Rules of War, Terrorism - Article Example

Topic: Terrorists deliberately break the rules of war, and so have lost any moral right to be treated decently”. Discuss.”. Student’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: (Ashley enters the room agitated. From the look on her face her younger sister, Nicole, could notice that something is bothering her. Before Nicole could inquire what is bothering her she violently throws the newspaper she was holding to the ground and walks to her bedroom banging the door violently. Her younger sister Nicole can hear her sister Ashley talking though not getting what she was saying but could hear murmurs though from a distance. Ashley walks back into the living room and turns to her sister, Nicole) Ashley: I think it is the time that the entire world came together and collectively wiped terrorists out the planet for good. Nicole: Before you even tell me why you think that should be done, tell me how you could isolate terrorists from the rest of the population. How could you know that this is a terrorist and this one is not? Ashley: It is even easier than you think because the same people are apportioning part of the affected regions to themselves and they are even fronting their faces in social media. Nicole: And how does the newspaper qualify as a terrorist? Because the way you threw it to the floor is like you were killing a terrorist. Ashley: Terrorists deliberately break the rules of war hence have lost the moral right to be treated decently. In fact they should be hanged.1 Nicole: Is there anything like rules of war? 1 Ashley: Yes there are guidelines that guide parties in an armed conflict. Like for instance these laws prohibit the killing of those not actively involved in the conflict and those who surrender during the should also be spared.2 Nicole: So these rules have been broken by the newspaper and by the way can pick those newspaper pages from the floor and let me remind you that I have just cleaned the house. Ashley: Sorry I overreacted. The newspaper has a column highlighting how a terrorist group, Alshabaab, stormed into a Kenyan University Campus in the wee hours of the morning killing 147 students in their sleep. The newspaper also describes how the militants carried out the atrocities by separating the Christians and killing them. This is in contravention of the provision in article 3 of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which states that persons taking no active part in hostilities including even members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms shall in all circumstances be treated humanely without any adverse distinction based on race, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth or any other similar criteria.3 Nicole: Oh my God! 147? Ashley: And this number may go up because the injured are also in critical condition. Nicole: I condemn the acts of terrorists. But I don’t think they should be hanged. I am for the idea that they be subjected to the full force of the law. 2 Ashley: So you think they deserve to be treated humanely with what they have done and what they usually do? Let me refresh your memory my dear sister, these are the same people who behead people in Syria, the same people who stormed into Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris and started shooting at people indiscriminately, they are the same people who shot and killed dozens in a museum in Libya and sis these are the same people who killed innocent students in a Kenyan university. Because in armed conflicts the combatants are obligated to desist from such killings because it amounts to murder and it is murder because it involves the killing of non-combatants who are innocent.4 So tell me how should such people be treated? Nicole: I agree that they should be treated as terrorists but not to be hanged, they deserve to be subjected to laws regarding on how to treat terrorists. Just the way we expect warring parties in a conflict to subscribe to the rules of war so are we obligated to follow the law in dealing with terrorists lest we become like them. Because in a conflict, the conflicting parties constantly and wrongly think of them to be on the right5 so terrorists need to be taken through a judicial process to remind them how wrong they were in engaging in perpetrating atrocities. Ashley: There is no need of taking the terrorists through a judicial process to find them guilty. 3 They are guilty from the look of the laws they contravene for instance in the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants when terrorists attack civilians sleeping in their dormitories they contravene the first rule of the principle that requires conflicting parties to direct their attacks to combatants only and attacks must not be directed against civilians.6 Nicole: They also need to be subjected to the same system. Otherwise then a moral distinction between the guilty as charged and innocent need to be employed and the facts that are relied on must be morally relevant in order to treat them in different ways.7 Ashley: But we need not judge them on moral tenets because what they do is not moral. They should be subjected to deadly force. What they do is not only immoral but also wrong. I want to remind you that the number of people that terrorists have killed in past attacks run into millions and majority of these people are the innocent non-combatants. Tell me for instance if the United States had not intervened using the force it used in dealing with militants in Iraq, millions of people could have lost their lives through the weapons of mass destruction they were producing.8 Nicole: The more reason as to why am insisting that the ‘terrorists’ need to be dealt with in accordance with the law. 4 Ashley: Am listening young sister. Convert me. Nicole: The US government was quick in invading the Iraq country without collecting enough evidence on the possession of chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. It did not wait for the UN Security Council to approve its invasion. Thus they did not follow the law. And in the long run it was established that Iraq was not in possession of such weapons by the UN. And if they possessed why could the US think that Iraq could give the same weapons to Al-Qaeda bearing the same terrorist group could use the same weapons in attacking independent nations Iraq included?9 Ashley: I think there should not be there any rules when dealing with terrorists. Nicole: I also want to remind you that irrespective of illegality portrayed by United States Government in invading Iraq, they followed the law by handing over the captured Sadam Hussein to an independent court which eventually found him guilty of committing atrocities and handed him the death sentence Ashley: Terrorism violates the most sacred principle of ethics of war making the rest of other wars legitimate. Thus treating terrorists decently is unacceptable and horrific in the same measure.10 Nicole: I agree that terrorists are a menace to our society. 5 Ashley: I don’t think you agree. Nicole: Yes I do agree but I also believe that if when captured instead of torturing them to dead we should expose them to correctional facilities to re-socialise them. Because in the basic rules of the Geneva Convention also outlines that prisoners of war should be treated humanely accessing food and medical facilities.11 Ashley: These are not prisoners of war but terrorists who deliberately kill civilians spreading fear.12 Nicole: I fail to understand what is keeping from understanding my point of view. Let me try to elaborate a little bit. What am saying is that when the terrorists are cornered at the battlefield they should not be exempted but should be met with the full force inherent in the battlefield but when they surrender then I am for the view that they be prosecuted for their previous crimes in an independent court of law Ashley: You cannot trust terrorists to reform and irrespective of them surrendering or not they should never be treated decently because they don’t qualify as such. Nicole: But they are also human beings and they deserve the benefit of doubt. Ashley: That has been explored and it has seemed not to work. Take for instance the case of the Hamas group and the conflict they have with the Israel government. 6 Nicole: What about that conflict? Ashley: The Israelites in the most recent occurrences were targets of missile attacks by the Hamas group. The missiles were discriminately launched into the Israel territories killing children, the elderly, women and all sorts of people on its way. Nicole: Those acts were really disheartening and horrific and should be condemned outright. But I also remember the Israel government on its response of flushing out the Hamas fighters civilian casualties were also registered. Ashley: That is true little sis. But the intention of Israel launching the attack on Hamas territory was in self-defence and collateral damage resulting from such an act is permissible under such scenarios.13 Nicole: Oh! Come on. Are you actually justifying such killings? Just a while ago you were condemning the terrorists and their killings of civilians and here you are justifying the death of civilians simply because they were not carried out by terrorists. Ashley: I was just quoting the Just War theory which as a matter of fact I subscribe to. Nicole: Then I think we shouldn’t have this argument at all. 7 Ashley: Nicole what I am saying is that Israel tried to plead with the Hamas to stop targeting its citizens with their missiles but Hamas couldn’t hear any of that. That was Israel trying to treat a terrorist outfit decently. But guess what! It did not work. So I think it is high time that we took the Israel approach when it comes to dealing with terrorists. Nicole: I support your argument big sis but I also recommend that in adopting the Israel approach to dealing with terrorists we also try to treat former terrorists within the provisions of the law. Ashley: It is pertinent to also remind you that most nations in the world do not negotiate with terrorists. Nicole: According to their definition, terrorists use violence or threats of violence to further their goals.14 And because they use violence they should be met with violence in equal measure. Ashley: The images of the atrocities they have committed won’t allow anybody with sane mind to sympathise with them. Nicole: I think concerted efforts by world governments will go a long way in defeating the terrorists and their plans. Ashley: Very true and I think we are already seeing governments come together in their attempts to defeat terrorism. Case in point being the collective air strikes by the Arab league countries against the Houthi terrorists in Yemen. 8 Nicole: That fight against terrorism can be won actually if governments changed the way they carry out business. Ashley: Right put sister. And remember also sister that we as the general public also have a role to play in the attempts of defeating terrorism. Nicole: We should all hold our hands in dealing with terrorism because we are fighting the same enemy for instance the enemy of Israel is the same enemy for the US in terrorism.15 9 References Anscombe, G E M 1981, “War and Murder”, Ethics, Religion and Politics, Vol. 3, pp. 51-61. Enemark, C and Michaelsen, C 2005, ‘Just war doctrine and the invasion of Iraq’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 545-563. Fullinwider, R K 1975, ‘War and Innocence’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 90-97. Held, V 2004, ‘Terrorism and War’, Journal of Ethics, vol. 8, pp. 59-75. Henkaerts, J M 2005, ‘Study on Customary international humanitarian law’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 87, no. 857, pp. 198-212. Hughes, M 1982, ‘Terrorism and National Security’, Philosophy, vol. 57, no. 219, pp. 5-25 ICRC 1988,’ Basic rules of the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols’, viewed 4th April 2015, https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0365.pdf ICRC 1949, ‘The Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949, pp. 153-221. Luban, D 1980, ‘Just Wars and Human Rights’, Philosophy, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 160-181. Mavrodes, G I 1975, ‘Conventions and the morality of war’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 117-131. Nathanson, S 2004, ‘Can Terrorism be Morally Justified?’ Philosophy, pp. 602-610 Wester, F 2005, ‘Pre-emption and Just War: Considering the case of Iraq’ Parameters: US Army College, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 20-39. Young, R 1977, ‘Revolutionary Terrorism, Crime and Morality’, Social Theory and Practice, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 287-302. Zehfuss, M 2012, ‘Killing civilians: Thinking the practice of war’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 14, pp. 423-440. Read More

Nicole: I agree that they should be treated as terrorists but not to be hanged, they deserve to be subjected to laws regarding on how to treat terrorists. Just the way we expect warring parties in a conflict to subscribe to the rules of war so are we obligated to follow the law in dealing with terrorists lest we become like them. Because in a conflict, the conflicting parties constantly and wrongly think of them to be on the right5 so terrorists need to be taken through a judicial process to remind them how wrong they were in engaging in perpetrating atrocities.

Ashley: There is no need of taking the terrorists through a judicial process to find them guilty. 3 They are guilty from the look of the laws they contravene for instance in the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants when terrorists attack civilians sleeping in their dormitories they contravene the first rule of the principle that requires conflicting parties to direct their attacks to combatants only and attacks must not be directed against civilians.6 Nicole: They also need to be subjected to the same system.

Otherwise then a moral distinction between the guilty as charged and innocent need to be employed and the facts that are relied on must be morally relevant in order to treat them in different ways.7 Ashley: But we need not judge them on moral tenets because what they do is not moral. They should be subjected to deadly force. What they do is not only immoral but also wrong. I want to remind you that the number of people that terrorists have killed in past attacks run into millions and majority of these people are the innocent non-combatants.

Tell me for instance if the United States had not intervened using the force it used in dealing with militants in Iraq, millions of people could have lost their lives through the weapons of mass destruction they were producing.8 Nicole: The more reason as to why am insisting that the ‘terrorists’ need to be dealt with in accordance with the law. 4 Ashley: Am listening young sister. Convert me. Nicole: The US government was quick in invading the Iraq country without collecting enough evidence on the possession of chemical weapons and nuclear weapons.

It did not wait for the UN Security Council to approve its invasion. Thus they did not follow the law. And in the long run it was established that Iraq was not in possession of such weapons by the UN. And if they possessed why could the US think that Iraq could give the same weapons to Al-Qaeda bearing the same terrorist group could use the same weapons in attacking independent nations Iraq included?9 Ashley: I think there should not be there any rules when dealing with terrorists. Nicole: I also want to remind you that irrespective of illegality portrayed by United States Government in invading Iraq, they followed the law by handing over the captured Sadam Hussein to an independent court which eventually found him guilty of committing atrocities and handed him the death sentence Ashley: Terrorism violates the most sacred principle of ethics of war making the rest of other wars legitimate.

Thus treating terrorists decently is unacceptable and horrific in the same measure.10 Nicole: I agree that terrorists are a menace to our society. 5 Ashley: I don’t think you agree. Nicole: Yes I do agree but I also believe that if when captured instead of torturing them to dead we should expose them to correctional facilities to re-socialise them. Because in the basic rules of the Geneva Convention also outlines that prisoners of war should be treated humanely accessing food and medical facilities.

11 Ashley: These are not prisoners of war but terrorists who deliberately kill civilians spreading fear.12 Nicole: I fail to understand what is keeping from understanding my point of view. Let me try to elaborate a little bit. What am saying is that when the terrorists are cornered at the battlefield they should not be exempted but should be met with the full force inherent in the battlefield but when they surrender then I am for the view that they be prosecuted for their previous crimes in an independent court of law Ashley: You cannot trust terrorists to reform and irrespective of them surrendering or not they should never be treated decently because they don’t qualify as such.

Read More