I am an active duty Air Force officer who was THERE in 2003 when we began our offensive against Saddam, and while I don’t pretend to agree with every decision made in the post-Saddam environment, I can tell you without hesitation that the invasion was just, and justly conducted. The fiction that we were at peace with Saddam in 2002 is ridiculous. From 1998 when Clinton started the quasi-war with Saddam (Operation Desert Fox), our aircrew on UN-sanctioned No-Fly-Zone missions were fired at on virtually every patrol. Furthermore, I held a terrorist suicide belt in my own two hands days after we crossed the line and went north.
You tell me that the invasion is just. I am certain that you arrived at that conclusions thoughtfully and prayerfully and that your presence there gives you a unique perspective. Others, however, with your exact same experience disagree. More importantly, the Church disagreed with your assessment that the invasion was just.
The failure of the Bush Administration to correctly frame the discussion doesn’t change the facts.
As for “torture”
- Terrorists are illegal combatants and not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. It is a point of law, and it is well established. The Geneva Conventions apply only to States that have signed them and compy with the legal requirements (like wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, and avoiding targeting noncombatants and protected structures like hospitals and churches).
"Illegal combatants" is a term of dubious legal merit, as the Courts have indicated. That aside, many believe that the President’s use of his Justice Department to show that prohibitions on torture do not apply to these prisoners was to demonstrate that torturing them did not break the law I posted the appropriate link in an earlier post.
- This means that terrorists do not enjoy the benefits of being prisoners of war…hence they are called “detainees”.
None of these designations, dubious or otherwise, impact the Catholic prohibition against torture.
- Despite the fact that terrorists do not enjoy legal protection under international law (e.g. the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict). President Bush extended them the same rights by Executive Order. See here. The EO at the link illuminates, underlines, and reinforces an earlier Nov 01 order that requires, among other things, “humane treatment” of detainees. See also here, where the President extended protection under the Geneva Conventions to the Taliban.
This same President fought tooth and nail to prevent the Anti-Torture Amendment from becoming the law of our country. He openly threatened a veto. He said it would “put limits on how he could protect the country as Commander-in-Chief.” He relented only when a bipartisan veto-proof majority was formed. To me, his actions speak far louder than his words.
- Our enemies certainly do not treat prisoners with any Christian chivalry…and do not recognize that chivalry as anything other than weakness. They brutally murder their prisoners, and see our humane treatment of our prisoners as nothing short of weakness. In the words of bin Laden, “you love life, we love death.”
This point may well be true. However, it is utterly irrelevant to Catholic moral teaching.
- We’re discussing political parties anyway, not individuals, and so we should be comparing the party platforms…not the successes or failures of individual candidates. To that end, here are links to both:
I am well aware of the platforms of both parties. I continue to insist on making assessments based on actions rather than words. Presidents of both parties have often gone against the explicit statements of the platforms on which they were elected. This is well-documented.
(some material cut here for the 5000-character limit)
I’m not trying to say that the Republican Party is “The Catholic Party” or that they’re spotless…I am merely pointing out that the GOP platform is significantly more congruent with Catholic social and moral teaching than any other party on the American political scene.
Platforms are important. A platform which promises to eliminate abortion, disease, crime, and poverty would be even more congruent with Catholic teaching. But I would question as to whether or not that party could really eliminate abortion, disease, crime, and poverty and take that into account when making a decision at the ballot box.
