Supreme crime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 A significant amount of this article's content may actually relate to an entirely different subject.

See coatrack articles and content forking for details.

Please see the discussion on the talk page.
This article or section has been tagged since January 2008.

The concept of supreme crime is a legal principle that to initiate a war not in self defense, but with the intent to conquer territory and subjugate other people, is more egregious than a normal crime. The term was introduced by Justice Robert H. Jackson, chief prosecutor for the United States at the Nuremberg Trials. This legal concept became even more important with the advent of the Nuclear Age, and with the fall of the Soviet Union, which had maintained a balance among superpowers that had kept relative peace for about half a century.

Contents

[edit] Background

For centuries, secular philosophers were pointing out the apparent discrepancy in moral codes based on religious precepts that impose penalties on individuals, but not on large groups of individuals, societies, engaging in activities that harm others. An extreme example is the intentional extermination of human life, murder, in case of serial killers limited to several individuals, in case of societies often resulting in deaths of thousands or millions of human beings.

The illegality of wars of aggression was intensely discussed in ancient times. The loss of human life during World War I prompted the debate about the legality of war-making in the League of Nations. Shortly after the cessation of hostilities on the European theatre of World War II, Jackson framed the legal principles making the initiation of a war of aggression a supreme crime as follows:

  • The power of sovereign states to make war, except in self defense, should be restricted by law. ("It is high time that we act on the juridical principle that aggressive war-making is illegal and criminal")
  • This law must apply equally to all nations. ("I am not willing to charge as a crime against a German official acts which would not be crimes if committed by officials of the United States")
  • Nations can act only through their leaders and thus the individuals responsible for initiation of an aggressive war are accountable for acts of violence against others committed in the name of the state. ("The guilt we should reach is not that of numberless little people, but of those who planned and whipped up the war.")

These principles were embodied in the judicial decision of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg that the initiation of a war of aggression is not only a crime, but a supreme crime. In the years to follow, the United Nations sponsored the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), to judge persons alleged to be guilty of the supreme crime. This court was voted into existence on July 17, 1998 by delegates from 120 nations. The only nations voting "no" were the United States, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, Yemen, and China.

[edit] Religious canons and morality of war

According to Bainton (1960), until the reign of Emperor Constantine, no known Christian writer approved of war. Afterwards, the church codified the principle of the just war (justum bellum). Islam's counterpart of the just war is the notion of jihad, proposed by Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Throughout the ages, Christian and Islamic leaders instigated or sponsored unprovoked wars of aggression, typified by wars expanding the Dar al-Islam (lands of Islam) into the Dar al-harb (lands of the infidel) and by the Crusades.

The cruelty and savagery of the Crusades was later replicated in religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, of which the most devastating was the Thirty Years' War, depopulating many areas of Europe to about a half of the pre-war inhabitants. Throughout Christian history, only Anabaptists and Quakers rejected the notion of the just war while the mainstream religious community, with individual exceptions, either overtly supported or tacitly accepted militarism and wars of conquest.

[edit] Religious and militarist attitude studies

Among the reviews of the studies scrutinizing relationship between religious and militarist attitudes, E. W. Russell's 1971 monograph excels in many respects other meta-studies of this topic. Russell concentrates on studies of the close relationship between militarism and nationalism and studies pertaining to the paradox, that

while universally accepting peace to be a major value, the more devout Christians tend to have stronger militarist attitudes than do the less devout Christians.

Russell comments that "religious belief is probably the most important aspect of a world view" and that "the Christian belief has dominated Western culture for 2000 years, and is clearly related to the authoritarian-punitive world view." He observes that in the Old Testament, the wars were religious crusades; that God was said to demand these wars and required the utter and complete destruction of the enemy. He concludes that

"...by modern standards, such as used at the Nuremberg trials, Yahweh was directing his people to commit genocide on all who opposed him."

Russell's observations support the notion that with respect to prohibitions against the collective violence the New Testament is deficient and the Old Testament (and Qur'an) are not only deficient, but instrumental during the decisive phases of the decision-making processes to initiate a war.

Russell's concerns are echoed by progressive Jewish and Christian theologians, such as Richard Rubenstein, Johann Baptist Metz and Gustavo Gutierrez. In this context Marc H. Ellis, called "the most important contemporary Jewish theologian," in his Unholy alliance: religion and atrocity in our time (1997, p.17) asks:

"To find a path beyond atrocity and beyond a religiosity that sponsors and is silent before violence, after thousands of years of Judaism and Christianity, is it part of our fidelity to abandon these religions, at least as we have known them? In doing this, we explore the truths found in opposition to ancient and modern religious understandings that lead to atrocity, and the hope that might energize us to build a world without barbarism, (...) a life that bends toward community rather than empire." (Ellis, 1997, pp. xvii, 185).
Fig. 1. Religious affiliation of members of the 102nd U.S. Congress and the likelihood of their pro-war vote. More Catholics voted against the war than for the war. Presbyterians were most likely to give President George H.W. Bush war powers. The Jewish vote was split evenly, with 21 Jewish members of Congress voting against the war and 20 voting for the war and did not show any relationship to this postulated continuum (cf. Krus & Webb, 1993).
Fig. 1. Religious affiliation of members of the 102nd U.S. Congress and the likelihood of their pro-war vote. More Catholics voted against the war than for the war. Presbyterians were most likely to give President George H.W. Bush war powers. The Jewish vote was split evenly, with 21 Jewish members of Congress voting against the war and 20 voting for the war and did not show any relationship to this postulated continuum (cf. Krus & Webb, 1993).

The conceptual soundness of Russell's paradox is supported by empirical studies such as the study by Krus and Webb (1993) of the January 12th, 1991 Congress vote on the Gulf War, giving President Bush war powers.[1] This vote was uniformly interpreted as a party vote by the media, with Republicans voting for and Democrats against the war. However, at that time, Democrats had a majority and thus the pro-war vote was determined not by party-line votes but by cross-over votes. Results of this study, analyzing the relationship between the religious background of the members of the 102nd Congress and their vote on the war, are summarized in Fig.1. Congressmen associated with religious denominations closer to the Old Testament were more likely to support the initiation of the 1991 war against Iraq.

[edit] Spiritual counseling

An example of the importance of moral codes as related to the decision to initiate a war is spiritual counseling of President George H. W. Bush by Reverend Billy Graham. As told by Barbara Bush in her 1994 autobiography, the presidential couple was well aware that the decision to go to war will cost human lives and lives of countless children (p. 388):

"George told me last night that they decided that it [the war] would start tonight. All America is praying and we are, too. As we said our prayers, his voice cracked and his eyes got misty. I know that those innocent children get to him."

To obtain spiritual counsel on this matter, they invited Graham to the White House. Graham dispelled the doubts the first family had about killing civilians and, using the notion of the just war, absolved Bush of personal guilt. Bush had also sought and obtained the support of most religious leaders prior to initiating the Gulf War.

[edit] See also


[edit] References

  • Krus, D. J., & Webb, J. M. (1993) Quantification of Santayana's cultural schism theory. Psychological Reports, 72, 319-325 (Request reprint).
  • Krus, D. J. & Webb, J. M. (2001) Für oder gegen ein militärisches Eingreifen: Ist die Einstellung zum Krieg eine Variable der Gesinnung oder des situationsbedingten Gemütszustands? Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie und Gruppendynamik in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 26.Jg. Heft 2, 3-8 (Request reprint in English, in German).
  • Russell, E.W. (1971) Christianity and militarism. Peace Research Reviews, 4, 3, 1-77.
  • Russell, E.W. (1974) Christentum und Militarismus. In Huber, W., & Liedke, G. (Hrsg.), Christentum und Militarismus, Studien zur Friedensforschung. München, Germany: Kösel-Verlag, 21-109.

[edit] Further reading

  • Chomsky, N. (2003) Preventive war: the supreme crime. Znet, August 11. (Request reprint).

[edit] External links