|
|
LET'S ANALYZE THE THEORY OF PREEMPTION
by Vince Page
Every once in a great while a new capability is bestowed upon mankind which tests whether our moral advancement is keeping pace with our technological and social advancement. The ability to end life -- either after its natural beginning or before its natural conclusion -- tests the moral imperative which says that this is solely God's purview, and mere mortals need not apply for the job. Likewise, the possibility of stem cell research tests whether we will take the immoral path and use stem cells from aborted babies, or choose the moral path and harvest them from bone marrow, hair follicles and fat cells. Needless to say, there are enough fat cells in America to make the choice an easy one unless we are simply intent upon living immoral lives.
And now the President of the United States has presented us with yet another moral choice. As the only remaining superpower on the planet, America now has the ability to attack its perceived enemies before they attack America. The philosophy which gives rise to this new global outlook on life is called the theory of preemption, and it is indeed new.
Accordingly, we must stop and ask ourselves what our moral duty might be now that this newfound capability has been dropped in our collective American laps. When, if ever, should we wage war? When is a war a "just" war and when is a just war justifiable?
Happily, these questions were first pondered and answered by no less a mind than that of Saint Augustine, who tells us that a just war is one which must be fought to prevent a greater evil, which does not target non-combatants and which is fought for a "right" intention (in other words, revenge is prohibited).
Let's analyze the theory of preemption on these three points. First, do we know with certainty that a greater evil is averted by attacking a perceived evildoer before they do any evil? Obviously not. No evil deed has yet been performed. Proponents of the theory of preemption are in effect saying that a police officer should hand out tickets for speeding because the offense might be committed, not because the offense actually has been committed.
But what about targeting non-combatants? Surely, the president isn't proposing an attack upon the innocent, is he? Well, if no illegal act or evil deed has been committed against America, what else would you call it? By definition, the theory of preemption targets those who are not yet guilty of a crime. We must ask ourselves how that would set us in America apart from Osama bin Laden. In the Arab world, it simply would not, and that is a chilling thought well worth pondering. The repercussions could be very serious.
Surely the president has a right intention, though. Everyone knows that Sadaam Hussein has chemical, biological and possibly even nuclear weapons and is ready to strike at any moment, right?
I will grant you that Sadaam is a dim bulb on the stage of world politics. He reminds me quite a lot of Nikita Kruschev, but even Kruschev knew what would happen if America were attacked with biological or nuclear weapons. That alone kept Kruschev in check, so why do we now believe that it won't keep Sadaam in check? Kruschev was the supreme leader of a bona-fide superpower, and he dared not fight his wars with germs and atoms. Even if Sadaam is dim enough to act differently, such an attack would immediately give America the moral high ground and would just as quickly satisfy all pre-requisites for fighting a just war.
What then is America's intention in proposing a preemptive strike against Iraq? Only Bush administration insiders seem to know, but on September 13th, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent President Bush a letter in which they state that, "We conclude, based on the facts that are known to us, that a preemptive, unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time. … Of particular concern are the traditional just war criteria of just cause, right authority, probability of success, proportionality and noncombatant immunity." Sound familiar?
On the one hand, it is comforting to know that the requirements for waging a just war have not changed since the time of Saint Augustine. On the other, it is downright scary to think that America -- the last bastion of freedom, the worldwide purveyor of presumed innocence -- is thinking about chucking it all for a new theory of preemption that won't give us a single inch of moral high ground above the terrorists we so despise. Moreover, it probably won't please the Man upstairs very much, either.
Vince Page is the Communications Director for the Texas State Constitution Party and is a District Deputy for the Texas State Knights of Columbus. He can be e-mailed at vincepage@ifriendly.com
Untitled
| When honest people who hold strong opinions come together, it is natural that they state their opinions, and that those opinions occasionally clash. The articles that you see on this website represent the opinion of the writers, and are not the official opinion of this party. To see the official party position on any question, the reader is referred to the Party Platform. |
|
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author,and our URL. www.cptexas.org. All CP Texas reports, and all editorials are property of The Constitution Party of Texas © 2002 (unless otherwise noted).
Previous Articles by Vince Page
Untitled
|
|
