September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello. Bin Laden begins his letter to the American people by naming the Right to Self-Defense as a justification for 9/11. He invokes Self-Defense by listing a number of grievances: American attacks on Palestine, Russian …show more content…
He would argue that in war, morals do not apply, as people want to maximize their advantage and will do whatever it takes to come out on top (Walzer 3). I would disagree with this statement. Even in war, we are expected to make moral judgments, to know what is right and what is wrong. War is not an excuse to discard all moral codes, supported by the establishment of the War Convention to govern the rules of war. Wars are intentional movements started by the authoritative power in nations; they are not just activities that occur by chance. War is a moral enterprise where we deliberate moral judgments, not always choosing the most advantageous exploit, allowing us to have morality in war and reject the realist’s
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
I chose this topic because I want to learn more about Osama’s life why he wanted to commit the war on terrorism against the western theory of how it is super bad at all times. From what
For example, Walzer explaining how leaders needs to preserve their moral beliefs throughout war is the most important one to because it keeps us humane. It keeps us from committing to unspeakable actions that we’ll regret later in life. Following that is one I truly disagree with and that’s his argument on intentions. I don’t believe people should be forgiven or looked pass upon if they did something horrible because they full heartedly had good intentions. Anyone can make the argument that they truly believed they were doing the right thing, and that is extremely dangerous. Too me, it provokes negative behavior or bad actions. So, a political leader should not be judged on whether their intentions were good or not. Next, leading we’re lead to his argument on the advancement of warfare, which I agree with completely because it shows the morals and reasonable responses of a good political leader. A good political leader won’t use target killing unless it’s absolutely necessary and we’re not putting people in danger. Now, drone warfare to me it very complicated subject because I see both sides of it. Yes, it can be extremely beneficiary by eliminating targets without risking the lives of anyone, but we are taking away emotional side of it. This emotional side to war is supposed to make us reflect deeply. So, I can’t really pinpoint exactly how I feel. Lastly, were
The Just War Theory is a set of criteria that are used to judge whether a war is morally justifiable. It was St Augustine in the third century that formulated the Just War theory, and was formalised 10 centuries later by Thomas Aquinas. There are seven criteria by which a war can be judged to be just. Among the rules are Just Cause – there must be a very good reason for going to war, such as protecting your country from invasion. There should be a formal declaration of war by the legal government. It has to be the last resort and all other alternatives must be exhausted. There must be a reasonable chance of success and great care must be taken to avoid injuring civilians.
Augustine’s just war theory, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, provides a series of criteria of which, in theory, must be met in order for a war to be considered just. The criterion is then separated into two segments. Jus ad bellum refers to the morality surrounding going to war or when is going to war justified. Jus in bello refers to the moral conduct within war or how does one conduct a just war. When going to war and conducting war, these principles and guidelines must be followed or the morality of the war is not considered just by Augustine’s doctrine. However, there are many criticisms of Augustine’s principles.
The speech appeals to the emotions of the entire nation when it addresses the topic of the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism. Bush states, “ the best way to defend the homeland is to hunt the killers down one at a time, and...
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
War is an inevitable human phenomenon which is often the byproduct of strained politics and an innate human drive to reign supreme over other lands. With the enactment of war follows the never ending question of what is just or ethically acceptable and what is unjust and morally reprehensible even during times of war. In modern times the word conventional war has been coined to describe warfare which involves fighting between two or more distinct well defined sides and only includes the use of weapons which will only target the opposition military units. Conventional warfare excludes the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons which threaten the lives of citizens and often times ravishes the opposition land beyond civilian use. Even
There has not been any military action merely for the sake of taking action or assuaging any supposed public desire for revenge. Thus I conclude that the war against terrorism meets all four criteria of a "just war. " Sanity, virtue, and a sense of humor all depend, though in different ways, on having a proper sense of proportion. I suggest that early critics of the war on terrorism lack the necessary sense of proportion.
...ose misunderstandings and addresses why we have that moral right to do wrong. I agree with Waldron’s views since they connect to the enhancement of a diverse society. we know now that Waldron is looking at “wrongs” from a moral view not a legal view. An objection can be that his conception is limited because it only deals with morals and leaves the legal point of view aside. But does that really matter? Waldron is talking only about morality, and since legal positivism suggest that law and morality should be separated so they can be analyzed in greater details, shouldn't it not matter if he was not focusing on the legal matter but enhancing the idea of morality that will later on serve and enhance legality? an overall look at Waldron’s ideas can conclude that his ideas are logical and hard to rebut because he speaks the truth about having a moral right to do wrong.
In this essay I will set out to debunk some of the facile and often fallacious arguments put forth by our leaders to justify our current and antecedent military involvement in the Middle East. I will begin with an analysis of western intervention in the middle east from 9/11 up until the present. The arguments under scrutiny will be from a wide range of influential westerners and think-tanks, but they will contain the same message: A direct call to arms against the supposed worldwide threat of Muslim extremism in the form of Salafi jihadism. I will deconstruct these arguments and point out any and all logical errors, lies, exaggerations and any other manipulations used to entice an educated population to support violence as the only means of