Contemporary Moral Problems: War, Terrorism, and Torture by James E. White

Author:James E. White [White, James E.]
Language: eng
Format: mobi, azw3
Tags: Wadsworth, Teaching Methods & Materials, Education, General
ISBN: 9780495553229
Publisher: Cengage Learning
Published: 2008-01-03T00:00:00+00:00

uses it to deflect criticisms of its campaign

aim of the war is not to kill the enemy—killing against Uighur separatists, and Israeli Prime

the enemy is the means used to achieve the

Minister Sharon explicitly links military actions real end, which is to force capitulation. In

against Palestinian insurgents to the American the War on Terrorism, no capitulation is

War on Terrorism. No doubt there is political

possible. That means that the real aim of the

opportunism at work in some or all of these

war is, quite simply, to kill or capture all of efforts to piggy-back onto America’s campaign, the terrorists—to keep on killing and kil-but the opportunity would not exist if ‘‘War

ling, capturing and capturing, until they are all on Terrorism’’ were merely the code-name of a

gone.

discrete, neatly-boxed American operation. In-

Of course, no one expects that terrorism will

stead, the War on Terrorism has become a

ever disappear completely. Everyone under-

model of politics, a world-view with its own dis-stands that new anti-American extremists, new

tinctive premises and consequences. As I have

terrorists, will always arise and always be avail-argued, it includes a new model of state

able for recruitment and deployment. Everyone

action, the hybrid war-law model, which

Review Questions

55

depresses human rights from their peace-time

on Terrorism means the end of human rights,

standard to the war-time standard, and indeed

at least for those near enough to be touched

even further. So long as it continues, the War by the fire of battle.

Sources: On the January 2002 attack on the Afghani town of Uruzgan, see: John Ward Anderson,

‘‘Afghans Falsely Held by U.S. Tried to Explain; Fighters Recount Unanswered Pleas, Beatings—and an Apology on Their Release,’’ Washington Post (March 26, 2002); see also Susan B. Glasser, ‘‘Afghans Live and Die With U.S. Mistakes; Villagers Tell of Over 100 Casualties,’’ Washington Post (Feb. 20, 2002). On the Third Geneva Convention, see: Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 6 U.S.T. 3317, signed on August 12, 1949, at Geneva, Article 17. Although the U.S. has not ratified the Geneva Convention, it has become part of customary international law, and certainly belongs to the war model. Count One of the Lindh indictment charges him with violating 18 U.S.C. 2332(b),

‘‘Whoever outside the United States attempts to kill, or engages in a conspiracy to kill, a national of the United States’’ may be sentenced to 20 years (for attempts) or life imprisonment (for conspiracies).

Subsection (c) likewise criminalizes ‘‘engag[ing] in physical violence with intent to cause serious bodily injury to a national of the United States; or with the result that serious bodily injury is caused to a national of the United States.’’ Lawful combatants are defined in the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Annex to the Convention, 1 Bevans 631, signed on October 18, 1907, at The Hague, Article 1. The definition requires that combatants ‘‘have a fixed distinctive emblem recogniz-able at a distance.’’ Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3, adopted on June 8, 1977, at Geneva, Article 44(3) makes an important change in the Hague Convention, expanding the definition of combatants to include non-uniformed irregulars.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.