On yesterday’s military strike that killed Osama bin Laden, I believe that Eduardo and I are in pretty much the same place, at least in terms of general sentiments and our basic support for President Obama’s actions in this particular case. Where we do differ is on context, which I think is especially important here and going forward. Eduardo presents yesterday’s events in the context of law enforcement, describing the killing of bin Laden as a “summary execution” and thus bringing into play the Church’s teaching on capital punishment.
We instead should recognize yesterday’s action as a military operation and thus as subject to moral teaching about what is permissible in the tragedy of war. As President Obama said last night, we did not seek this war. Osama bin Laden openly declared and waged war on the United States. Yesterday the United States won a major victory in that war by destroying the primary leadership of the opposing combatant force. A war against an implacable enemy may be won, and peace restored, only by employing deadly force against the aggressor, soberly and without blood lust, but with resolve and tenacity. When the war is prosecuted effectively, and thus the day is hastened when hostilities will cease, the soldier who serves his country acts honorably. Cf. Catechism para. 2310 (“If [those who serve in the armed forces] carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.”).
The men of the American special forces team who went into Abbottabad yesterday were not acting as police officers serving an arrest warrant on an ordinary criminal, who would then be held over for trial, prosecuted in a judicial proceeding, and, if convicted, given a criminal sentence, potentially including the death penalty. They were soldiers going into battle and attacking the military headquarters of the enemy. A police officer rightly is expected to reserve the use of deadly force as a last resort, seeking instead to take a criminal suspect into custody. A soldier going into battle prudently enters the fray by firing his weapon at the armed target, with the goal of incapacitating the enemy combatant, which is most effectively accomplished by killing him. The Church teaches that non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners “must be respected and treated humanely.” Catechism para. 2313. Understandably, the Church does not suggest that soldiers in the heat of battle should not shoot to kill. The teaching on capital punishment has little or no application to the battlefield.
It has been reported by some sources, although contested by others, that the military mission was to kill rather than capture bin Laden. If that should prove to be true, that too should be put in context and not be misunderstood as a license to kill under any circumstances. A military operation with the stated aim of terminating a band of enemy soldiers is a proper military operation, no different than ordering the sinking of an enemy ship or the shooting down of an enemy fighter plane. And it is not the equivalent of a directive to deal death no matter what. Given the professionalism of our armed forces and their history in recent operations of carefully considering the rules of engagement and the law of war, I would be greatly surprised to learn that our soldiers were ordered to shoot to kill even if they encountered an unarmed person waving the white flag of surrender. Likewise, I cannot imagine that the soldiers had been told to administer a coup de grace to any wounded person lying unconscious on the ground. Rather, I expect the mission was focused on eliminating the threat by use of force rather than by taking the unusual step of sending in troops to capture a combatant. Shaping a military strike on an enemy compound with the goal of taking a particular person alive would be tricky, involve much greater risk for American soldiers, and, in a case like this, almost surely would fail.
On the targeting of individual terrorist leaders by military action overseas, which Eduardo opposes in his post, I don't understand the reluctance. I don't see that it makes any sense to tell an American soldier that he may legitimately kill an individual Al Qaeda combatant on the battlefield in Afghanistan, but then must take special protective measures and resist use of deadly force when targeting the commander of the enemy hiding in a secret compound. Military officers, from generals on down to lieutenants, have never been held immune by law or custom on the basis of rank from being targeted during battle. Launching yesterday’s military operation was not the equivalent of conducting a criminal trial and executing the convicted. As the defacto general of Al Qaeda, bin Laden was a legitimate military target.
Ilya Somin, posting on the Volokh Conspiracy, renews his argument that targeting of terrorist leaders is not immoral but may be morally preferable to the alternatives (although I wouldn't describe it as "assassination" but rather a targeted military strike):
In my view, targeting terrorist leaders is not only defensible, but actually more ethical than going after rank and file terrorists or trying to combat terrorism through purely defensive security measures. The rank and file have far less culpability for terrorist attacks than do their leaders, and killing them is less likely to impair terrorist operations. Purely defensive measures, meanwhile, often impose substantial costs on innocent people and may imperil civil liberties. Despite the possibility of collateral damage inflicted on civilians whom the terrorist leaders use as human shields, targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is less likely to harm innocents than most other strategies for combatting terror and more likely to disrupt future terrorist operations.
That does not prove that it should be the only strategy we use, but it does mean that we should reject condemnations of it as somehow immoral.
Greg Sisk
As I write these words, thousands of people have gathered at the White House, at Ground Zero, and in Times Square, among other places, waving flags, chanting "USA, USA," and singing patriotic songs. The throngs are cheering the courage of our brave soldiers and the unsung and unknown analysts and agents who brought us this day of justice; they are expressing their relief that the hunt for bin Laden is over, at long last; they are expressing their hope that, perhaps, the war against Al Qaeda may yet be won. And, yes, the crowds are also celebrating the demise of Osama bin Laden.
As an American and a Catholic Christian, I join with them whole-heartedly in each of these sentiments. President Obama, his national security team, and those individual soldiers who undertook the military operation deserve our gratitude. Courage is a virtue and is rightly praised. The American people in their fortitude and commitment to see this through have seen the fruits of our perseverance. Patience and faithfulness in our work are also virtues to be honored. Justice for the leading perpetrators of the worst mass murder ever committed on American soil brought is deeply satisfying and long overdue. And, while we as Catholics hold every human life as precious, even those of our enemies, Osama bin Laden was no longer a simple man but had become, by his own considered choice, the incarnation of unreasoning terror and the face of atrocity. The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of United States was the result of a strike against evil that should be respected. And, most importantly, today's events bring an end, not merely to the life of one man, but to that man's ongoing, personal, and dedicated efforts to kill more innocents.
On this particular occasion, I think Dale Carpenter at the Volokh Conspiracy has it just right:
One Should Say Only Good Things About the Dead
Bin Laden is dead. Good.
Monday, April 18, 2011
As Rob Vischer noted in his post earlier today, "Tax Day" has arrived again. Rob takes the occasion to call for higher taxes (but only on the "wealthy," of course, and he acknowledges, sort of, the need for spending cuts as well). But let me here highlight an ongoing trend in taxation that raises other questions for Catholic Social Teaching about solidarity and the common good. Nearly half of Americans have little or no reason to be concerned about rising government spending or budgetary deficits because they're paying little or nothing in federal income taxes.
With only a slight shift in the trend from recent years, only 55 percent of Americans paid any federal income tax for 2010 (here). And, no, the 45 percent that owed not a cent of federal income tax obviously cannot be dismissed as the wealthiest who have cleverly used tax shelters to avoid paying their fair share. Rather, 93 percent of those who owe Uncle Sam nothing in federal income tax are those earning $50,000 a year or less (some 63 million families).
Should we be troubled by this development? Rob tells us that "payment of taxes" is "part of the duty of solidarity." But we have reached the point where the entire non-entitlement portion of the federal budget is funded by only a little more than half of Americans. Indeed, the top 1 percent of income earners pay 38 percent of the federal income tax revenue (here). Even if we look at all sources of federal revenue, including the federal payroll tax, the top 1 percent of income earners still bears 28 percent of the overall federal tax burden.
Moving a little further down the income ladder, the Tax Foundation reports that for the most recent year for which data is available (2008), "[t]he top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes." And this calculation doesn't even begin to account for the fact that many of the top-earners effectively paid double taxes on much of that income: once through corporate income taxes and then again through individual income taxes on capital gains and dividends.
So what again is the argument that the top earners should be taxed at an even higher rate as a matter of "solidarity" or fairness? Even aside from the economic impact of imposing a tax penalty on those investing in the stagnant economy and creating any new jobs, the solidarity and equity arguments that the top five percent should pay for nearly three-fifths of the federal budget escapes me. And when a large segment of the population has nothing financially at stake in federal budgetary and tax policy, because they pay not a single cent in federal income tax, then what remains "common" about the tax burden part of the "common good"? What are the moral implications when half of the country is fully enjoying the benefits of the federal government, while the expense of that government is wholly borne by the other half (and most of that by an even smaller fraction of the population)?
I'm certainly not attracted to any suggestion that we ought to raise taxes on all Americans to ensure that everyone is invested to at least some degree in the federal budget and that everyone shares in the pain of excessive federal spending. I've never subscribed to the leveling-down inclinations of the political left. And, importantly, many (but not all) of the non-poor who pay no federal income tax are still paying payroll taxes to (supposedly) fund Social Security and Medicare (and paying state and local taxes as well). I'm not convinced that any part of the American public is "under-taxed." And transferring more money from a still-struggling economy to a still growing federal government doesn't strike me as a wise investment, especially at this time.
But if Rob Vischer is going to "jump[] onto this soap box" and argue that federal income taxes should be raised for deficit reduction, then shouldn't he be arguing that taxes ought to be raised for all and across-the-board, not just for the half of Americans that already are carrying the entire burden or the five percent of our fellow citizens that pick up three-fifths of the tab for federal spending? As the Tax Policy Center estimates, if all tax breaks were eliminated, then, yes, the wealthy would pay more, but the 45 percent who currently are paying nothing would drop to 27 percent, meaning more middle- and lower-income Americans would start paying taxes as well. Isn't that what is necessary for true solidarity by the lights of the "raise taxes" argument?
In any event, since half the country already is carrying the entire non-Social Security entitlement portion of the federal government and five percent is carrying nearly 60 percent of that tax load, the "tax the wealthy" slogan speaks more to present reality than future aspiration. And given how much of federal spending already is funded by the few, there certainly is nothing realistic about any suggestion that raising taxes on the wealthy will solve the fiscal crisis, especially after President Obama quadrupled the federal deficit (here). In my view, neither fiscal sanity nor "solidarity" and the "common good" are advanced by another tax hike on anyone.
Greg Sisk
Monday, April 4, 2011
A few days ago, I posted a message of appreciation to President Obama for his controversial but, in my view, morally well-justified actions in saving lives by preventing an impending massacre in Libya. Now if only he would take steps to save unborn lives here at home -- or at least not threaten to veto or shut down the government to ensure continued federal funding for Planned Parenthood and to prevent any restrictions on abortion. Note this story from Politico:
“We have a positive relationship with the Obama administration, and we applaud its strong commitment to reproductive health, family planning and preventive health care,” Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of public policy and advocacy for Planned Parenthood, said in a statement to POLITICO. “President Obama has reinforced this commitment by calling for an increased investment in an essential women’s health care program” in his latest budget
* * *
[I]n a news conference on March 11, Obama signaled he would not accept a budget proposal that included any provisions slashing the budgets for federally funded programs that social conservatives don’t like, including Planned Parenthood.
* * *
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, told POLITICO the group has consulted with the White House on a “regular basis” and expressed confidence the administration is committed to blocking any bill that includes abortion restrictions. “The White House has been steadfast in its position,” she said.
* * *
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, which opposes abortion rights, said the strategy reveals “without question” that Obama “is the most important ally that Planned Parenthood has."
Greg Sisk
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
There is much to criticize about President Obama’s foreign and military policy toward Libya, and one cannot help being struck by the wide breadth of criticism from both Left and Right, from both the traditional news media and modern cable-news networks ― and even here on Mirror of Justice. We also may question the coherence of a presidential policy that promises to protect the Libyan people from massacre, while shying away from taking direct action to bring about the ouster of the Libyan leader from whom that risk of a bloodbath came and may come again. I worry especially about whether the United States under President Obama has the staying power to remain engaged and ready to stand against mass violence in Libya, once the notoriously short attention span of the world and media has shifted away.
In addition, there are important questions to ask about use of American military force within constitutional constraints. For all the infamy piled on President Bush by those who supported President Obama in the last election, President Bush sought and obtained congressional approval of military action in Iraq. President Obama has acted unilaterally and failed even to seriously consult with congressional leaders, spending much of the period leading up to military intervention on a trip out of the country.
But, while acknowledging these criticisms and challenging questions and agreeing that they deserve continuing attention in the coming days, I want to focus on the fundamental “rightness” of what President Obama has done and on much of what he said last night:
The United States and the world faced a choice. Kadafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over 1,000 people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi ― a city nearly the size of Charlotte ― could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.
Richard Cohen put it in much the same terms in his column today:
[Saving lives] is what this operation is all about ― the prospect that Moammar Gaddafi was going to settle the score in the most horrific way imaginable. Based upon his record and clear indication that he is crazy, a bloodbath was in prospect. What should the world have done? Nothing? Squeeze Gaddafi with sanctions, seize his Swiss accounts, and padlock his son’s London townhouse? None of these measures would have had immediate impact. Sanctions are a slow-working poison. A bullet was needed.
So, thank you, President Obama. And thank God that the United States and its allies were willing to be an instrument to staunch the shedding of innocent blood in Libya.
In the coming days and years, we should reconsider how Catholic “Just War” doctrine applies to the use of force, not to deter international aggression or for a particular nation’s self-defense, but to deliver the innocent from the hands of evil. Self-defense may be a justification for the use of force, but it ultimately is a self-centered one (not that basic personal safety is at all illegitimate as an interest). But, as President Obama rightly said last night: “There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are.”
Catholic teaching should be and is compatible with such an approach. Father Raymond De Souza writes:
The world does not need the Church to be a cheerleader for war, which always represents a failure of politics to secure liberty and justice. But what of those occasions when armed force is necessary to secure liberty and justice against a malevolent regime― as is the case in Gadhafi’s Libya? While war itself brings its own horrors, if it is a moral duty, ought not the attempt to discharge that duty bring encouragement from Christian pastors?
Near the end of his life, Pope John Paul II began to establish the case for military intervention for humanitarian reasons:
[A]n offense against human rights is an offense against the conscience of humanity as such, an offense against humanity itself. The duty of protecting these rights therefore extends beyond the geographical and political borders within which they are violated. Crimes against humanity cannot be considered an internal affair of a nation. . . .
Clearly, when a civilian population risks being overcome by the attacks of an unjust aggressor and political efforts and non-violent defence prove to be of no avail, it is legitimate and even obligatory to take concrete measures to disarm the aggressor. These measures however must be limited in time and precise in their aims. They must be carried out in full respect for international law, guaranteed by an authority that is internationally recognized and, in any event, never left to the outcome of armed intervention alone.
Let us pray for peace ― not the false peace of international indifference and passivity, but real peace in a new post-Kadafi/Gaddafi Libya.
Greg Sisk
