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…
atrocities in Chechnya, Indian oppression in Kashmir and Jewish aggression in Lebanon (Bin Laden). Bin Laden claims that under American supervision, the countries of the Middle East attack Muslims on a daily basis, preventing them from establishing their moral codes and laws, the Islamic Sharia. He continues, saying how the US is corrupting their lands, starving their children, and protecting the Jews with their false idea that Jerusalem is theirs and theirs alone. According to Bin Laden, all of these crimes and more committed by the US justify the 9/11 attack. This justification falls under the Jus Ad Bellum portion of Just War Theory, the judgments made concerning acts of aggression and self-defense in war. Aggression in of itself is the main crime of war (Walzer 51). War is hell, with hundreds and thousands of people dying, and it is a crime to start one. Bin Laden’s compilation of ‘crimes’ committed by the US do not accrue to an act of aggression, which needs to “[challenge] rights that are worth dying for” (Walzer 53). Al-Qaeda does not have the right to oust US forces so they can overthrow local governments and establish their own rule. Thus, the US is not the aggressor, and instead Al-Qaeda is, violating Jus Ad Bellum. Bin Laden claimed to use a reprisal, an action with the explicit purpose of ending all further crimes of war, a final act (Walzer 207). If this were the case, than he would have not committed an act of terrorism, defined by its action to destroy the morale of the US using the method of random murder of innocent people (Walzer 197). Bin Laden’s second justification for the attacks on 9/11 deals with this targeting of innocent civilians, claiming that Al-Qaeda was right in their targeting of civilians due to their acceptance of the US government. Americans choose their government by their own free will, thus agreeing with the policies that the government runs. This means all Americans support the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. It also means that all tax-paying Americans directly fund the plans and tanks that wreak havoc in Afghanistan and Palestine. The United States Military is composed of the American people, who employ both men and women into the Armed Services, the Armed Services that attack Bin Laden and his constituents (Bin Laden). Bin Laden claims this portrayal of the American people shows them all as conspirators in the aggression by the US, and thus makes them open to attack. There are many problems with the argument, which Bin Laden casually avoids discussing. While Americans can vote for who they believe should run the government, just the slightest majority has to agree. This means that 49.9% of the people believe that another person should run the government, but Bin Laden assumes that everyone agrees. He also assumes that the average American has a say in the policies and actions taken by Congress, while in actuality they only vote for the people who do, thus further distancing themselves from the policies chosen. While Congress may support Israeli oppression of Palestinians, the American people may not. Bin Laden also claims that Americans directly fund the planes and tanks used in the Middle East. While the money does comes from the taxpayers, this does not mean that they have a say in where the money goes after it is collected. Like policies, Congress is in charge of allotting funds to each sector of the US economy, including national defense. The United States Armed Services are comprised of the American people, but soldiers are innocent of Jus Ad Bellum, and cannot be responsible for the aggressions committed by their nation they are serving. Even if all of Bin Laden’s claims were correct, with every American having an authoritative say on what operations the United States Military conducts, this does not revoke them of their Non-Combatant Immunity. The Non-Combatant Immunity principle states that even though some civilians may internally approve of acts of aggression by their government, they remain externally non-threatening because they are not trained to kill, and they do not bear arms or directly engage with the enemy. The American people do nothing particularly war-like, allowing them to be called innocent people, those who have done nothing that would entail a loss of their rights (Walzer 146). By targeting civilians, Al-Qaeda committed an act of terrorism, violating the rules of Jus In Bello, making the action unjust. A realist would argue that the 9/11 attack was justified, claiming that in war, all is fair.
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
approach. Be being the aggressor, Bin Laden defied the stipulations for a just war according to Jus Ad Bellum, and by attacking innocent civilians, he defied the stipulations according to Jus In Bello.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
On September 11, 2001 the world stopped for a moment as two planes flew into the white house. The Pentagon was also hit that day, and a hero saved a plane that was supposed to hit the White House. Americans all over the country were in shock, some knew their loved ones were in the Twin Towers, and hoped that some could make it out alive. Some did, many didn’t, so many precious lives were taken away from innocent humans who thought it was just going to be a normal day at the office. Children are growing up without fathers and mothers, who they will never meet. Whoever did this, needs to be put away, or killed. The man who planned it, Osama Bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011, 10 years after the terror attacks on the World Trade center that killed many Americans, innocent Americans. Osama bin Laden’s killing was just, and he deserved what he got, there is no doubt in my mind he got what he deserved.
...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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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