Outline Questions to be answered Definition & frameworks The Doctrine of Double Effect Arguments against ConclusionsPOV: justification of actions of US since 2001 http://www.accts.org/ministries/ethics/latvia/Papers/Ethics_war_terrorism.htm
Questions Can war against terror(ists) be considered a “normal” war? What principles are applied? Are they the same? Are actions of US (e.g. invasion in Iraq, military operations in Pakistan,etc.) justified?
Question #1Can war against terror(ists) be considered a “normal” war? What principles are applied? Are they the same?
Preface Two separate frameworks Fighting enemies Pursuing criminals E.g. International War on Drugs US military operates outside its borders only with permission Only use deadly force when smugglers are in the act of producing/smuggling (even then – last resort) War on terrorism is about fighting enemies
Why are terrorists enemies? “the enemy relationship describes the most intense degree of separation stakeholders can have” i.e. drug smugglers dont fit “an enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one collectivity confronts a similar collectivity” i.e. (individual) maniacs dont fit Criminals are pursued to preserve peace, but wars are fought to establish peace Criminals act against (groups of) individuals Enemies act against state as a whole
The dilemma Ethical obligations, permissions & prohibitions differ when one is fighting enemies from when one is pursuing criminals Of course, not all force is justified (Just War) Dilemma: due care vs. due risk (~“risk-return”) Since soldiers can take only limited amount of risk, it is permissible to engage in actions in which civilians may knowingly, though unintentionally, be harmed
The Doctrine of Double Effect It is permissible to perform a good act that has bad consequences if certain conditions hold: 1) the bad effect is proportional to the desired military objective; 2) the bad effect is unintended; 3) the bad effect is not a direct means to the good effect; 4) soldiers are obliged to minimize the foreseeable bad effects resulting from any course of action, even if it means an increased risk to soldiers. Real-life philosophy behind US Army actions
Clarifying quote “This is not to say that police are prohibited from taking risks that might place civilian lives in danger. For example, police are permitted to engage in high-speed pursuits even though such pursuits can and have resulted in accidents in which innocent bystanders have been killed. The difference is police are not permitted to engage in such pursuits when they know civilians will be killed or seriously injured. In contrast, there are many conditions under which such actions would be permissible for soldiers.”
Interim summary Terrorists arent criminals, they are enemies Different ethics apply US justified to use force and breach sovereignty War on terrorism, though it has bad consequences, is a good act Provided that all necessary precautions are there, civil casualties are justified
RebuttalQ: Terrorists are still some countrys citizens; shouldnt their rights thus be protected?A: They have openly renounced their affinity to a state; hence, they are not protected like civilians or captured soldiers.Q: If terrorists dont operate on behalf of any state, why is invading other countries justified?
Question #2Are actions of US (e.g. invasion in Iraq, military operations in Pakistan,etc.) justified?
Arguments against Ineffective (all the more when dealing with such widespread networks as Al-Qaida) Provides a framework for perpetual war Incites, not decreases, anti-Western rhetorics Involves double standards Leads to a regression to standards and practices employed by terrorists (immoral)