Terrorism Ethics

"Ethics and the “War on Terrorism”

1. The definition of terrorism is problematic. How does this affect our view of terrorism?
a. There exist a number of “official” and legal definitions as well as those suggested by researchers and commenter’s. Some explanations of the meaning of terrorism focus only on terrorism cared out by individuals and groups and ignore state terrorism altogether, others emphasize the political objective of terrorist acts, and still other frame terrorist acts of criminal events and downplay the political motivations. One clearly understood factor amongst all of these approaches is that terrorism is a method or means of achieving by objective.

2. Which is the better approach—to treat terrorism as a criminal activity
or to fight terrorists as if they were enemies in a war? Explain.
a. Terrorist are motivated by political objectives, and while criminals employ violence (often similar to that of terrorists like kidnapping, murder, arson) to achieve their ends, their motivation is quite different from that of terrorist, because of criminals commonly act solely to secure a material gain.
b. The U.S. administration has indicated that the War on Terrorism will continue until terrorism is ultimately defeated. Given that the War on Terrorism is neither a metaphorical as like those concerning crime, poverty, and drugs, nor a conventional war, it generates a set of moral questions about how it should be conducted.

3.
Does the Patriot Act give the executive branch of government too much power in pursuing terrorism? What effect does the exercise of that power have on civil rights in the United States?
a. The Patriot Act of 2001, sought to enhance national security through what had previously been regarded as generic crime control measures. It introduce more than 1,000 provisions concerning surveillance on financial transactions and border control, as well as new criminal offenses and penalties against terrorism. The acted is targeted at non-U.S. citizen terrorists, was formulated to augment national security, and both conceptually and in policy terms is outside the conventional parameters of crime control legislation.
b. Crime control measures of the conventional kind such as increased penalties for offenses are integrated into the criminal justice system. In the War on Terrorism however, the criminal justice system has been judged inadequate or inappropriate. Thus, while the U.S. considers itself “at war,” it does not regard many of those taken prisoners in threat war as prisoners of war who are to be treated in accordance with the rules laid down in the Geneva Conventions, especially treatment of combats captured during an interactional armed conflict and with civilians who are involved in the armed
conflict.

4. What measures should a democratic government take to respond to terrorism that are consistent with its ethical responsibilities?
a.
Democracy can respond to terrorism without destroying the values for which it stands. The position between those who argue in absolutist terms that no restrictions on rights ought to be imposed or justified and those advocating a consequentiality approach who judge counterterrorist measure purely by their effectiveness. Prohibit certain torture, illegal detention, and unlawful assassination on the basis that they violate “foundational commitments to justice and dignity.” Democracies commonly permit derogations from guaranteed rights and freedoms in emergencies, so rights do not always trip other considerations like national security, but ultimately, in his view, it is the task of the courts, the media, and the legislators to scrutinize such measures for
justifiability.

5. Is it ever ethically acceptable to torture a person in the War on Terrorism? Explain.
a. Title 18, section 2340 of the US Code defines torture as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” Torture is a federal crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison and even death if the victim dies following the torture. This applies to torture committed outside the United States but includes acts by the US citizens.
b. Even an act utilitarian would be unable to justify torture in practice and that a rule utilitarian approach would expressly prohibit torture in principle on the same basis that would cause a state to prohibit the practice of assassination. To torture a human being is to treat him or her not as a moral person but as an object, and according to Ronald Dworkin, a “core list of human rights” would include the right not to be tortured.

6. What, if any, human rights should be suppressed in the interests of winning the War on Terrorism, and how would suppressing these rights contribute toward “victory”?
a. the events of 9/11 have prompted some to argue that torture is justified as a national security counterterrorist measure in the interest of defending democracy. For example, torture might be applied and regulated by the judiciary through a “torture warrant” that would prescribe the kinds of torture to be inflicted and its limits and the federal Judge Richard Posner has written that anyone who doubts torture “is permissible when the stakes are high enough should not be in a position of responsibility.”