Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[Griz]

Agree with Kimmy one this as well.

Seriously TrueMetis--Shut the FUCK UP!!

[eyeball]

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.

Well then our politicians should just say so and inform us that they are the only people fit to decide. Failing that I suggest we use jury-like citizens assemblies or require that voters take an issues comprehesion test at the polling booth before putting it to a referendum.

By the way anyone else notice that when election time does roll around how the politicians all wax poetically about voters in their wisdom making their choice at the polling booth? This dumb on and dumb off switch that is used to denigrate voters whenever it suits people reminds me very much of the people are to lazy to vote canard you hear whenever anyone suggests ways to increase voter participation.

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.

Make voting mandatory then.

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.

Mandatory voting would fix that too wouldn't it? The problem I have with leaving the decision to go to war out of Canadians hands is that it exacerbates the polarizing effect going to war already has on our society. I don't know if the debate ordinary Canadians are having over this war has broken up any families but I know a few friendships have certainly been strained. Expectations that people like me should just shut-up and support the troops once a decision I was excluded from having any participation in really grates on the nerves after awhile. Perhaps the we told you so's will bring that closer to home.

Hopefully this debacle will keep Canadians disillusioned about wading into any more quagmires for the rest of our lives. In the meantime I suggest we create a better descision making process to ensure the next one we wade into truly is just and has the unequivocal support of the people. There are ways to make going to war more democratic but you have to want to make it more democratic first. It seems nobody is very happy with the status quo, least of all people in the military, why would they be when its really starting to look like they've been dispatched in vain?

[eyeball]

We have them already; they're called elections.

No we don't, what we have is an empty meaningless sham.

[Mr.Canada]

No we don't, what we have is an empty meaningless sham.

It's meaningless because the Tories are in power right? It would be a wonderful system if the Communist NDP were in power wouldn't it? If the NDP were ever in power many many businesses would leave Canada as the corporate taxes would be way too high. Not ot mention the borders would be even more wise open then they are now and Layton would let literally anyone into Canada without so much as checking their papers. No thank you. We don't need Canada becoming any more of a third world shithole then it already is becoming just so the hippy types can feel better about their white liberal guilt.

[eyeball]

It's meaningless because the Tories are in power right?

No, its meaningless because Canadians aren't in control of that power.

[Mr.Canada]

No, its meaningless because Canadians aren't in control of that power.

They aren't? How do you mean? I voted in the last election. It was worth 1 vote and $1.95 to my party, just like yours.

[g_bambino]

No, its meaningless because Canadians aren't in control of that power.

...Uhhh, what?

[eyeball]

They aren't? How do you mean? I voted in the last election. It was worth 1 vote and $1.95 to my party, just like yours.

What I mean is, your vote would be a lot more meaningful when used in a binding referenda. Do you consider yourself too stupid to be trusted with that sort of power?

[wyly]

What I mean is, your vote would be a lot more meaningful when used in a binding referenda. Do you consider yourself too stupid to be trusted with that sort of power?

well I consider the majority of Canadians to stupid to vote intelligently, but since stupid people vote for all parties they hopefully cancel each other out and the intelligent voters will rule the day...

a referendum is to unwieldy to use every time we need to make a decision, decisions like going to war sometimes have to made quickly...the suggestion of guideline that must be followed before the government can send our troops of to war is a good idea but if it requires a constitutional change it'll never get done...

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Even more importantly, without ability and determination to abide by our own principles and laws, we could never, credibly, demand it from others.....

You can never really "demand" it from others.....and as far as principles go, Canadian values (e.g. Responsibility to Protect) were used to bomb Serbia without so much as a vote even in Parliament.

...good luck with that.

[eyeball]

well I consider the majority of Canadians to stupid to vote intelligently, but since stupid people vote for all parties they hopefully cancel each other out and the intelligent voters will rule the day...

So I take it you don't buy all that poetic wax about the wisdom of voters at election time either?

a referendum is to unwieldy to use every time we need to make a decision, decisions like going to war sometimes have to made quickly...the suggestion of guideline that must be followed before the government can send our troops of to war is a good idea but if it requires a constitutional change it'll never get done...

This is where I think a jury-like citizens assembly might play a role. It stands to reason that the same sort of cancelling out effect you mention above would also happen but with a much smaller representative sample. Decisons to go to war abroad don't happen so quickly that we can't afford to take the time to make sure its the just thing to do.

If we're serious about finding a way to put the stamp "just war" on our decision we should try to find the will do it.

Judging by the poll results people here don't want the constitution to define that, well neither do I, which is why I chose 'other answer'. I definitely want someone other than our politicians defining that, I refuse to trust them with that kind of responsibility.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Judging by the poll results people here don't want the constitution to define that, well neither do I, which is why I chose 'other answer'. I definitely want someone other than our politicians defining that, I refuse to trust them with that kind of responsibility.

Would you "support" any war affirmed by such a process?

[ToadBrother]

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?

We haven't even figured out whether WWI was a just war or not, and you want to go around defining what as-yet unfought wars will be? What an idiotic and pointless exercise.

[ToadBrother]

Judging by the poll results people here don't want the constitution to define that, well neither do I, which is why I chose 'other answer'. I definitely want someone other than our politicians defining that, I refuse to trust them with that kind of responsibility.

Even direct democracies can get themselves involved in foolish wars. Athens certainly did when it sparked a war with Sparta (Peloponnesian War). The end result was an utterly defeated Athens.

[wulf42]

Easy! if Nato goes, we go........simple!

[myata]

You can never really "demand" it from others.....and as far as principles go, Canadian values (e.g. Responsibility to Protect) were used to bomb Serbia without so much as a vote even in Parliament.

I said "credibly" (i.e us actually believing ourselves, in being peaceful, democratic, torch of freedom and so on). It is very obvious that we cannot rely on politicians of the moment to make this determination, the pressures can be too high to carry on the shoulders of selected individuals.

We can define what constitutes just defense (I do not believe in such thing as "just war") and prosecute all those complicit in illegal wars, no exception.

Or we can at least be honest with ourselves, and make everybody complicit (by making such choices mandatory in referenda). That good family law abiding citizens would have no confusions about who's authrising, sponsoring and prosecuting that war.

What we have now is worst of all. It amounts to the same thing, but lets us off the hook by assigning responsibility to temporary "politicians", instead of where it rightfully belongs.

[Molly]

Around Cape Horne.... how the heck could

'citizens assemblies' have more legitimacy than duly elected representatives?

[eyeball]

Would you "support" any war affirmed by such a process?

I would probably have more respect for the decision to go to war if it was arrived at by such process.

[ToadBrother]

I would probably have more respect for the decision to go to war if it was arrived at by such process.

I can't imagine why. Do you think that such an assembly would be less politicized, less manipulable than a legislature? All your doing is convoluting the process even further.

What makes war a decision requiring a special convened assembly separate from the legislature, as opposed to, say, infrastructure spending or traffic laws?

You're never going to get a decision on going to war that will please all the people. You might as well just ban getting involved in wars.

[ToadBrother]

I said "credibly" (i.e us actually believing ourselves, in being peaceful, democratic, torch of freedom and so on). It is very obvious that we cannot rely on politicians of the moment to make this determination, the pressures can be too high to carry on the shoulders of selected individuals.

We can define what constitutes just defense (I do not believe in such thing as "just war") and prosecute all those complicit in illegal wars, no exception.

Or we can at least be honest with ourselves, and make everybody complicit (by making such choices mandatory in referenda). That good family law abiding citizens would have no confusions about who's authrising, sponsoring and prosecuting that war.

What we have now is worst of all. It amounts to the same thing, but lets us off the hook by assigning responsibility to temporary "politicians", instead of where it rightfully belongs.

Yes, with temporary politicians. That's how our system works on every other single governmental decision.

We don't live in a direct democracy, and what's more, I've already provided an example of a direct democracy that got itself involved in a terrible war that lead to its defeat and prostration. Tell me, just because the Athenian citizens voted to go to war against Sparta and its allies, did that make that a right decision? Did it make it just? Did it make it rational?

[wyly]

So I take it you don't buy all that poetic wax about the wisdom of voters at election time either?

nope...there are people who are objective and not swayed by media hype and partisan propaganda but a minority...

This is where I think a jury-like citizens assembly might play a role. It stands to reason that the same sort of cancelling out effect you mention above would also happen but with a much smaller representative sample. Decisons to go to war abroad don't happen so quickly that we can't afford to take the time to make sure its the just thing to do.

If we're serious about finding a way to put the stamp "just war" on our decision we should try to find the will do it.

Judging by the poll results people here don't want the constitution to define that, well neither do I, which is why I chose 'other answer'. I definitely want someone other than our politicians defining that, I refuse to trust them with that kind of responsibility.

I could agree with you I just don't have any faith in any process that will require politcal parties to give up any bit of control once they're in office...the parties may agree with it when they're out of power but they always change their tune once they're in power...

[myata]

Yes, with temporary politicians. That's how our system works on every other single governmental decision.

We don't live in a direct democracy, and what's more, I've already provided an example of a direct democracy that got itself involved in a terrible war that lead to its defeat and prostration. Tell me, just because the Athenian citizens voted to go to war against Sparta and its allies, did that make that a right decision? Did it make it just? Did it make it rational?

These decisions extend beyound this country's borders, and affect lives of other people, so they should carry higher degree of responsibility from everybody on whose behalf a war is being waged. It is not as much a matter of making correct decision (though hopefully, general populace oftentimes would have more peaceful attitudes than some determined, for any number of reasons politicians), but of collective responsibility for our decisions that will affect (often seriously and even fatally) other people's lives.

The test applies to militarty actions abroad, and should be bypassed in situations of direct and ongoing attack (invasion) on the country proper.

[ToadBrother]

These decisions extend beyound this country's borders, and affect lives of other people, so they should carry higher degree of responsibility from everybody on whose behalf a war is being waged.

Lots of things affect other peoples lives and extend beyond our borders. If Parliament gives Bombadier subsidies (through the front or back doors), it affects the livelihoods of people abroad, maybe even the state of industries abroad. Your making war, or more properly, military actions, a special case when in fact war takes many forms.

It is not as much a matter of making correct decision (though hopefully, general populace oftentimes would have more peaceful attitudes than some determined, for any number of reasons politicians),

History simply doesn't agree with this.

but of collective responsibility for our decisions that will affect (often seriously and even fatally) other people's lives.

But, as I pointed out, war isn't the only circumstance in which this happens. In fact, the Industrialized World kills far more people through various technology exports (weapons, advanced electronics, various other military technologies) than through open warfare.

The test applies to militarty actions abroad, and should be bypassed in situations of direct and ongoing attack (invasion) on the country proper.

And this is absurd as well. Since Parliament could always manipulate matters to bring about a war, it's kind of pointless.

What about mutual defense alliances? I guess we're leaving NATO now, since the essential concept of NATO is that an attack on one member is seen as an attack on all members. If our allies see that we have now created a situation whereby going to their defense is likely not going to happen. So when Russia decides to seize wide areas of the Arctic, and our pitiful military is swept aside, we'll have no one there to back us.

Your idea is absurd, and in the case of real need for military action, would be so cumbersome as to render external action pointless.

You are truly a child of the Peacekeeping Era, ignorant of history, the function of the military and of international obligation.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The test applies to militarty actions abroad, and should be bypassed in situations of direct and ongoing attack (invasion) on the country proper.

This approach would undermine collective security treaties like NATO, when other nations are directly attacked.

[ToadBrother]

This approach would undermine collective security treaties like NATO, when other nations are directly attacked.

Undermine is too weak a word. Renders them unenforceable is better. Imagine one of our NATO partners being attacked. First we've got to convene some sort of citizens assembly. This is usually done either by some sort of nomination process or via an electoral voters list. I'm going to assume the latter, because I can't believe even the advocates of this rather silly idea would want the bombs falling while we convened regional citizens nomination committees. At any rate, we get a list. Now we have to go through the list, because, after all, it's probably a good idea if we're pondering going to war with somebody that we don't have, say, agents of potential belligerents there. That could take some time. I'm assuming here that they would be briefed on both public and secret information, which makes security clearances all the more important. So what are we talking about here? At a minimum, I'd say two to three weeks, but more likely a month or two.

On the other hand, we have this thing called Parliament, with Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs, who are always kept apprised of foreign matters that may require our military intervention. Beneath them is a professional civil service, a network of embassies, representatives from our foreign allies. These Cabinet members report to the PM and ultimately to Parliament.

Besides, just how many armed conflicts (and by that, I don't mean "stand around and watch the locals butchered" peace keeping missions) has Canada been directly involved in since WWII? Not a heckuva lot, I can tell you (Korea and Afghanistan come to mind as the only meaningful conflicts for which we could be considered to be actually fighting). I know a lot of people hate us being in Afghanistan, but it strikes me that some folks are looking for solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. And considering that support for the war in Afghanistan is pretty evenly split, I'm not sure how some sort of citizens' assembly would be of very much help, except that it would probably stall in a stalemate, effectively giving the people who think Canadian soldiers should be nothing more spectators to attrocities what they want anyways.