Seminar paper from the year 2015 in the subject History - America, grade: 65% (Scottish Marking Scale), University of Edinburgh, language: English, abstract: Michael Walzer’s "Just and Unjust Wars" caused a revival of just war theory and has given a useful framework for analyzing morality in war. This dissertation will use just war theory as a moral framework for evaluating U.S counterterrorism after 9/11. First by giving an overview of just war theory and a literature review. Then there will be an analysis of the moral pitfalls and benefits inherent in the individual methods of counterterrorism. After that I will show how these methods have been applied practically by analyzing U.S domestic counterterrorism and U.S counterterrorism in the Middle East. The findings of this paper will show that U.S counterterrorism since 9/11 has consistently violated just war moral principles, but is ultimately morally unjustifiable because it has not provided a good chance of success for preventing terrorism.

Presenting the reader with provocative articles that critically examine the morality of the war on terrorism as it has evolved over the past eight years, this book consists of articles that effectively address specific aspects of the war on terrorism that are missing or underrepresented in ethical discourse since 9/11

In recent years the mass murder of thousands of innocent civilians by al Qaeda terrorists has plumbed the depths of criminality and immorality. Yet it is the response to those attacks, particularly by the United States, that has provoked widespread accusations that the anti-terrorist cure may be worse than the terrorist disease. This book explores the key legal and ethical controversies that arose in the wake of the brutal attacks of 11 September 2001. After the Cold War, progress in human rights and limitations on warfare created an impression that "global civil society" had emerged to challenge the dominance of states and establish new norms to guide their behavior. The events of 9/11, however, witnessed a reassertion of state prerogatives, reflected in challenges to the Geneva Conventions and the stigma against torture. Focusing on core debates about preventive war and the implications of targeted assassination, kidnapping, indefinite detention, and the torture of suspected terrorists, Evangelista asks whether state practice will further undermine the very norms of international law and morality, or whether efforts to combat terrorism can be brought back into conformity with ethical and legal standards.

We are supposed to wage war against Terrorism - but exactly what we are fighting against in this war, there is nearly no consensus about. And, much worse, nearly nobody cares about this conceptual disaster - the main thing being, whether or not you are taking sides with the good guys. This volume is an analytical attempt to end this disaster. What is Terrorism? Are terrorist acts to be defined exclusively on the basis of the characteristics of the respective actions? Or should we restrict such actions to acts performed by non-state organisations? And, most important, is terrorism already by its very nature to be morally condemned? But, having a clear idea of what Terrorism is, would be only the beginning. Rational moral assessment still needs two further components: The relevant facts; and the relevant values and norms. Now, in a field where systematic disinformation has been even proclaimed to be the official policy, facts are obviously very hard to get at. This volume is mainly interested in Ethics: What's wrong with Terrorism? And what is morally right or morally wrong, respectively, with all the different means of Counter-Terrorism? What are the moral boundaries for waging war agains terrorism? What are the right ways of dealing with terrorists? And what about the alleged anti-terrorism wars on Afghanistan and Iraq? With contributions from Marcelo Dascal, Tomis Kapitan, Daniel Messelken, Seumas Miller, Olaf L. Mueller, Igor Primoratz, Charles P. Webel, Per Bauhn, Rüdiger Bittner, C. A. J. (Tony) Coady, Haig Khatchadourian, Georg Meggle, Peter Simpson, Carolin Emcke, Ralf Groetker, Laurence Lustgarten, Thomas Mertens, Aleksandar Pavkovic, Filimon Peonidis, Janna Thompson, Véronique Zanetti

This book examines the language of the war on terrorism and is essential reading for anyone wanting to understand how the Bush administration's approach to counter-terrorism became the dominant policy paradigm in American politics today.

This book reviews the war on terror since 9/11 from a human rights perspective.

It may not be possible to deter fanatical terrorists, but members of terrorist systems may be amenable to influence. The U.S. counterterrorism strategy should therefore include political warfare, placing at risk things the terrorists hold dear, a credible threat of force against states or groups that support acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, and maintaining cooperation with other nations engaged in the war on terror, while also preserving core American values.