Terrorism Ethics
"Ethics and the “War on Terrorism”
1. The definition of terrorism is problematic. How does this affect our view of terrorism?
a. There exist a number of “official” and legal definitions as well as those suggested by researchers and commenter’s. Some explanations of the meaning of terrorism focus only on terrorism cared out by individuals and groups and ignore state terrorism altogether, others emphasize the political objective of terrorist acts, and still other frame terrorist acts of criminal events and downplay the political motivations. One clearly understood factor amongst all of these approaches is that terrorism is a method or means of achieving by objective.
2. Which is the better approach—to treat terrorism as a criminal activity …show more content…
Does the Patriot Act give the executive branch of government too much power in pursuing terrorism? What effect does the exercise of that power have on civil rights in the United States?
a. The Patriot Act of 2001, sought to enhance national security through what had previously been regarded as generic crime control measures. It introduce more than 1,000 provisions concerning surveillance on financial transactions and border control, as well as new criminal offenses and penalties against terrorism. The acted is targeted at non-U.S. citizen terrorists, was formulated to augment national security, and both conceptually and in policy terms is outside the conventional parameters of crime control legislation.
b. Crime control measures of the conventional kind such as increased penalties for offenses are integrated into the criminal justice system. In the War on Terrorism however, the criminal justice system has been judged inadequate or inappropriate. Thus, while the U.S. considers itself “at war,” it does not regard many of those taken prisoners in threat war as prisoners of war who are to be treated in accordance with the rules laid down in the Geneva Conventions, especially treatment of combats captured during an interactional armed conflict and with civilians who are involved in the armed …show more content…
Democracy can respond to terrorism without destroying the values for which it stands. The position between those who argue in absolutist terms that no restrictions on rights ought to be imposed or justified and those advocating a consequentiality approach who judge counterterrorist measure purely by their effectiveness. Prohibit certain torture, illegal detention, and unlawful assassination on the basis that they violate “foundational commitments to justice and dignity.” Democracies commonly permit derogations from guaranteed rights and freedoms in emergencies, so rights do not always trip other considerations like national security, but ultimately, in his view, it is the task of the courts, the media, and the legislators to scrutinize such measures for
1. The definition of terrorism is problematic. How does this affect our view of terrorism?
a. There exist a number of “official” and legal definitions as well as those suggested by researchers and commenter’s. Some explanations of the meaning of terrorism focus only on terrorism cared out by individuals and groups and ignore state terrorism altogether, others emphasize the political objective of terrorist acts, and still other frame terrorist acts of criminal events and downplay the political motivations. One clearly understood factor amongst all of these approaches is that terrorism is a method or means of achieving by objective.
2. Which is the better approach—to treat terrorism as a criminal activity …show more content…
Does the Patriot Act give the executive branch of government too much power in pursuing terrorism? What effect does the exercise of that power have on civil rights in the United States?
a. The Patriot Act of 2001, sought to enhance national security through what had previously been regarded as generic crime control measures. It introduce more than 1,000 provisions concerning surveillance on financial transactions and border control, as well as new criminal offenses and penalties against terrorism. The acted is targeted at non-U.S. citizen terrorists, was formulated to augment national security, and both conceptually and in policy terms is outside the conventional parameters of crime control legislation.
b. Crime control measures of the conventional kind such as increased penalties for offenses are integrated into the criminal justice system. In the War on Terrorism however, the criminal justice system has been judged inadequate or inappropriate. Thus, while the U.S. considers itself “at war,” it does not regard many of those taken prisoners in threat war as prisoners of war who are to be treated in accordance with the rules laid down in the Geneva Conventions, especially treatment of combats captured during an interactional armed conflict and with civilians who are involved in the armed …show more content…
Democracy can respond to terrorism without destroying the values for which it stands. The position between those who argue in absolutist terms that no restrictions on rights ought to be imposed or justified and those advocating a consequentiality approach who judge counterterrorist measure purely by their effectiveness. Prohibit certain torture, illegal detention, and unlawful assassination on the basis that they violate “foundational commitments to justice and dignity.” Democracies commonly permit derogations from guaranteed rights and freedoms in emergencies, so rights do not always trip other considerations like national security, but ultimately, in his view, it is the task of the courts, the media, and the legislators to scrutinize such measures for