Made by Vladimirs Zlotnikovs for SSE Riga Debate Society

1. War on Terrorism

2. Outline
 Questions to be answered
 Definition & frameworks
 The Doctrine of Double Effect
 Arguments against
 Conclusions
POV: justification of actions of US since 2001
http://www.accts.org/ministries/ethics/latvia/Papers/Ethics_war_terrorism.htm

3. Questions
 Can war against terror(ists) be considered a
“normal” war? What principles are applied? Are
they the same?
 Are actions of US (e.g. invasion in Iraq, military
operations in Pakistan,etc.) justified?

4. Question #1
Can war against terror(ists) be considered a
“normal” war? What principles are applied?
Are they the same?

5. Preface
 Two separate frameworks
 Fighting enemies
 Pursuing criminals
 E.g. International War on Drugs
 US military operates outside its borders only with
permission
 Only use deadly force when smugglers are in the
act of producing/smuggling (even then – last resort)
 War on terrorism is about fighting enemies

6. Why are terrorists enemies?
 “the enemy relationship describes the most
intense degree of separation stakeholders can
have”
 i.e. drug smugglers don't fit
 “an enemy exists only when, at least potentially,
one collectivity confronts a similar collectivity”
 i.e. (individual) maniacs don't fit
 Criminals are pursued to preserve peace, but
wars are fought to establish peace
 Criminals act against (groups of) individuals
 Enemies act against state as a whole

7. The dilemma
 Ethical obligations, permissions & prohibitions
differ when one is fighting enemies from when
one is pursuing criminals
 Of course, not all force is justified (Just War)
 Dilemma: due care vs. due risk (~“risk-return”)
 Since soldiers can take only limited amount of
risk, it is permissible to engage in actions in
which civilians may knowingly, though
unintentionally, be harmed

8. The Doctrine of Double Effect
 It is permissible to perform a good act that has
bad consequences if certain conditions hold:
1) the bad effect is proportional to the desired military
objective;
2) the bad effect is unintended;
3) the bad effect is not a direct means to the good
effect;
4) soldiers are obliged to minimize the foreseeable
bad effects resulting from any course of action,
even if it means an increased risk to soldiers.
 Real-life philosophy behind US Army actions

9. Clarifying quote
 “This is not to say that police are prohibited
from taking risks that might place civilian lives in
danger. For example, police are permitted to
engage in high-speed pursuits even though
such pursuits can and have resulted in
accidents in which innocent bystanders have
been killed. The difference is police are not
permitted to engage in such pursuits when they
know civilians will be killed or seriously injured.
In contrast, there are many conditions under
which such actions would be permissible for
soldiers.”

10. Interim summary
 Terrorists aren't criminals, they are enemies
 Different ethics apply
 US justified to use force and breach sovereignty
 War on terrorism, though it has bad
consequences, is a good act
 Provided that all necessary precautions are there,
civil casualties are justified

11. Rebuttal
Q: Terrorists are still some country's citizens;
shouldn't their rights thus be protected?
A: They have openly renounced their affinity to a
state; hence, they are not protected like civilians
or captured soldiers.
Q: If terrorists don't operate on behalf of any state,
why is invading other countries justified?

12. Question #2
Are actions of US (e.g. invasion in Iraq, military
operations in Pakistan,etc.) justified?

13. Arguments for
The “just war” line of reasoning

14. Arguments against
 Ineffective (all the more when dealing with such
widespread networks as Al-Qaida)
 Provides a framework for perpetual war
 Incites, not decreases, anti-Western rhetorics
 Involves double standards
 Leads to a regression to standards and
practices employed by terrorists (immoral)

15. Thank you for your attention!
Q&A