Ethics of a war on terror

Rejecting certain traditional, in effect medieval assumptions of just war theory and advancing a liberal outlook, it argues that every single individual is a legitimate authority and has, under certain circumstances, the right to declare war on others or the state.

All this may change in an age when the sensor-to-shooter cycle is reduced to real-time. The emergence of liberal democracies, defined for this purpose as states that renounce certain manifestations of power in deference to the declared rights and expressed positions of its population, has added to the debate.

If I believe in this ethical theory I would say that Antiterrorism is an ethical and possibly effective alternative to the largely unethical and ineffective counterterrorist strategy of the GWOT.

In America today we claim that the rebels were right to fight against British "tyranny".

In the end, both would argue, the plight of the Palestinians or the shame felt by the Muslim world at the reverses experienced at the hands of the West are interesting and important. And members of that profession need, for their own sakes and for that of the democratic, lawful society they serve, to spend time thinking about the ethical considerations involving their profession.

There are always going to be difficult cases. Good and evil exist; they can be defined within reasonably stable standards and norms; and individuals or states acting in pursuit of the good have, again under defined conditions, not just the right to struggle against evil, but the responsibility to do so.

They are also largely irrelevant to the question of how zealots motivated by such history should be dealt with. There can be states who behave in a terrorist way. This recognition might free decision-makers to seek, and the public to demand,solutions that have demonstrated long-term efficacy in preventing, reducing, and resolving violent conflicts.

Story framing is often problematic: Examples of definitions and terminology that are divisive include: Whereas if you think of this as a war,then killing people is part of that process.

Explain your position regarding the ethics of war and responses to terrorism. The global war on terrorism has, if nothing else, renewed the discussion of when and how societies—especially those believing that they are constituted on some values more noble than the mere continuation of their governing regimes—can use violence or restrict on security grounds the liberties of their own citizens or persons they encounter from other countries, friendly, neutral, or hostile.

And under what conditions? The problem was that these ideas relatedto predominantly to interstate warfare between partners Albert Weinberg and others decades ago developed this line of argument: Counterterrorism Does Not Counter Terrorism The realpolitik strategy of waging a global war cloaked as counterterrorism, put into effect in September — a decade and a half ago—has not defeated radical Islamism, has resulted in, at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of casualties, has led to a global clash between extremist elements within Western and Islamist civilizations, and threatens to escalate to a war of the world in which non-state terrorists and state counter-terrorists may both employ weapons of mass destruction.

A strong, free press dedicated to communicating vital information to the public remains one of the best safeguards against the violence of terrorism and tyranny.

Within that record, Elshtain would reject any moral symmetry between the president of the United States and Usama bin Laden. Governments are much more likely to reduce terrorist violence and eliminate insurgencies by reaching political accommodations with their adversaries than by counterterrorist and counterinsurgency military and paramilitary operations.explicitly require many of them; these have been codified both legally and in the just war tradition (Walzer [] ; Orend ).1 The contemporary advent of terrorism, however, compromises all of these.

Explain your position regarding the ethics of war and responses to terrorism. In your explanation, be sure to draw upon ethical theories, concepts, and reasoning to support your position.

State what you believe should be done and. Jun 26,  · The unfortunate result of World War I, we now know, was slightly less upbeat, in that it actually created conditions that made the world safe for Lenin, Hitler, and World War II.

By the end of the 20th century, a more cynical world seemed to prefer a more realistic view. GLOBALIZATION, ETHICS, AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM MARYANN CUSIMANo Lovw* "September l1th made ever more clear that globalization is a reality requiring greater moral scrutiny.

Start studying ADJ - Final Exam. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Rather than view terrorism as a war on national security problem, some authors suggest that we might better view terrorism as a.

criminal justice or law enforcement matter. Much of the debate on the ethics of the war on. Before being appointed to the faculty of the Army War College, Dr. Cook taught in the Dept. of Religious Studies at Santa Clara University.

Related articles by Martin L. Cook: "'Immaculate War': Constraints on Humanitarian Intervention," Ethics and International Affairs 14 ().

Ethics of a war on terror
Rated 3/5 based on 56 review