Printer friendly version

October 29, 2004

Decisions to Be Made

As if homespun political clashes aren't enough to fear after the election, Chuck Colson implores us to remember the stakes of choosing the right leader:

I have come to the sobering conclusion that we are in greater danger of a nuclear strike today than we were during the Cold War.

That being the case, can we really wait until an attack to go after the terrorists who perpetrate it? Or do we have to, instead, rethink the whole spirit of Just War arguments, accepting that preemption is the only humane and just solution in an age of terror to accomplish what the Just War doctrine proposes? Today we are dealing with an irrational enemy who knows it cannot conquer us, but will do everything in its power to destabilize us. Can we wait until the attacks—perhaps killing tens of thousands—or should we seek them out and destroy them before they have a chance to destroy us?

Posted by Justin Katz at October 29, 2004 1:05 AM
International Affairs

I've said it before. (I don't know if I've said it here, though.) The treatment of Just War doctrine in the Catechism of the Catholic Church -- which is about as sparse at it could be, but was and is appealed to by opponents of the War Against Saddam Hussein -- will be amplified considerably after the first successful terrorist attack in Italy.

Posted by: ELC at October 29, 2004 10:40 AM

I don't know about that ELC, I tend to think that since the Vatican chooses to rely on outside sources for security, like the Swiss, there's not going to be much modification even with a successful attack on Italian soil. The doctrine was derived back when the Church was gaining in political power which it no longer wields. Since the Church is no longer in the empire business, it has forgotten the necessity of conducting some matters of state.

Posted by: smmtheory at October 30, 2004 2:44 AM