Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[Machjo]

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

And certainly the UNSC would not have voted on that lightly. To require a UNSC vote was thus a smart move It is hard to imagine the UNSC approving of this without hard proof.

[Guest TrueMetis]

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.

Same agrument could be used against the people or government.

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.

Ok your right there, but it would be a bad Idea to let the people choose because they only really care about whether it's going to cost them money, and it's a bad idea to let the government choose because their only goal is to stay in power. While the Army's only goal is to protect Canada why wouldn't we let them choose?

[bush_cheney2004]

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'.

OK....but the point of this exercise was to demonstrate that the greatest conflagration in human history would not meet such a definition for "just war" by Canada, not even after the fact.

Sovereign Canada had no alliance with Poland.

[bush_cheney2004]

And certainly the UNSC would not have voted on that lightly. To require a UNSC vote was thus a smart move It is hard to imagine the UNSC approving of this without hard proof.

No it's not.....Russia and France were protecting their interests, not "just war". PM Chretien stated that Canada was in (whatever that meant with such thin forces available) if the UNSC so voted, with no provision for "proof" of WMDs. In fact, Canada offered up a half-ass compromise with Mexico that would have guaranteed war after 30 days of inspection non-compliance by Saddam.

[Machjo]

OK....but the point of this exercise was to demonstrate that the greatest conflagration in human history would not meet such a definition for "just war" by Canada, not even after the fact.

Sovereign Canada had no alliance with Poland.

So if that war was unjust then we should not have fought in it. Now that that war is over, we must move on and ensure we not fight in another unjust war. So if we could define what constitutes a just war in the constitution, while ensuring a clear and complete definition that leaves no loopholes, it would help keep mob rule from sending our troops in to wars of convenience or to protect 'national interests'.

[bush_cheney2004]

So if that war was unjust then we should not have fought in it. Now that that war is over, we must move on and ensure we not fight in another unjust war. So if we could define what constitutes a just war in the constitution, while ensuring a clear and complete definition that leaves no loopholes, it would help keep mob rule from sending our troops in to wars of convenience or to protect 'national interests'.

Sorry, but that won't work either once the bullets and cruise missiles start flying. Focusing on the "war" ignores the underlying geo-political and economic interests in such matters.

Economies fight wars, not moral circumstances.

[wyly]

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?

Our elected government.

-k

we have government full of idiots, excuse me if I don't rust them with such issues...

[Machjo]

Same agrument could be used against the people or government.

but it would be a bad Idea to let the people choose because they only really care about whether it's going to cost them money

I agree with this in part.

and it's a bad idea to let the government choose because their only goal is to stay in power.

I agree to this in part.

While the Army's only goal is to protect Canada why wouldn't we let them choose?

I'm not so gullible. I've been in the military and have seen its dark side. Don't think all soldiers join for noble causes. And even at the higher levels of the military, people are people. My father is retired from the airforce, had been in the military as a career (I was in for a short time only), and so I had a chnace to see thigs through him too. So trust me, business does have an interest in the military too and they do hold demonstrations for new products, etc for the military.

This is where the constitution could step in. If we have an amendment to the constitution that clearly defines a just war, requiring us to fight when the definition is met, and to not fight when the conditions are not met, this would take the decisio out of the hands of the mob, the army, and the politicians and put it instead in the hands of clearly defined rules and protocol.

[Guest TrueMetis]

We could try it but I think it would be very hard to make an amendment to the constitution the would be able to include all situations.

Edited October 22, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Machjo]

We could try it but I think it would be very hard to make an amendment to the constitution the would be able to include all situations.

It could cover all situations we could think of. In the event that some new unforeseen event without precedent occurs, then we could always amend the constitution at that time. Seeing that any issue involving imminent threats would certainly be covered, we needn't worry about that. Any ambiguity would then likely involve questions about our duty to friendly countries. And again, the constitution can be amended.

[wyly]

It could cover all situations we could think of. In the event that some new unforeseen event without precedent occurs, then we could always amend the constitution at that time. Seeing that any issue involving imminent threats would certainly be covered, we needn't worry about that. Any ambiguity would then likely involve questions about our duty to friendly countries. And again, the constitution can be amended.

oh oh...problem...amending the constitution...I hope you can walk on water too...

[Guest TrueMetis]

It could cover all situations we could think of. In the event that some new unforeseen event without precedent occurs, then we could always amend the constitution at that time. Seeing that any issue involving imminent threats would certainly be covered, we needn't worry about that. Any ambiguity would then likely involve questions about our duty to friendly countries. And again, the constitution can be amended.

It is very difficult to amend the constitution though. If it's something that the amendmant doesn't cover and we have to act quickly it would be difficult amend the constitution in time.

[Machjo]

oh oh...problem...amending the constitution...I hope you can walk on water too...

So our constitution is set in stone along with the special privileges granted to the Catholic schools?

[Machjo]

It is very difficult to amend the constitution though. If it's something that the amendmant doesn't cover and we have to act quickly it would be difficult amend the constitution in time.

I agree with this. Bear in mind though that with lawyers, military strategists, historians, phylosophers, religious experts, ec. etc. etc. looking into this, I'm sure we'd come up with an amendment that would cover 99.99% of bases. For those unprecedented events, they'd be so rare and likely involve such an ambiguous position that they would not involve anything of immediate thrat to Canada.

[eyeball]

Any decision to send Canadian troops into combat outside our borders should be put to a binding referendum. We should also hold a full public review of all our alliances and then hold a binding referendum on whether to renew them. Any alliances we maintain should be similarily reviewed and renewed or rejected every 4 or 5 years.

We should also sanction any and all countries that persist on exporting arms and aid to dictatorships or warlords and conflict zones etc. It goes without saying we should stop doing this ourselves.

Of course it would be great if all of the above could be constitutionally mandated.

[charter.rights]

Any decision to send Canadian troops into combat outside our borders should be put to a binding referendum. We should also hold a full public review of all our alliances and then hold a binding referendum on whether to renew them. Any alliances we maintain should be similarily reviewed and renewed or rejected every 4 or 5 years.

We should also sanction any and all countries that persist on exporting arms and aid to dictatorships or warlords and conflict zones etc. It goes without saying we should stop doing this ourselves.

Of course it would be great if all of the above could be constitutionally mandated.

The easy way to deal with imminent attack on Canadian soil would be to include in the Constitutional amendment, not only requirement for a referendum, but a clause that would allow the armed forces to take immediate action in the event of attack, under the Commander in Chief, the Governor General, and that a referendum would be held at the earliest possibility after action was taken to confirm the actions.

If we were attacked now, the War Measures Act could be invoked, which essentially does the same thing, less the referendum. Democracy must always start and end with "the people".

[Army Guy]

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.

Not a very good idea, although the military has a vested interest "thier lives" it could also lead to abuse that could see us in a totally unacceptable form of government....

The use of our Armed forces is based on 3 concepts Civil control of the military, Command of the armed forces, and defence administration in all it's aspects.

Civil control is what we are talking about now, which means control of our armed forces by civilians elected to Parliament. It is parliament that must ensure that decisions and risks that are political are made by politicians rather than soldiers, officals, or others that are not responsible to parliment. The Cabinet under the control of the PM is responsible agent for the defination of the defense policy, and control of the CF.

Those responsibilties have been delagated from the people of Canada to the governing party....

All that being said that delagation is limited, NO government has unristricted power over the CF, There is already a seris of checks and balances within our laws and constition meant to control the authority of the government, the Armed forces, and civil bureaucracies. It is shared among the GG, PM, Minister of national Defence,CDS.

This arrangement prevents the Government in using our military for partisan purposes...

That being said it an unwritten statement that any conflict we get into will be a just one, approved by the people and the government of the day, re election depends on it....Including those that we have binding defence agreements on, such as NORAD, NATO etc etc....all need to be aproved in parliment...

I got my ref from National Defence Headquaters: Center of decision written by Douglas Bland.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Army Guy

[Argus]

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...

Not the same thing, by any means. Canada wasn't even attacked in the Air India bombing. The people who blew it up came from Canada - albiet from India through lousy immigratio processes, and most of the people killed were Indians. Yes, yes, I know, many had Canadian citizenship, but they were Indians, and that is why the plane was targeted. It was an attack aimed at the Indian government.

911 was an attack on the American government and America's institutions, esp its corporate and financial systems. It destroyed several buildings and killed thousands of people. A similar attack here from a known enemy of Canada (not that we have any) would draw the same sorts of cries for revenge.

[Argus]

Any decision to send Canadian troops into combat outside our borders should be put to a binding referendum. We should also hold a full public review of all our alliances and then hold a binding referendum on whether to renew them. Any alliances we maintain should be similarily reviewed and renewed or rejected every 4 or 5 years.

The problems I have with this begin with the fact that most Canadians are almost entirely ignorant of what is going on outside their own immediate lives. They certainly won't understand geopolitical consequences and needs.

As well, any such referendum would be subject to a combination of widespread apathy on the part of the majority, combined with a zealous intent on the part of minority elements, ie. the anti-war, anti-militarist types, and/or ethnic groups. I mean, who would be campaigning for the Yes side? And how many would be campaigning for No?

The turnout from the general public, which thinks "yeah, okay, I guess" could be as low as 10-20%, whereas the turnout from the activist types could be more like 80-90%, giving their votes far more weight than they deserve. If there is an ethnic element that could also play. For example, imagine holding a referendum on whether Canada should participate in an intervention to stop a democratic Israel from being overrun by Muslim fundamentalist states. All one million Muslims in Canada would troop down to the polls to vote NO, a 98% turnout! Meanwhile the general turnout could be about 20% I could just easily see where most Canadians felt we ought to do something, but a referendum would say NO.

[DogOnPorch]

I agree. Mobocracy does not work. But it is great for pitchfork sales.

[g_bambino]

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?

What's considered "just" changes over time. Given that constitutions are supposed to be long-lasting tenets, and hence are so difficult to change, it would merely create more problems should the constitution set down permanently, for centuries perhaps, what is a "just" reason to go to war.

[g_bambino]

The problems I have with this begin with the fact that most Canadians are almost entirely ignorant of what is going on outside their own immediate lives. They certainly won't understand geopolitical consequences and needs.

Precisely; and which is why we have a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy, much to eyeball's chagrin.

[eyeball]

Civil control is what we are talking about now, which means control of our armed forces by civilians elected to Parliament.

That's just not good enough. The real problem here is that we don't have enough civilian control over parliament. This is why we need binding referenda.

[g_bambino]

This is why we need binding referenda.

We have them already; they're called elections.

[myata]

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.

Was Iraq "important enough"? Vietnam? Until there's a firm legislative definition of allowed military action (as well as stiff criminal sanctions for instigating, organising or partisipating in illegal ones), we'll keep going from one foreign fiasko to another, led by political spin of the moment.

Even more importantly, without ability and determination to abide by our own principles and laws, we could never, credibly, demand it from others. It'll be the "my morals, truth, law, stick against yours" world, exactly as it has been since the times immemorial, for as long as people need to learn that the only real and lasting peace begins with ourselves.