Just War Theory

America must hold an ethical standard when using counterterrorism tactics such as drones in order to maintain support from Americans and nations with active jihadist organizations. This task can be difficult because various groups around the world have different opinions of how terrorism should be approached. For example, individuals who have Kantian ethics ideologies are against the assassination of terrorist because they believe that the killing another rational person is morality incorrect (Algar-Faria, 2015). In contrast, utilitarian ethic condones violence acts if the outcome outweighs the evilness if the violence does not occur. These two ethical positions are often used when discussing the ethicality of counterterrorism

President Bush creates a logical appeal through precedent and an immediate course of action regarding the issues at hand to both reassure the audience and gain their support for the war. When Bush states that “for the past 136 years, [wars] have been...on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941,” (Bush) he reminds the audience of the rarety and significance of war being fought within America. The minimal amount of precedent in recent American history for such an occurence makes the audience perceive fighting the terrorists logically the nest step, much like Americans supported entering World War II as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. George W. Bush announces “the creation of a Cabinet-level postion...the Office of Homeland Security,” (Bush) which presents an immediate and obvious way terrorism is being combatted, thus reassuring the American people. Bush strengthens his support further by creating an ethical appeal.

The practical application of the defence power in an age of terrorism is difficult to determine, as it is reliant upon a set of circumstances that can have a plethora of different interpretations from a range of variant perspectives. Unlike some other powers, the defence power is purposive and elastic; it waxes and wanes, and its application “depends upon the facts, and as those facts change so may its actual operation as a power”[1]. Recent developments, such as the Thomas case, have led some theorists to comment that “the elastic of the defence power has become stretched all out of proportion”[2]. In its present interpretation, the defence

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.

Terrorism is a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

When is it justifiable to engage in war? This question has plagued humanity for centuries and continues to do so. The theory of just war addresses three important questions when considering and dealing with war. These components are when is it justifiable to go to war, the right ways to conduct proceedings during war, and the justification of terminating war. The first part of the theory, originally written in Latin as jus ad bellum, is an important idea within Pope Urban II’s, “Speech at Clermont.” In the 11th century Pope Urban II gave this speech as a call for crusade with the hope of freeing Jerusalem from Muslim control. They eventually succeeded in this mission and took the city of Jerusalem. The “Speech at Clermont,” is now an important source for understanding the justifications of going to war within the medieval just war theory. Throughout the speech Pope Urban II justified the crusade by claiming it was the responsibility of the Christian people to regain the Holy Land, to protect their fellow Christians in the East, and their duty to stop the “disgraceful” and “demon worshipping” Muslim people.

The happenings of September 11, 2001 were tragic and heartbreaking, and in the presidential speech that George W. Bush gave nine days later, he ties ideas of American exceptionalism into the works. In his speech he adds that, “as long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be a time of terror” (Bush, 93). Here, he is trying to boost the morale of Americans by saying that we will come together and will be able to get over this since we are exceptional from the rest and have a lot of power. Bush then declares that they will go to war and are “confident of the victories to come” (Bush, 94). He is able to say that with confidence because they are a

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

On the brink of two different wars, two United States’ Presidents rose up to the challenge of calming the American people and fighting for the belief of justice. A day after devastation on December 7, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt gives his “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation”. At the beginning of a terrorist crisis in 2001, George W. Bush announces a “‘War on Terror’ Declaration”. Both Presidents have many similarities in common, yet their differences set them apart with uniqueness. These two speeches, separate by nearly sixty years, weave an outright and assertive tone into their diction and detail.

What is the Just War theory and how did it pertain to St. Augustine? According to Augustine there is no private right to kill. According to Paul Ramsey opposes in The Just War, Christian participation in warfare “was not actually an exception to the commandment, “you shall not murder” but instead an expression of the Christian understanding of moral and political responsibility. One can kill only under the authority of God. St. Augustine argued that Christian rulers had such an obligation to make peace for the protection of his subjects even if the only way to eliminate such a threat was through force of arms. St. Augustine believed that in wars there was a right intention.

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

The Just War Theory is a doctrine founded by Saint Augustine which has helped bring much discussion and debate to wars and the morality to fight in them. Wars and fights between people have gone on forever and are not perceived to stop anytime soon so it is important that some people thought about when and why they should ever fight. For many years Christians never part toke in this fighting due to teachings of the Bible and Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' and 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Saint Augustine would be one of the first to talk about how a Christian could be a soldier and serve God at the same time. Through this thought we would receive the Just War Theory which gave a set of requirements for someone to partake

Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

The term “War on Terror” alone has created a psychological phenomenon that struck fear in the minds of many Americans. The Bush Administration elevated those three words to a national mantra that had impacted the American democracy destructively. It had impacted the American psyche as well as the United States’ standing in the world. In an article by Zibigniew Brzezinski, he explains, “Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.”