tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post2165212105334867189..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Libya, Iraq, and Epistemic Due ProcessAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27150497866191210532011-03-25T08:40:31.215-06:002011-03-25T08:40:31.215-06:00Bradley said...
First, I doubt that the possessio...<b>Bradley said...</b><br /><br /><i>First, I doubt that the possession of weapons of mass destruction should be seen as a legitimate cause for war.</i><br /><br />That is absolutely true. Otherwise, every country in the world is justified in going to war against the United States.<br /><br /><br /><i>The second point I would like to make is that although the U.N. Security Council approved of some form of military intervention, they didn't assert that any country had a moral obligation to take military action. We aren't required to participate in every action that the U.N. says is acceptable.</i><br /><br />True, but irrelevant. I have not argued for an obligation to take military action because the United Nations said it is permitted. I argued for an obligation to protect innocent people - where the due-process requirement for the use of violence has been met through a UN resolution.<br /><br /><br /><i>As a third thing I would like to point out is that there is a further constraint on due process that the current administration has ignored along with many other administrations in the recent past. Congress has been given the authority to declare war. When the president ignores this principle, we place the country at greater risk of military involvement that fails to serve the interests of U.S. citizens.</i><br /><br />Yep. This is another subject I need to address.<br /><br />One thing at a time.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-51313552290956508462011-03-25T08:33:47.168-06:002011-03-25T08:33:47.168-06:00Heathen Republican
Obviously, members were convi...<b>Heathen Republican</b><br /><br /><i> Obviously, members were convinced enough to vote for the final resolution authorizing use of force.</i><br /><br />There is no UN resolution authorizing the use of force in the case of Iraq.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-79627496675167278262011-03-24T21:17:13.459-06:002011-03-24T21:17:13.459-06:00I'm not sure how you can justify describing Bu...I'm not sure how you can justify describing Bush as having contempt for due process. Are you unaware of the 14 months of working through the U.N. before the 2003 invasion? Or the multiple U.N. resolutions condemning Saddam? Obviously, members were convinced enough to vote for the final resolution authorizing use of force.Eric Norenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14648635662703229678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88170315129606621372011-03-24T20:49:52.433-06:002011-03-24T20:49:52.433-06:00You make some good points, but I would like to add...You make some good points, but I would like to add a few of my own.<br /><br />First, I doubt that the possession of weapons of mass destruction should be seen as a legitimate cause for war.<br /><br />The second point I would like to make is that although the U.N. Security Council approved of some form of military intervention, they didn't assert that any country had a moral obligation to take military action. We aren't required to participate in every action that the U.N. says is acceptable.<br /><br />As a third thing I would like to point out is that there is a further constraint on due process that the current administration has ignored along with many other administrations in the recent past. Congress has been given the authority to declare war. When the president ignores this principle, we place the country at greater risk of military involvement that fails to serve the interests of U.S. citizens.<br /><br />Finally I will give the reasons why I am tentatively opposed to this action. It will place U.S. citizens in danger without contributing to our national security. No matter how well intentioned a military action is, it will always result in death. This death will cause some people to be angry at America. While it is true that many people argue that we should sometimes take risks to help others, I suspect that if that is what we are trying to do there are far more efficient ways of helping people. I don't see the world community expressing a strong preference for military action on the part of the U.S. Perhaps they're on to something.Bradleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02645774438700269871noreply@blogger.com