Justice and Terrorism Persuasive Paper

Justice and Terrorism Persuasive Paper The use of military force to retaliate against terrorist activities is an issue that is marred by controversy because of the various ethical and legal considerations that it evokes. This paper aims to look at examples of these moral, ethical and legal issues, discuss the contexts in which they arise and what necessitates their consideration. Secondly, it will also look at the distinct legal issues that have emerged over the years, the discussions that have been had around them and the current legal view of the use of military force to combat terrorism. Lastly, I will present my opinions regarding whether the use of military force, tribunals and confinement is the most appropriate approach to prosecuting suspected terrorists. This latter feat will be undertaken to have regard to a comprehensive view of the findings made on the first two points.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

JUSTICE AND TERRORISM PERSUASIVE PAPER

2

Ethical Considerations in the Fight Against Terrorism (Cook, 2001) When considering whether military force should be used to retaliate when a state is made the subject of terrorist attacks, two major principles of warfare come to bear. These two principles are jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The first principle provides that the political and military circumstances that are being responded to should be grave enough to warrant a military response. Furthermore, it proposes that the elements of the war should be just and that other nonviolent alternative should have been pursued before the choice to go to war is made. On the other hand, the second principle is concerned with right conduct during military operations so that the force is directed at those who are morally and legally responsible for the terrorist attack and not against others.

From these two principles, various ethical concerns arise. Foremost, the just cause principle demands that there should be an accurate identification of those who were responsible for the terrorist attack and therefore, those who can legitimately be made the sole subjects of the military attack. When these people are identified inaccurately, there is the threat of making innocent citizens the objects of military attacks which is not only unethical but is also against the law. Secondly, there is also the question of attacking those who support the activities of terrorists; those who, although they do not participate in the direct attacks, nonetheless provide a conducive environment for such attacks to take place, either actively, or even by neglect. This latter issue emerges as an ethical concern because a question arises of the standard of proof that should be required about these people. Since neglect may also be considered a justifiable reason for retaliating with military force, what should be considered a sufficient degree of neglect to warrant the use of such force?

JUSTICE AND TERRORISM PERSUASIVE PAPER

3

Furthermore, ethical considerations also delimit the manner in which military force may be used. The ethical requirements of war are also applicable, to wit, the military force employed should be discriminate and proportionate. Discriminate use of force refers to ensuring that the attack is directed, as far as possible, on those that were directly responsible for the terrorist attack, with the least possible damage being occasioned on innocent civilians and their properties. On the other hand, the principle of proportionality requires that the amount of force used should be proportionate to the value and nature of the target. For instance, where only a few individuals are being targeted, it would be disproportionate use of force to destroy an entire town. From these principles, clear ethical issues would emerge where the amount of damage is of a devastating proportion in comparison to the size and value of the target. Also, it would be termed unethical if the attack gave rise to a high number of civilian casualties.

Legal Issues in the Fight Against Terrorism One of the legal issues that emerge from the use of military force in the fight against terrorism is the status of the terrorists against whom the force is being used. Regard has to be had to the fact that the terrorists must be based in a particular state. Therefore, by attacking the base of these terrorists, the retaliating military is in effect, launching an attack against another state.

However, it is also noteworthy that many terrorists will have already renounced the protection and rights that they are entitled to under their specific governments, thus rendering them “outlaws” and thus, not entitled to the protections of the systems that they have renounced (Elshtain, 2003). Therefore, there is the legal issue of where to place terrorists within the state system and what legal provisions ought to be made for attacks that are effected on the soil of other sovereign states.

JUSTICE AND TERRORISM PERSUASIVE PAPER

4

Another legal issue that usually arises where the military is involved in responding to terrorist attacks is the interrogation process that often precedes or succeeds the military attacks.

These counterintelligence efforts raise ethical issues in addition to the legal issues (Elshtain, 2003). Many states are signatories of various international instruments whose aim is the protection and preservation of human rights. Therefore, the use of torture tactics, albeit as a last resort, still operates to violate human rights and freedoms. What is more, military operations are usually inextricably connected to intelligence efforts. On its own, intelligence raises many issues regarding the violation of privacy to gather vital information on terrorists. Specifically, the issue of the justifiable violation of citizen’s rights is often raised, with many commentators asserting that intelligence organizations more often than not exceed the acceptable limits of intelligence in spying (Elshtain, 2003).

In addition to the above, there is the fact that the law has had to be significantly revised and reinterpreted to accommodate the use of force against terrorists. According to legal theorists, the discussions surrounding the law applicable began with the self-defense justification (Tams, 2009). However, the law surrounding the use of force has developed slowly since states have always preferred to criminalize certain terrorist actions as opposed to using military force.

Another reason for the slow development of the law related to the use of force is the longstanding prohibition against the use of force against other states, which also extends to the use of force against terrorists based in other states (Tams, 2009). Although some of the arguments relied upon may be considered old and not useful in the modern context, states are yet to develop a comprehensive legal regime to deal with these concerns.

Lastly, it has also been argued that the current legal framework, which provides for the swift elimination of terrorists by military force can only remain so as long as the targets operate

JUSTICE AND TERRORISM PERSUASIVE PAPER

5

under cover of civilians and are not organized into any discernible unit. However, there may be instances where such groups eventually organize themselves and take up distinctive dresses and badges, or begin carrying weapons openly. Some commentators have opined that at this juncture, their status will have changed to combatants and therefore, the way that they are treated under international law may also have to change (Cook, 2001). Specifically, it has been argued that at this point, they would have to be included under the protections of the Geneva Convention as soldiers (Cook, 2001).

Justification of the Position Taken My position on the question of whether or not military force should be used to retaliate against terrorist attacks is that it should be and that there is sufficient evidence indicating that this course of action is justifiable. Foremost, unlike other criminal actions, terrorist attacks are usually calculated to occasion the most damage and injury possible, and in many cases, upon innocent civilians. Whereas states are usually grappling with the need to ensure that the force used in retaliation does not give rise to civilian casualties, this is not a consideration that is usually made by the terrorist groups. Therefore, swift elimination of such individuals is the only recourse that effectively deals with and the grossly adverse effects of their actions.

Secondly, I agree with this position because I feel like there are enough legal, ethical and moral guidelines that guide the process of using military force so that the chances of civilian casualties being recorded is diminished. As it has been seen above, numerous legal-ethical provisions are ever being discussed in scholarly and government circles for this purpose.

Moreover, the use of military force is the most effective deterrent possible. Whereas imprisonment may serve to stop the imprisoned individuals from organizing and launching subsequent attacks, it may not serve as a deterrent for other individuals who are trained to risk

JUSTICE AND TERRORISM PERSUASIVE PAPER

6

their lives for their missions. Therefore, the use of swift, decisive and perilous force may be the only message that can be understood and serve as an effective deterrent for terrorists.

Conclusion In summary, it is apparent that there are numerous moral, ethical and legal issues that surround the use of military force to fight back against terrorism. One of the reasons why such issues arise is that terrorist attacks and the subsequent military retaliation do not occur in a vacuum. Since there will always be innocent civilian lives to consider, there will always be a need to approach such issues with caution. Also, it is clear that these issues are as old a subject for debate as there has been terrorism. Indeed, many commentators have weighed in and contributed different perspectives to the issues. In the end, it would seem that there is no direct answer to this dilemma and that it will always remain a controversial issue among scholarly, military and non-governmental circles. There will always be individuals who consider the ethical and moral considerations as having more bearing on the issue than the political and military considerations, and there are those who will always consider national security as being superior to any ethical or moral considerations present. On the whole, it would seem that a healthy balance is not only profitable but it also vital for such discussions.

JUSTICE AND TERRORISM PERSUASIVE PAPER References Cook, M. L. (2001). Ethical issues in counterterrorism warfare. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/ethicalissues-in-counterterrorism-warfare/ Elshtain, J. B. (2003). Just war, ethics, terror. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Tams, C. J. (2009). The use of force against terrorists. The European Journal of International Law, 20(2), 359-397. Retrieved from http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/20/2/1793.pdf

7