Camillo Bica
Camillo “Mac” Bica, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy in New York City. His focus is in ethics, particularly as it applies to war and warriors. As a veteran recovering from his experiences as a United States Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War, he founded, and coordinated the Veterans Self-Help Initiative, a therapeutic community of veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The following are excerpts from Professor Bica’s moral foundations for “Winter Soldier’s hearings in March:
“Since the invasion of Iraq, it has become clear to all, with the possible exception of Fox Television Network viewers, that the attacks of September 11, were not supported by the people or the government of Iraq. At the time of the invasion, Iraq wasn’t seeking nor did it possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq posed no immediate threat to America, Israel or any other Middle East nation. The Iraqis were not terrorists and did not support terrorism. They were not linked in any way to the terrorist attacks. Consequently, the citizens of Iraq are innocent, because they have done nothing to warrant forfeiture of their rights to life and to live in a nation that enjoys territorial integrity and political sovereignty.
“Bush and those who planned and initiated the invasion and misrepresented it as a just war against terrorism and to preserve freedom must bear the preponderance of responsibility and culpability for the aggression. However, the invading troops, despite their being mislead into believing their cause was just, are agents of unwarranted, immoral and illegal violence and are violating the rights of the Iraqis. They are “unjustifiable combatants/innocent aggressors.” Consequently, the invading/occupying troops must suffer the sanction of forfeiture of their natural immunity and become liable to be justifiably resisted and warred against by the Iraqis in self-defense.
“The fact that our invaders and occupiers allege to target only Iraqi combatants, is irrelevant both to a determination of whether the invasion is just and to judgments of the liability of the aggressors. The opposing combatants, despite being termed “insurgents” and “terrorists” by our political and military leaders, maintain their immunity and their right to self-defense. Consequently, the Iraqi combatants and their allies do not forfeit the very rights they are morally struggling to assert. They are justifiable combatants. It is not the case, therefore, because of a fierce “insurgent” resistance, that the aggressors can now claim their actions are morally justified by reasons of self-defense.
“Consequently, regardless of whether the decision to invade and occupy Iraq was the result of an honest mistake or something more insidious, the preemptive attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, the killing of its citizens and its continued occupation are morally unjustifiable - an act of aggression and murder.”
Tomorrow, I’ll provide a specific example of an act of aggression and murder, which supports Bica’s ethical arguments.
“Since the invasion of Iraq, it has become clear to all, with the possible exception of Fox Television Network viewers, that the attacks of September 11, were not supported by the people or the government of Iraq. At the time of the invasion, Iraq wasn’t seeking nor did it possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq posed no immediate threat to America, Israel or any other Middle East nation. The Iraqis were not terrorists and did not support terrorism. They were not linked in any way to the terrorist attacks. Consequently, the citizens of Iraq are innocent, because they have done nothing to warrant forfeiture of their rights to life and to live in a nation that enjoys territorial integrity and political sovereignty.
“Bush and those who planned and initiated the invasion and misrepresented it as a just war against terrorism and to preserve freedom must bear the preponderance of responsibility and culpability for the aggression. However, the invading troops, despite their being mislead into believing their cause was just, are agents of unwarranted, immoral and illegal violence and are violating the rights of the Iraqis. They are “unjustifiable combatants/innocent aggressors.” Consequently, the invading/occupying troops must suffer the sanction of forfeiture of their natural immunity and become liable to be justifiably resisted and warred against by the Iraqis in self-defense.
“The fact that our invaders and occupiers allege to target only Iraqi combatants, is irrelevant both to a determination of whether the invasion is just and to judgments of the liability of the aggressors. The opposing combatants, despite being termed “insurgents” and “terrorists” by our political and military leaders, maintain their immunity and their right to self-defense. Consequently, the Iraqi combatants and their allies do not forfeit the very rights they are morally struggling to assert. They are justifiable combatants. It is not the case, therefore, because of a fierce “insurgent” resistance, that the aggressors can now claim their actions are morally justified by reasons of self-defense.
“Consequently, regardless of whether the decision to invade and occupy Iraq was the result of an honest mistake or something more insidious, the preemptive attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, the killing of its citizens and its continued occupation are morally unjustifiable - an act of aggression and murder.”
Tomorrow, I’ll provide a specific example of an act of aggression and murder, which supports Bica’s ethical arguments.
posted by Jim O'Leary | 12:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home