Can we justify the behavior of Trump’s followers in attempting to storm the capitol? We have heard and seen shouts by the insurrectionists that “They are taking back their country after the steal”, “Kill Nancy Pelosi and hang Michael Pence!”, and “Death to the members of Congress.” Perhaps Trump’s new lawyers will not go down that dead end street of justification. They will probably argue that the Impeachment Trial is unconstitutional. Trump lost his first team of lawyers because he wanted them to argue the case that the election was stolen. They refused to do so as that would have jeopardized their lives as future lawyers. You can’t argue something that has been proven to not be true. Trump still argues that the election is stolen. He argues this point either because it helps him to justify what happened in his own mind or he is completely delusional and irrational.
The Just War approach is the very embodiment of reason and actually could make the case for those who are prosecuting him. If anything, the Just War Clause is the embodiment of reason and is a key example of an expression of Natural Law. Natural Law is the philosophical underpinning for the Roman Catholic Ethic. It is a complex theory based on consistency and action. You can’t choose just some parts of Natural Law to make your case and exclude other parts that don’t fit your needs. Let me describe it in a simple fashion.
Natural Law states that you cannot interrupt the natural continuum of life. Contraception, abortion, genetic manipulation, mercy killing, and capital punishment are components of Natural Law and the reason that the Roman Catholic Church is against ALL of these issues.
John Locke adds to this idea by saying that Natural Law is an argument against abortion, but his view is complimented by his other basic belief of the importance of “property” in our lives. It was a paradox for him. The woman’s most basic property is her body. She should therefore determine what she does with it. This is the primary argument of the pro-choice advocates. When Congress was questioning Clarence Thomas about his philosophy when he was being interviewed for a position on the Supreme Court, he indicated that he was a follower of Natural Law. The interviewers were caught short because he would not indicate if he followed the Roman Catholic version or that version held by Locke with his view of the woman’s body being her primary property. They couldn’t push him for an answer, but they wanted to do a litmus test to see if he was a conservative (Roman Catholic View) or a liberal (Locke’s view).
The same contradiction can be seen in the Just War Clause. It is a matter of interpretation, but here is how it works. It is based in reason, something that our former president has in short supply. If you have taken Geometry in school, it is like a geometric proof.
You start with a general principle that “Thou shall not kill.” But at the end of your reasoning, you find that you must go to war and kill people. How will you justify these contradictory positions? There has to be an interim step or a “justification” for going to war that is just. Drum roll please. Enter the Just War Clause. It has many steps, but I will focus on just two ingredients that are needed to justify going to war. First the war has to be in self-defense. Second, it has to be fought in a conventional fashion. Think of a football, basketball, or field hockey game where everyone has an equal chance of winning by “might and skill” as opposed to a sneak attack or someone stealing the other team’s plays. When you think of self-defense honoring the war, you have to think of World War 2 and not the Vietnam War with guerilla warfare and agent orange.
Was the Insurrection a Just War? Did it follow the guidelines of Natural law? Trump is inconsistent. I don’t know his views on some of the issues, but he is definitely against abortion but he is for capital punishment. You can’t have your way on one issue and not be consistent with another. Reminds me of the inconsistent positions of McConnell, McCarthy, Hawley, and Cruz. “We are trying to respond to our people regarding the validity of the election.” versus “What we really want is profit and power”.
Regarding the justification of the Insurrection, were the seditionists acting in self-defense? According to them they were. They had no other way to “stop the steal”. Most reasonable people wouldn’t agree with that position, but some would. They also wouldn’t agree that it was a level playing field for war. The capitol police were unprepared and the members of Congress were unarmed. Nobody likes sneak attacks. Just war doesn’t sanction them. The antithesis of the Just War Clause would be the attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attack on 9/11.
Was the insurrection fought in a conventional fashion? Certainly not. It was a mob against quasi prepared police and totally unprepared people in Congress and their staff. If anything, odds were on the seditionists’ side to do better than they actually did. But did they have the element of surprise? This is still up for discussion.
Come to think of it. This would make a great argument for the prosecution. No one has emphasized the cowardice of Trump and his “I will be right with you!” No one has emphasized the pure cowardice of the seditionists who somehow knew this “war” would be easy pickings. There was a no show of adequate defense. It was like “shooting fish in a barrel”. That is a whole other ethical issue! Cowardice is the one truth that describes both Trump and the rioters.
Комментарии