Self Defense vs. Innocent Life

[jesusasks]

My question is regarding 2263 vs. 2264
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

To what extent is it permissible in wartime to attack a target that has human shields, resulting in a likely loss of innocent life? For example, bombing a building that houses the enemy but also has hostages? Launching a missile at a car that carries the enemy but his relatives?

Does avoiding greater loss of life make this permissible? Does the immediate or long-term nature of this scenario matter? What if the presence of innocent life is suspected but uncertain?

These are questions I have regarding human shields and indirectly collateral damage in war time.

 

[ConallCernach]

The Church teaches that it is always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being, and likely that the death penalty is unnecessary for most countries as well.

I may be able to illustrate this with the example one of my teachers used:

You are the sheriff of a small village in the early days of the American west. While you are sheriff a woman is raped and a lynch mob forms hanging black men because of racial suspicion, they claim that they will hang one man a day until the perpetrator is found.

For the sake of all the innocent lives the deputy tries to help by suggesting to frame an innocent man and hanging him.

What do you do? Surely this will save the numerous lives of innocent men, but you are giving an innocent person death, which is always immoral.

The Church teaches that morality is not cost based, and that you can not justify the means with end.

So for your cases, the Church would encourage the law keepers to find a better means of apprehending the criminal that does not consume the lives of the innocent.

 

[jesusasks]

The Church teaches that it is always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being, and likely that the death penalty is unnecessary for most countries as well.

I may be able to illustrate this with the example one of my teachers used:

You are the sheriff of a small village in the early days of the American west. While you are sheriff a woman is raped and a lynch mob forms hanging black men because of racial suspicion, they claim that they will hang one man a day until the perpetrator is found.

For the sake of all the innocent lives the deputy tries to help by suggesting to frame an innocent man and hanging him.

What do you do? Surely this will save the numerous lives of innocent men, but you are giving an innocent person death, which is always immoral.

The Church teaches that morality is not cost based, and that you can not justify the means with end.

So for your cases, the Church would encourage the law keepers to find a better means of apprehending the criminal that does not consume the lives of the innocent.

Thanks, this answer is a good example of the flaws and immorality of life calculus when used alone.

My question is a little different, but maybe the answer is the same. My question is if you are justified in taking a non-innocent life in a situation, but that man keeps human shields at his side (i.e. hostages with him). To what degree is killing them both permissible? Never?

I don’t want to give too specific of an example, but this has happened before. For example, what if this man was driving a suicide attack to kill hundreds, but also had a human shield? If the only way to kill him is through a missile that will kill both him and the human shield, is killing an innocent life justified to save many more?

What if you suspect but can’t confirm that the human shield is a hostage or an accomplice? This scenario comes up a lot in certain conflicts.

If none of these situations are permissible, what about an attack on a target that may cause collateral civilian damage?

The context of my question is about wars where most of the casualties are civilian due to the tactics used and the purpose of the war. This is a problem on most continents where escalation causes both sides to resort to these tactics.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The Church teaches that it is always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being, and likely that the death penalty is unnecessary for most countries as well.

I may be able to illustrate this with the example one of my teachers used:

You are the sheriff of a small village in the early days of the American west. While you are sheriff a woman is raped and a lynch mob forms hanging black men because of racial suspicion, they claim that they will hang one man a day until the perpetrator is found.

For the sake of all the innocent lives the deputy tries to help by suggesting to frame an innocent man and hanging him.

What do you do? Surely this will save the numerous lives of innocent men, but you are giving an innocent person death, which is always immoral.

The Church teaches that morality is not cost based, and that you can not justify the means with end.

So for your cases, the Church would encourage the law keepers to find a better means of apprehending the criminal that does not consume the lives of the innocent.

John 11:49

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; 50 you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.”

 

[buffalo]

Another scenario - I am an American soldier riding in my humvee and ambushed. Surrounding me are women and children. From amongst them I am receiving fire.

Do I fire back?

 

[jesusasks]

Another scenario - I am an American soldier riding in my humvee and ambushed. Surrounding me are women and children. From amongst them I am receiving fire.

Do I fire back?

Well the general rule in US protocol is you have to be able to identify a clear target. Firing randomly is never allowed, even when civilians are few or none. This is just the nature of a gunfight - it takes thousands of bullets to kill a person if you fire randomly in a general direction, only 1 bullet if you aim. If bodies are overlapping or there’s just a mass of people, you can’t fire. This is already the policy, and it’s effective.

If an ambush did happen with civilians around, the civilians who were around would usually leave in panic and you’d have to hold fire until you had a clear shot. But often times you’ll find a straggler crossing your line of fire, and that’s why you acquire your target and fire purposefully. You fire your gun in short bursts if not individual rounds.

Collateral damage from gunfire tends to be from soldiers who panic and break this protocol (firing randomly without acquiring a target), or from indirect hits like ricochets or a bullet going through a thin wall. There are also times when you have to assume there is only the enemy and lay down general cover fire.

These rules were developed because collateral damage and friendly fire is inevitable otherwise. In combat there are times where a soldier is better taking cover until a clear opportunity rises. In summary, always know where your allies are, always ID the enemy before you pull the trigger.

What would make your scenario very difficult is if your ambushers held on to hostages. This would alienate your ambushers from those they’ve taken hostage from, but it forms a dilemma for you if you’re being fired on.

A more common example is that some enemies have forced hostages to walk up to US forces, only to be killed because of the possibility they were suicide bombers. In this case, the US soldiers could not tell if it was innocent life or not - just like if a teenager ran at them with a toy AK-47. Fortunately, this is not a sustainable tactic.

 

[buffalo]

What would make your scenario very difficult is if your ambushers held on to hostages. This would alienate your ambushers from those they’ve taken hostage from, but it forms a dilemma for you if you’re being fired on.

.

This is more of the scenario - from what I understand actually happened in Iraq.

Protocol aside, the realities come down to me dying or not as well as protecting my soldiers. Because it looks like it is most certain we are going to die, I believe many soldiers would not just be killed without a fight. The survival mechanism kicks in. Some innocents get killed. How do I know they really were innocents? How do I know if they willingly provided confusion?

Is this legitimate self defense?

 

[jesusasks]

This is more of the scenario - from what I understand actually happened in Iraq.

Protocol aside, the realities come down to me dying or not as well as protecting my soldiers. Because it looks like it is most certain we are going to die, I believe many soldiers would not just be killed without a fight. The survival mechanism kicks in. Some innocents get killed. How do I know they really were innocents? How do I know if they willingly provided confusion?

Is this legitimate self defense?

Yes, any time you feel your life is threatened protocol allows you to fire. That’s why training is so important - making sure people don’t get trigger happy out of fear and have it spoil the purpose of protocol.

However, it’s very rare that firing without seeing your target is necessary at the same time your life is threatened. But if for any reason you think you have to kill someone to save your life, it happens and you can’t be faulted for making the split second judgement that you were firing at an enemy. It’s the same as police officers who fire at someone pointing a toy gun - it comes down to knowledge and intent, and God knows what was in your heart when you made your decision.

A rule of thumb in war used to be, you had to fire a man’s weight in bullets before you killed 1 single enemy. That’s how ineffective random fire is at actually hitting the enemy. In the civil war, soldiers were told to wait until they could literally see the whites of the enemy’s eyes before firing, for this reason.

That exception is just like driving laws. You have dozens of situations and rules, but the one overriding rule is if someone causes an accident on purpose they are always at fault. But how often does that really happen?

 

[Michael_David]

You could take this to the next level by deciphering who is ‘innocent’ and who is ‘intent’. By this I mean, does everyone who wears a military uniform an ‘intended’? And those who do not are ‘innocent’? We know this is not always the case.

When in a foreign land, some of the ‘underground’ people get into the action. The sympathizers. Someone with an ax to grind for some ‘personal’ reason, against whichever uniform they do not like (for whatever reason). If this type is out there of their own personal choice, to protect their leader as a human shield (because he helps them with goods or favor), are they ‘innocent’? Is not the soldier (in uniform) under the same personal motivation? And what about the ones who are ‘recruited’ by the leaders to serve as there soldiers? Was the recruitment coerced? Freely pursued? Or with persuasive alternatives if not done?

And even in our own case, was the putting on of the uniform a form of Glory Fighting for a cause? A dictate by the government? (commonly called Orders) A ‘drafting’ because of needing forces to fight against the other forces? A patriotic ‘duty’? Or, as in the case of most of our last fights, helping our allies against a more powerful foe? We are not guarding our nations homeland (which would be pure defense) when we go to other countries in the middle of a battle that has been years in the making up till the point we get there. Then, with all the prior misfortunes that happened to those people (causing distrust, resentment, revenge, and eye for an eye, etc…) who is who?

It is a moral dilemma, and one not easily answered without knowing all the facts of the ‘other’ parties there… on a one to one basis. Even Judas had other motives compared to the other eleven. After serving for Uncle Sam, and returning with PTS, only to discover it was a ‘moral chaos’ going on inside me, I had to turn it over for later debate, when I see Him Face to Face. Yes, it still touches me yet, after 40 years. But I have deferred the answers till all the facts and motives are clear, leaving it in God’s Hands for now. I cannot judge this mess from only my perspective, and the others are not here to state their sides of the debate. It has to be left till God calls me back home.

 

[joandarc2008]

I was over in Iraq and have met many from Vietnam as I do service as a veterans service officer helping to file claims. Your best bet is to talk to a priest one on one about your experience and not “cast your pearls among swine” as sometimes it is hard for people who were not there to truly understand what it was like. One of my own friends had to take a well-aimed shot at an eight year old who was on top of a building in an area calling in there troop movements so that they could not get away from RPG attacks. That day haunts him still. However, would it have haunted him more or less if he instead had to look at the children of the members of his squad that no longer had fathers. These are not our grandfather’s wars. There are female combatants, children combatants, and yes, even pregnant combatants. It doesn’t make sense. However, I have walked the places in Abu Gharib where Saddam Hussein tortured his prisoners and the memory that we helped end that is what I choose to take with me. I don’t want to ramble but I hope I could help in some way. Please feel free to PM me anytime.

 

[bilop]

My question is regarding 2263 vs. 2264
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

To what extent is it permissible in wartime to attack a target that has human shields, resulting in a likely loss of innocent life? For example, bombing a building that houses the enemy but also has hostages? Launching a missile at a car that carries the enemy but his relatives?

Does avoiding greater loss of life make this permissible? Does the immediate or long-term nature of this scenario matter? What if the presence of innocent life is suspected but uncertain?

These are questions I have regarding human shields and indirectly collateral damage in war time.

As long as your intent is to kill the enemy, and that is what you try to do, then your actions are moral.

The loss of innocent life is a “double effect”, an unintended consequence of a moral action. Much like, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, a woman is allowed to have the diseased fallopian tube removed, even though it leads to the death of the baby.

If you could refrain from firing without risk to yourself or others (e.g., if the enemy is running away into a crowd and not firing) it might be better to not fire. However, this would be a prudential judgement as to which risk was greater. If it was Osama bin Laden, you’d probably try and kill him.

God Bless

 

[Michael_David]

Joan, Thank you for your understanding.
I am merely pointing out all the variables that come up (the what if’s; the could be’s; the maybe’s.) in the split-second picture that was took before responding to the threat (survival). Once the adrenaline wears off, all that remains are the questions, the why’s, and the moral dilemma’s.

And yes, I have talked to a number of Priests, each gives absolution and gratitude for doing our Nations duty in a time of need. But there is no way to make amends when death is involved… how does one make up for that? Even if it was self-defense due to one being there? I walked into that mess, they did not come after me till I got there. And yes, there is a greater good to look at, as the Priests mentioned in talking with me. The last Priest even told me I should write a book, which I have not. Your word “haunt” is a good description. I fully understand how a cop feels when put in those situations… it’s not fun. This is why I’m leaving it deferred in Christ’s Hands, while He gives me the Peace to continue on with my life in a Sane manner.

 

[cam100]

As long as your intent is to kill the enemy, and that is what you try to do, then your actions are moral.

The loss of innocent life is a “double effect”, an unintended consequence of a moral action. Much like, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, a woman is allowed to have the diseased fallopian tube removed, even though it leads to the death of the baby.

If you could refrain from firing without risk to yourself or others (e.g., if the enemy is running away into a crowd and not firing) it might be better to not fire. However, this would be a prudential judgement as to which risk was greater. If it was Osama bin Laden, you’d probably try and kill him.

God Bless

The quote above outlines the moral principle involved.

You cannot kill an innocent person if that person’s death is your intention. However, if you are fighting a war and in the process of fighting the enemy, some innocent people may die, that is different. You can not intend or desire the death of the innocent people, and you must take reasonable steps to avoid their death when possible. You also must weigh the risks against the benefits. Sometimes it is necessary to put innocent people’s lives at risk. This is NOT the same as saying that end justifies the means, and it is NOT the same as intending to kill innocent people.