LEC20 – Counter Terror Nov 19 2009

83 views1 pages
16 Aug 2010
School
Department
Course
Professor
PHL378: War & Morality
LEC20 Counter Terror
Nov, 19th, 2009
Terrorism
! intentional severe damage
! violates doctrine of double effect
! group and not individual
! can be satisfied by state and informal grouping of ppl
! state terrorism: government in war intentionally bomb civilians (terror bombing)
some ppl say the state cannot practice terrorism b/c the definition says its only practiced
by groups who try to overthrow government
! terrorism is a political act
! act motivated by political ideals/grouping
! but need not be aiming at changing politics (political purpose)
! terrorism does not need to spread fear b/c
! in moral assessment of terrorism as rejectionable all we need is the doctrine of double effect
and the offshoot of that is spreading fear
! some terrorist attack are aimed at creating anger as opposed to fear
! what if someone who attacks non-combatants but believes they are combatants
! if the mistake is conceptual / moral than it is terrorism, but if it is factual than it is not
terrorism
How Gov't Ought to Respond to Sub-State Terrorism
! law model and war model
! target killing is allowed in certain areas (Yemen)
! there is no government (not a zone of war or zone of peace)
! law cannot be applied in certain areas because its not under control by the government
! Waltzer defence of hybrid approach: pg. 11
! 2 moral and political limits
! have to be sure that the ppl who are attacked are the targets you are aiming for (ie.
terrorists); prove beyond a reasonable doubt
! we have to be sure that we do not kill civilians in the process of aiming for terrorists
! if terrorists use ppl. as shields than we have to find ways around the shield just as we expect
the police to do
! Luban see the basis of war and law model as completely incoherent: pg. 12
! law: within states
based on shared values within a community
the reason we assume ppl innocent until proven guilty is b/c they are assumed to share
the values of the community
but the more plausible explanation of the above is because we don't want to indict
innocent people
! war: b/w states
there is conflicting values b/w communities
but that is not always the case, sometimes countries fight just for territory
www.notesolution.com
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 1 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

can be satisfied by state and informal grouping of ppl. state terrorism: government in war intentionally bomb civilians (terror bombing) some ppl say the state cannot practice terrorism b/c the definition says its only practiced by groups who try to overthrow government terrorism is a political act. some terrorist attack are aimed at creating anger as opposed to fear. what if someone who attacks non-combatants but believes they are combatants if the mistake is conceptual / moral than it is terrorism, but if it is factual than it is not terrorism. have to be sure that the ppl who are attacked are the targets you are aiming for (ie. terrorists); prove beyond a reasonable doubt. luban see the basis of war and law model as completely incoherent: pg.

Get access

Grade+
$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers