This book responds to the Bush Administration position on the "war on terror." It examines preemption within the context of "just war"; justification for the United States-led invasion of Iraq, with some authors charging that its tactics serve to increase terror; global terrorism; and concepts such as reconciliation, Islamic identity, nationalism, and intervention.

This book responds to the Bush Administration position on the "war on terror." It examines preemption within the context of "just war"; justification for the United States-led invasion of Iraq, with some authors charging that its tactics serve to increase terror; global terrorism; and concepts such as reconciliation, Islamic identity, nationalism, and intervention.

Many of the most pressing questions raised by terrorism are philosophical in nature. This book explores the crucial ethical and theoretical issues, such as: What is "terrorism" and how is it different from other types of violence? Do recent terrorist attacks constitute a fundamentally "new" type of terrorism? How can a nation conduct a "just war" against terrorists? Is torture of terrorists during interrogation ever justified? Philosophers and terrorism experts answer these pressing moral and political questions with clarity and wisdom.

Terrorism and political violence as a field is growing and expanding. This volume provides a cross-disciplinary analysis – political, philosophical and legal – in a single text and will appeal to readers interested in studying this phenomenon from all perspectives. The volume covers the full spectrum of issues, including torture, terrorism causes and cures, legal issues, globalization and counter-terrorism. The authors bring their individual specialities to the fore in a concise and easy to follow format. Comprehensive and well informed, Responding to Terrorism will appeal to a variety of disciplines including sociology, politics, security studies, philosophy, international law and religious studies. The originality of the volume makes it a valuable addition to any college or university library and classroom.

Most people strongly condemn terrorism; yet they often fail to say how terrorist acts differ from other acts of violence such as the killing of civilians in war. Stephen Nathanson argues that we cannot have morally credible views about terrorism if we focus on terrorism alone and neglect broader issues about the ethics of war. His book challenges influential views on the ethics of war, including the realist view that morality does not apply to war, and Michael Walzer's defence of attacks on civilians in 'supreme emergency' circumstances. It provides a clear definition of terrorism, an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong, and a rule-utilitarian defence of noncombatant immunity, as well as discussions of the Allied bombings of cities in World War II, collateral damage, and the clash between rights theories and utilitarianism. It will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, international relations and law.

The world today is marked by different kinds of terror individual, state, anarchist, revolutionary, religious, imperial or communal; or the terror of insecurity or catastrophe each with its particular imprint. Their different ideological and philosophical justifications need to be understood, especially now, when distinctions between them have been obliterated by the blanket term, terrorism, and the habit of calling those who practise this generalised ideology, terrorists . This volume contains essays by international scholars, across different disciplines, and engages with several aspects of terror: as historical event; as a generalised discourse of ideology; as a feature in the continuum of violence; as extreme violence ; and as the final marker of identity ascribed, undertaken or imposed. The authors also discuss the historical and discursive relations between democracy and terror, liberalism and the rule of law, the war on terror and the need for legitimacy; and a philosophical engagement with terror. Its scope ranges from the era of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution to the instruments of colonial terror, to post-colonialism and the global situation today, post-September 11, 2001. A compelling and sober consideration of one of modernity s most intractable and complex issues.

A provocative philosophical investigation into the ethics of torture, The War on Terror, and making tough choices in exceptional circumstances. The general consensus among philosophers is that the use of torture is never justified. In Terrorism, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Torture, Fritz Allhoff demonstrates the weakness of the case against torture; while allowing that torture constitutes a moral wrong, he nevertheless argues that, in exceptional cases, it represents the lesser of two evils. Allhoff does not take this position lightly. He begins by examining the way terrorism challenges traditional norms, discussing the morality of various practices of torture, and critically exploring the infamous ticking time-bomb scenario. After carefully considering these issues from a purely philosophical perspective, he turns to the empirical ramifications of his arguments, addressing criticisms of torture and analyzing the impact its adoption could have on democracy, institutional structures, and foreign policy. The crucial questions of how to justly authorize torture and how to set limits on its use make up the final section of this timely, provocative, and carefully argued book.