's nice to put one's own life on the line, but one major difference is that unlike firefighters and plain goodsamaritans, police officers and soldiers put not only their own lives on the line but others' too. That is why police officers have certain protocols. In some extreme cases for example, a police officer might break a police chace for the safety of passes by if the chase risks putting too many lives on the line. Why should we not have similar restraints on the military? Is it because police officers deal with the lives of Canadian citizens whereas soldiers are dealing with the lives of 'sub human' foreign 'savages' who can't even speak English? Why have so many laws protecting citizens from the police but not others from our army. Are they lesser peoples owing to lack of citizenship? If a Canadian child gets run over in a police chase, it's a tragedy and the police will be questioned. Bomb a school abroad, and it's colateral damage.

I'm saying the Military should have final say whether we go to war, not that they should be able to do what ever the hell they want once in the war.

and they'll always go where we send them, it's their job and they're dedicated to it...but we should be sure there is very very good reason to send them, the cause must be a just one...that they are properly equiped to do so... and there is an end point to the conflict...if we can't assure them of these then we have no business sending them in harms way...

That's why I'm saying they should have final say in whether they go to war. If i'm in the military (which I plan to be soon) the last thing I want is to have the government or even the people, decide for me whether or not the people I know and I go to war. People in the Military tend to have access to information civilians don't.

[bush_cheney2004]

it would depend on the type of attack...military attack sure...terrorist no...the USA used the military after 9/11...Canada used the Police after Air India...

Canada couldn't very well attack India (even if it wanted to).

if you can die in a immoral way ...you can certianly die in a superior way

General Patton already answered this question.....make the other poor dumb bastard die in a superior way for his country.

[Machjo]

I'm saying the Military should have final say whether we go to war, not that they should be able to do what ever the hell they want once in the war.

I disagree with this. In some cases, war is required and if a soldier is ordered to fight he ought to be required to obey, the ONLY excepion being if the justice of the war is in question, and that is where such a constitutional provision could help. If the war does not meet with those provisions, then and only then could he refuse to fight. Otherwise certainly the government ought to have the right to declare war.

That's why I'm saying they should have final say in whether they go to war. If i'm in the military (which I plan to be soon) the last thing I want is to have the government or even the people, decide for me whether or not the people I know and I go to war. People in the Military tend to have access to information civilians don't.

This should not be. If the government must keep secrets from the people, then how can the people vote reponsibly. And if the government can't trust the people with this information, then what's the point of democracy? What exactly are we defending then? If that's how it must be, then let's adopt the Swiss citizen army so that all citizens are in the know. If the army keeps secrets from the people, then that army does not represent the peopld and forfeits all moral rights to claim to be defending the people.

[wyly]

Canada couldn't very well attack India (even if it wanted to).

it's not our way...9/11 the first words you heard from the USA was bomb'em back to the stone age!...no Canadians were screaming after Air India, bomb the towel heads, it was call the RCMP...and our system was just as effective and hundreds of thousands more didn't loose their lives over it...

Edited October 22, 2009 by wyly

[Guest TrueMetis]

I disagree with this. In some cases, war is required and if a soldier is ordered to fight he ought to be required to obey, the ONLY excepion being if the justice of the war is in question, and that is where such a constitutional provision could help. If the war does not meet with those provisions, then and only then could he refuse to fight. Otherwise certainly the government ought to have the right to declare war.

If the war is required then 99% of the military will be willing to fight anyway. If the justness of the war is in question who better to decide whether to fight it then the people who are going to fight it. Most people, especially in the military, are willing to fight for a just cause.

This should not be. If the government must keep secrets from the people, then how can the people vote reponsibly. And if the government can't trust the people with this information, then what's the point of democracy? What exactly are we defending then? If that's how it must be, then let's adopt the Swiss citizen army so that all citizens are in the know. If the army keeps secrets from the people, then that army does not represent the peopld and forfeits all moral rights to claim to be defending the people.

I'm willing to let the army keep the information they have on the enemy a secret. Do you really want everyone who is a Canadian citizen to know all of our troop movements and where all enemy bases are? This is the type of information military men have access to and civilians shouldn't.

[bush_cheney2004]

it's not our way...9/11 the first words you heard from the USA was bomb'em back to the stone age!...no Canadians were screaming after Air India, bomb the towel heads, it was call the RCMP...and our system was just as effective and hundreds of thousands more didn't loose their lives over it...

I doubt that...starting with some of the families of dead Canadians in both attacks.

It's "not our way" didn't seem to apply in Iraq (GW1), Serbia, Balkans, Haiti....or Afghanistan.

Edited October 22, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

That's a big assumption.....Germany didn't attack Canada.

Germany attacked Britain and its allies, and Britain requested our help in defending them. Now, we could argue that the Treaty of Versaille was unfair, as it was. Even with that though, Gemanyhad the option of fighting it at the Hague and could have won as even the British acknowledged that that Treaty was unfair. For for all intents and purposes, Germany was in the wrong on this. Sure we must accept blame for having imposed the Treaty of Versaille on the Germans, but that alone was still not an excuse for germany to attack its neighbours. So our attack on Germany was by no means preemptive. Germany had struck first to our allies, and we were merely fighting along side our allies.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Machjo

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Only a fool would seek the destruction of an entire group of people for the actions of a few individuals outside of their own government.

[Machjo]

If the war is required then 99% of the military will be willing to fight anyway. If the justness of the war is in question who better to decide whether to fight it then the people who are going to fight it. Most people, especially in the military, are willing to fight for a just cause.

I've been in the military and I'd seen more than a few skinhead type personalities in there. I woud not want them deciding what is or isn't a just war, since some wars they'd consider just would be sheer acts of imperialism.

I'm willing to let the army keep the information they have on the enemy a secret. Do you really want everyone who is a Canadian citizen to know all of our troop movements and where all enemy bases are? This is the type of information military men have access to and civilians shouldn't.

Now you're talking after the fact of war. Before war starts, we have a right to know why the government wants us to go to war, and we have the right to know the moral legitimacy of the war. As for troop movements and such, I agree with you, but that is once the war is started. Prior to that, we have a right to know why the government wants us to fight, otherwise we end up hearing stories of WMDs that don't exist and governments with imaginary relationships with the enemy.

[bush_cheney2004]

Germany attacked Britain and its allies, and Britain requested our help in defending them. Now, we could argue that the Treaty of Versaille was unfair, as it was. Even with that though, Gemanyhad the option of fighting it at the Hague and could have won as even the British acknowledged that that Treaty was unfair. For for all intents and purposes, Germany was in the wrong on this. Sure we must accept blame for having imposed the Treaty of Versaille on the Germans, but that alone was still not an excuse for germany to attack its neighbours. So our attack on Germany was by no means preemptive. Germany had struck first to our allies, and we were merely fighting along side our allies.

So what...if you want to play this game, then by any measure, Canada was not "attacked". It's this very kind of dancing about the issue which dooms your idea of "just war" trappings in international conflicts. Krikey, Canada's head of state wouldn't have it any other way.

[Machjo]

So what...if you want to play this game, then by any measure, Canada was not "attacked". It's this very kind of dancing about the issue which dooms your idea of "just war" trappings in international conflicts. Krikey, Canada's head of state wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm not following you here. If an allie is attacked without just cause, then our going in to help that allie on request is not an act of agresion on our part, as our troops are then fighting in the service of an allie who was unustly attacked. I don't follow your argument here.

[kimmy]

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?

If your definition of "a just war" is broad enough to include whatever we decided is important enough to go to war over anyway, then what's the point?

...what are those issues we consider good enough to risk our soldiers lives in?....who gets to make that call?...

Our elected government.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not following you here. If an allie is attacked without just cause, then our going in to help that allie on request is not an act of agresion on our part, as our troops are then fighting in the service of an allie who was unustly attacked. I don't follow your argument here.

Are you kidding me? This just loops us back to alliances and wars for imperial pride.

It's not called "going to help" by the enemy.

[Machjo]

I'm not following you here. If an allie is attacked without just cause, then our going in to help that allie on request is not an act of agresion on our part, as our troops are then fighting in the service of an allie who was unustly attacked. I don't follow your argument here.

No had Britain attacked Germany first, and then when Germany fought back britain requested Canada's help and Canada offered, then I'd say Canada would have been in the wrong in fighting on the British side and ought instead to fight on the German side, at Germany's request, and of course with clear definitions of engagement. Once Britain would no longer be a threat to germany, Canada would need to expect Germany to cease and deist or else switch sides and then defend Britain. But certainly, the details would need to be elaborated to ensure rules the vast majority within and beyond our borders could agree to be just.

[bush_cheney2004]

No had Britain attacked Germany first, and then when Germany fought back britain requested Canada's help and Canada offered, then I'd say Canada would have been in the wrong in fighting on the British side and ought instead to fight on the German side, at Germany's request, and of course with clear definitions of engagement. Once Britain would no longer be a threat to germany, Canada would need to expect Germany to cease and deist or else switch sides and then defend Britain. But certainly, the details would need to be elaborated to ensure rules the vast majority within and beyond our borders could agree to be just.

Germany attacked Poland...not Great Britain. "Requesting help" came in the form of a call to arms throughout THE EMPIRE by King George VI.

Think about that for a minute.....

[Machjo]

If your definition of "a just war" is broad enough to include whatever we decided is important enough to go to war over anyway, then what's the point?

It would require proof. for example, Harper wanted us to go into Iraq even though the US had no evidence of WMDs nor of Hussain's involvement in Al Qaida. Had he been in power then, we'd be in Iraq today. Such a law would have ensured that had Harper been in power then, that before we could fight in Iraq, the US would have had to prove that Hussain was involved with Bin Laden and that WMDs existsed and that he inteded to use them etc etc etc. or alternatively to be honest about his objectives and explain how those objectives are just.

Had Harper been in power then, we could very wel have been fighting over non-existent WMDs and imaginary relationships.

[bush_cheney2004]

It would require proof. for example, Harper wanted us to go into Iraq even though the US had no evidence of WMDs nor of Hussain's involvement in Al Qaida. Had he been in power then, we'd be in Iraq today.

False...Canada would have been in Iraq with a simple UNSC vote, regardless of Harper or proof.

[Machjo]

Germany attacked Poland...not Great Britain. "Requesting help" came in the form of a call to arms throughout THE EMPIRE by King George VI.

Think about that for a minute.....

OK, then looking at it that way, it was an unjust war unless we could prove that it was in conformity with the international laws of the time, we had an alliance with Poland, or that Poland wanted that help. Certainly the situation would have been flawed then since the League of Nations was still not so highly developed. Today alliances and internaitonal laws in these matters have expanded and it might be possible to define a just war to include cases in which there is a clea moral imperative and not just 'national interests'.