Ethics of the War on Terror An Analysis and Critique

JAL Ethical Issues in International Relations Spring 2012

Introduction: When Al-Qaida attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, most Americans agreed with the notion the surviving culprits needed to be hunted down and killed, most people presume that the notion that a state has the right to use force, individually or collectively, to repulse aggression and to resist and punish evil, 1 would justify Americas response to the attack. After twelve years of the beginning of our global campaign, we are only beginning to grapple with the moral implications of our response. This paper attempts to articulate a moral analysis on the Global War on Terror (GWT) and it will focus on three separate stages of GWT. The first stage encompasses the initial US response to the September 11, 2001, attack (911), the toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and the preparation for the US offensive in Iraq. The second stage encompasses the Iraqi invasion and the toppling of the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003. The third and final stage begins with the toppling of the Hussein regime and lasts until today. During the discussion of the last stage, I will focus on kinetic operations of both the US military and the CIA outside Iraq and Afghanistan during both the Bush and the Obama administrations. Law as a Codification of Ethics. Law is often the result of a condensation of ethics into legal codes, once an area reaches widespread moral agreement society comes together and says this ethical behavior shall be mandated. 2 The international community has codified some of these moral agreements in a

Mark R. Amstutz. International Ethics, Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics. 3rd Ed. Rowman & Littlefield, New York, 2008. 113. 2 Rushworth M. Kidder. How Good People Make Though Choices, Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. HarperCollins e-books, 1 edition (November 24, 2009) 5195 Pages, 1274.

number of international treaties, additionally, there are fundamental human rights which are not contained in written treaties but instead, are based on customary international law, these are obligatory in nature, and therefore binding on the conduct of state actors at all times. 3 In the process of applying both national and international law, judges, legal advocates and scholars conduct a choice of law analysis, which consists in an assessment of facts geared towards determining whether peacetime law or the law of armed conflict would be the applicable law to a specific situation. In the context of GWT, it is important for the United States to frame its operations within the framework of the law of armed conflict because many important human right protections may be relaxed or derogated from in the exigencies of armed conflict. 4 Act of War or Criminal Act: Common Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (Art 2) codifies the laws of war, which apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflicts that arise between the United States and other nations. 5 According to D. Schindler, any kind of use of arms between two States brings the Conventions into effect. 6 Furthermore, many respected international law scholars, including, H.-P. Gasser, categorically state that "any use of armed force by one State against the territory of another, triggers the applicability of the Geneva Conventions between the two States.7

US Army, Center for Law and Military Operations. Operational Law Handbook. The Judge Advocate Generals Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, VA, 2011, p. 65. 4 Mary Ellen OConnell. The Choice of Law Against Terrorism. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, vol 4, p 343, 345 (2010) 5 US Army, Center for Law and Military Operations. Operational Law Handbook. The Judge Advocate Generals Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, VA, 2011, p. 13.
6

D. Schindler. The different Types of Armed Conflicts According to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols. RCADI, Vol. 163, 1979-II, p. 131 7 H.P. Gasser. International Humanitarian Law: an Introduction, in: Humanity for All: the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Paul Haupt Publishers, Berne, 1993, p. 510-511

State vs. Non State Actors: Until 911, most countries readily accepted that there was an important distinction between state and non state actors and that internal security conflicts perpetrated by non state actors, foreign or domestic, needed to be treated as a criminal act and punished under the national legal framework. In 1987, Ronald Reagan articulated the position of the United States until 911, he stated that terrorists have and should have the status of criminals, not combatants 8 and that to grant combatants status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements. . . would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves. 9 The Challenges of Linking Terrorism to State Actors. The Bush administration found itself at a loss attempting to apply the Geneva Convention to Al-Qaeda. The United States considered itself at war but it felt that obeying the laws of war would make it too difficult to defeat multinational criminal organizations like Al-Qaeda. The US needed the law of war to frame military campaigns in terms of self-defense; it also needed the law of war to justify the targeted killings for top Al-Qaeda members. The notion of a universal war that was fought in more than one sovereign state at once became the building block of a new form of preventive self-defense doctrine. The US argued that Geneva never envisioned a threat to the national security of a state like Al-Qaeda, it further stated that keeping the United States from exercising its right to self-defense was not a reasonable interpretation of international law precedent.

Mary Ellen OConnell. The Choice of Law Against Terrorism. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, vol 4, p 343, 347 (2010) 9 Mary Ellen OConnell. The Choice of Law Against Terrorism. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, vol 4, p 343, 347 (2010)

Military Ethics and Risk Shifting: How many Afghani civilian deaths are worth the life of one American soldier? Traditional military ethics accepts that soldiers have a reasonable interest in taking the least risk possible when conducting operations, however, when that risk is transferred to noncombatants, this same ethics requires soldiers to observe the constraints of proportionality and discrimination to limit how much risk they transfer. In this view, assuming extra risk on the part of the soldier is obligatory, at least up to the point of mission failure. 10 The problem with applying traditional military ethics to counterinsurgency operations revolves around the issue of identifying who is an enemy combatant, irregular adversaries ability to mask their presence among the population gives them an advantage over forces that cannot. 11 Furthermore, should standard military ethics be exempted from challenge, couldnt we argue that the United States has a duty to protect its citizens from harm and that this duty should also extend to it Soldiers, 12 thus currently accepted military ethics are flawed and immoral? 1st Stage, The War in Afghanistan and the Toppling of the Taliban Regime. In October 2001, the United States launched the war against terrorism by leading the troops of thirty-seven nations into a military offensive meant to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The United States had identified the main base of operations of the terrorist
10

Colonel Tony Pfaff. Risk, Military Ethics and Irregular Warfare. Foreign Policy Research Institute, E-Notes, December 2011. 11 Colonel Tony Pfaff. Risk, Military Ethics and Irregular Warfare. Foreign Policy Research Institute, E-Notes, December 2011. 12 Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin. Military Ethics of Fighting Terror: An Israeli Perspective. The Journal of Military Ethics, April 2005, Vol 4, Issue 1, 17. Kasher, 17.

organization that carried out the 911 attacks as being located in Afghanistan, intelligence also suggested that the Taliban had sheltered Al-Qaida and allowed the organization the freedom to operate freely in the country. 13 The US notified the United Nations Security Council that Enduring Freedom was an exercise of individual and collective self-defense in compliance with the terms of United Nations Charter Article 51, 14 The US lead coalition successfully removed the Taliban regime from power and was able to dismantle Al-Qaedas camps and much of the infrastructure of the terrorist group in Afghanistan by the end of December 2001. 15 The argument that justified the attacked on the Taliban regime relied on the premise that there was no real distinction between the government of Afghanistan, represented at that time by the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, evidence had shown that Al-Qaeda had provided substantial economic support to the Taliban and that in exchange, the Taliban had aided in sustaining training camps for Al-Qaida. 16 The Taliban was considered to have some operational control over Al-Qaeda and a series of terrorist attacks over an eight year period left little doubt, among US strategist, that without a safe haven to operate on like Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda would not have been able to carry out sophisticated attacks like the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen or the deadly bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.17 International law jurisprudence defined control by a state over subordinate militias as comprising more than the mere provision of financial assistance. In order to find that a group was under state control one needed to show that the state had some say on the process of issuing
13

William L. Cleveland and Martin Burton. The History of the Modern Middle East. 4 th Ed. Westview Press (December 2008). 13165 Pages, 11472. 14 Mary Ellen OConnell. The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense. The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism. (August, 2002) 21 pages, 1. 15 Jeffrey F. Addicott. Ending Terrorism and War Avoidance in the 21 st Century: Some Basic Truths. St Marys Center for Terrorism Law. 6 pages, 2. 16 Jayshree Bajoria. The Taliban in Afghanistan. Council on Foreign Relations, Backgrounder, 6 October, 2011. 17 Christopher M. Blanchard. Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology. Congressional Research Service Report, July 9, 2007.

orders and directions for the groups operations but it did not require a showing that the state issue specific orders or directions of each individual operation. 18 The notion that Al-Qaeda was an extension of the Taliban is not accepted by everyone and some scholars continue to insist that the ideological differences between the two groups do not support such contention; 19 nevertheless, the international community in 2001 seems to have concluded, without much analysis or debate, that the state control test had been satisfied. Short term vs. Long Term: In going to war in Afghanistan, the US government exercised its short term right of retaliation under international law. In addition, toppling the Taliban regime and killing several of the senior members of Al-Qaeda was also seen as a way to honor the short term wishes of most Americans who want something done about 911, a message needed to be sent to all terrorist worldwide, retribution will fall on all those who plot to hurt the United States or their people. In addition to the lawful retaliation argument, an international justice argument could also justify the toppling of a brutal regime that regularly torture and murder its citizens. Under the liberal internationalist tradition, human dignity is given primacy, as such; protecting individual rights is the responsibility of global society itself. 20 Utilizing the communitarianist framework for international justice, intervention on the affairs of other sovereign nations is discouraged but permitted as a last resort when trying to uphold human rights across the world. In toppling the Taliban regime the US could justify its actions as directed towards protecting the human rights of the Afghan people.
18

Sylvain Vite. Typology of Armed Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law, Legal Concepts and Actual Situations. Volume 91, Number 873, March 2009, 69-94, 71. 19 Alex Strick van Linschoten & Felix Kuehn. Separating the Taliban from Al-Qaeda: The Core of Success in Afghanistan. New York University, Center on International Cooperation, February 2011. 20 Mark R. Amstutz. International Ethics, Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics. 3 rd Ed. Rowman & Littlefield, New York, 2008. 199.

The long term consequences of retaliating against the Taliban and accidently killing thousands of civilians in Afghanistan were probably not completely understood at that time, however, the US government understood that by toppling a conservative Muslim government it would not be improving its standing in the Muslim world. The heavy civilian toll during the initial bombing campaign and several highly publicized accidents that killed women and children did not help the US case.
21

The United States invasion of Afghanistan could be justified in

moral terms but its long term consequences are still unknown and difficult to predict. Community vs. Self: World community (UN) vs. US Community . In attacking Afghanistan, the US was primarily responding to the imperative of protecting its national borders and population from further attacks. However, Al-Qaedas ideology envisioned holy wars against Western values and targets, beyond just the United States,22 the human cost of the military campaign should be placed in that global context and the impact that the spread of Al-Qaedas ideology among the global Muslim community would have had. Al-Qaedas strategy was to target the Muslim community worldwide but particularly, the Muslim communities in the United States and Europe. The expansion of the doctrine of preventive war, advanced by the United States during this campaign, has the potential of legitimizing the toppling of regimes that represent a potential or perceived threat to the security of any other country, even if that threat is not immediate. The expansion of the right of security of countries to include invading countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups is problematic and goes against an underlying premise of international law, the principle that war is an instrument of last resort that should only come after all other avenues
21 22

Human Rights Watch. Troops in Contact, Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan. 2008. Christopher M. Blanchard. Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology. Congressional Research Service Report, July 9, 2007.

have been exhausted, when we try to prevent future attacks by neutralizing by force all potential and perceived threats, we set the stage for a state of perpetual war. Justice vs. Mercy: It is just to take steps to prevent future attacks in US soil even when these steps include the use of military force against a country that harbors terrorist, however, the moral balancing also involves the showing of mercy towards the government of Afghanistan, even when they refused our request to turn in Osama Bin Laden. An argument for mercy would have directed us to show compassion and respect for the life of thousands of innocent civilians that would die as a result of our air campaign. At the end, the justice argument prevailed over the mercy argument. Why is this not an ethical dilemma but a moral temptation? The US could have use economic sanctions to attempt to force the Taliban to surrender its policy of supporting AlQaeda, it could have also placed more boots on the ground in order to avoid such a high number of innocent civilian deaths. Was the use of air campaigns justified? in order to prevent a high number of casualties among American Soldiers the US used an extensive air campaign which killed a lot more innocent civilians that would have been killed if the US decided to send a large number of ground troops at the very beginning of the invasion. End Based Reasoning: The US needed to neutralize a powerful terrorist organization, in order to accomplish this, the leaders of the organization would have to be captured or killed, their training camps had to be closed down and their sources of funding would have to be cut off. The Taliban government refused to aid the US in accomplishing this task and proclaimed their support to Al-Qaida. The US decision to topple the Taliban was the only way to ensure that AlQaeda could no longer operate with impunity, forcing the leaders of Al-Qaeda into hiding would

disrupt the organizations operational capability and diminished the likelihood of future terrorist attacks, this would in turn save American lives. The international community acknowledged the US right to repulse Al-Qaeda aggression and to punish their evil deeds. Rule Based Reasoning: The US decision to topple the Taliban would set the precedent that governments that harbored terrorist organization , materially supported their hostile activities against other countries and refused to undertake any measures to curtail the operational capabilities were in fact materially participating in the perpetration of the terrorist attack. As aiders and abettors of the terrorist organization, the Taliban government could be considered to have committed an act of war against the US, even when it had no operational control over the organization, its enabling conduct made the Taliban a willing partner in the attack. The US gave Afghanistan and opportunity to refute the notion that they were a willing partner of Al-Qaeda, they were given the opportunity to turn in Osama Bin Laden but the Taliban responded by affirming their support for Al-Qaeda and refusing the US request to turn in the Al-Qaeda leader. A rule that authorized state actors to launch a military campaign against another state actor for behaving the way the Taliban did would be morally permissible. Care Based Reasoning: The US would attempt to place itself in the shoes of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in order to ascertain whether its decision to start a military campaign against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan would meet the golden rule. It is likely that the US met the golden rule standard by asking the Taliban to turn in Osama Bin Laden in order to avoid a military offensive, an opportunity was given to the Taliban to prevent the escalation of violence, even when the Taliban bared some responsibility for the 911 attack. 2nd Stage, The Iraq invasion and the toppling of the Hussein regime.

10

In 2002, the United States began to lobby the international community for support of a military solution to the problems posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The US administration argued that it had some evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction; furthermore, the US argued that regime change was also necessary to preserve the human rights of the Iraqi people. The UN inspection teams were unable to uncover conclusive evidence of WMDs and two of the most important US NATO allies (Germany and France) refused to accept that Husayn constituted an immediate threat to world peace, 23 France threatened to veto any Security Council resolution calling for an armed attack on Iraq. Shortly after this, the US unilaterally proclaimed Iraq to be in violation of UN Resolution 1441 and forty-eight hours later launched Operation Iraqi Freedom with a massive bombing campaign against Iraqs oil facilities. 24 The World Health Organization calculated in June 2006 that there were already over 150,000 casualties of war. 25 Short term vs. Long Term: Deposed an unfriendly government in the region and establish a western style democracy in the region. Commit to invasion with limited and conflicting intelligence about the existence of WMDs and almost no reliable intelligence establishing a link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Unlike the copious intelligence obtained to link Al-Qaeda and The Taliban, the US had only scarce and unreliable intelligence of such link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. The proposition that the US advance in this situation was that mere existence of a perceived threat justifies military offensive, a far broader and dangerous proposition with potentially disastrous long term effects. The risk of eroding International law

23

William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton. A History of the Modern Middle East. 4 th Ed. Westview Press, Eedition, 13165 pages, 11145. 24 William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton. A History of the Modern Middle East. 4 th Ed. Westview Press, Eedition, 13165 pages, 11545. 25 William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton. A History of the Modern Middle East. 4 th Ed. Westview Press, Eedition, 13165 pages, 11678.

11

and the long term implications of such erosion do not seem justified when compared with the short term positive impact of this decision. This analysis supposes that the US placed a greater value on sovereignty rights of states that the individual human rights of Kurds, Turks and a portion of the Sunni population that had experienced repression under the Shia regime of Saddam. The timing of the offensive supports the claim that the toppling of Saddam had more to do with neutralizing a perceived threat that taking a stand to protect the rights of non Shias in Iraq. The US have known about the human right abuses perpetrated against non Shias in Iraq for some time, nevertheless, it was only after 911 that it chose to topple the Iraq regime. Community vs. Self: World community (UN) vs. US Community . The US would have an interest in neutralizing all real and perceived threats against its population, at the same time, the US has an interest in preserving a system of international laws that could offer some protection to its soldiers and civilians, while engaging in armed conflict or even mundane international relations with other countries. The regime of Saddam had been successful in the past of developing a nuclear program (this nuclear program was destroyed by an Israeli attack in 1981) Israel had justified its violation of Iraqi sovereignty as an act of preventive self defense, a claim that was criticized and condemned by the UN security council. 26 In this instance, the US did not have any reliable evidence that Iraq had successfully re-initiated its nuclear program. The US concluded that Iraq possessed WMDs based on the fact that they were not cooperating with the UN Weapons inspectors. The use of the preventive self defense doctrine had much more merit that the US yet, it was still condemned as a violation of international law. The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 seems to have a negligible positive impact on the US, it comes at tremendous economic cost, does not have a tangible connection with our war against Al-Qaeda, erodes

26

Anthony DAmato. Israels Air Strike Upon the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor. 77 Am.J.Intl L. 584, 585. (1983).

12

international law and harms our reputation in the Middle East. The decision to invade Iraq does greatly benefit the wellbeing of Kurds, Turks and Shias in Iraq but through the Bathification process also, greatly harms millions of Shias. Spreading democracy by toppling unfriendly governments to the US has proved counterproductive, also, US foreign policy in the region would not support a consistent application of the principle of toppling all authoritarian regimes in order to impose a democracy, and our close ties with authoritarian regimes in the region would make that policy unworkable. Justice vs. Mercy: The United States allowed Saddam the opportunity to turn himself and his sons in or face a US military invasion, however, this is hardly the same proposition that asking the Taliban to turn Osama Bin Laden. Iraq had not indicated intent to attack United States soil. There was no reliable evidence connecting Iraq with 911. Conversely, there was evidence that Saddam was a rootless ruler that violated the human rights of some of his own people. The justice argument supported by Saddams treatment of Sunnis and Kurds must be balance against the overall human cost of a military campaign to invade Iraq. Why is this not an ethical dilemma but a moral temptation? This may not be an ethical dilemma but a moral temptation. The US used minimal and conflicting intelligence to determine that Iraq was in possession of WMDs. The Bush administration was never able to establish a legitimate link between Hussein an Al-Qaeda. The US government had grown tired of dealing with an unfriendly and undemocratic regime in Iraq, the decision to include the toppling of Iraq within the rubric of the Global War on Terror does not seem to fit the just war paradigm and it constitutes an impermissible extension of the doctrine of protective war. The US government erred in justifying an invasion of Iraq as part of a new comprehensive strategy that reduces the terrorist threat emanating from the Middle East by promoting democratic regimes
13

and toppling undemocratic ones. The US was still enjoying widespread support among the international community after the devastating attacks of 911, few countries had been willing to question the right of the US to use force in avenging the terrorist attack and preventing new ones from happening. The US seems to have take advantage of this environment and quickly moved to toppled Saddam Hussein from power. The US launched extensive bombing of military targets inside the UN mandated no fly zone before the war started and while serving as enforcer for the UN. Despite its best efforts, the US was unable to convince the UN Security Council that an invasion of Iraq was justified. The US chose to engage in unilateral military action against Iraq, despite widespread opposition in the UN. The US capitalize on initial gains achieved by air campaigns carried out in behalf of UN and launch another round of bombings designed to degrade the remaining Iraqi operational capabilities. Like in Afghanistan, the US used an extensive air campaign n order to prevent a high number of casualties among American Soldiers, the air campaign killed a lot more innocent civilians that would have been killed if the US decided to send a large number of ground troops at the very beginning of the invasion. End Based Reasoning: The US needed to topple an authoritarian regime that was not cooperating with UN weapons inspectors, in order to accomplish this, the leaders of Iraq would have to be captured or killed and its military would have to be defeated. If invasion was successful, the members of its party would have to be kept from holding any political or economic power and a new, democratic regime, friendly to the US needed to be instituted. The Iraqi government refused to aid the US in accomplishing this task. The US decision to topple Saddam would not ensure the development of a democratic Iraq but it would increase the likelihood of that happening.

14

Rule Based Reasoning: The US decision to topple Iraq would set the precedent that governments that do not cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, commit human rights violations against its ethnic minorities and are suspected of possessing WMDs, should be toppled by the United States. A rule that authorized state actors to launch a military campaign against another state actor, for behaving the way the Saddam regime did, would not be morally permissible because it would expand the law of self defense to such a degree that it would render self defense a doctrine that authorizes war under almost every circumstance. This in turn would undermine the underlying principle of international public law which is promoting peace. Care Based Reasoning: The US would attempt to place itself in the shoes of the Saddam regime in order to ascertain whether its decision to start a military campaign against Iraq in 2003. It probably would not meet the golden rule. A US president would not agree to resign in order to prevent another nation from attacking US soil, specially, when the evidence being used to judge the US unlawful conduct, illegal possession of WMDs, is minimal and comes from highly unreliable sources. A US president would not agree to resign and face prosecution after being accused of allowing the violation of the rights of African Americans during most of its history.

3rd Stage, Extraordinary Renditions, Target Assassinations, Torture and Indefinite Detention of Enemy Combatants. Short term vs. Long Term: Community vs. Self: World community (UN) vs. US Community . Justice vs. Mercy:

15

Why is this not an ethical dilemma but a moral temptation?

End Based Reasoning: The US needed to neutralize a powerful terrorist organization, in order to accomplish this, the leaders of the organization would have to be captured or killed, their training camps had to be closed down and their sources of funding would have to be cut off. If any leader is captured alive, all coercive interrogation techniques, including torture, should be considered. If US law prohibits certain interrogation techniques, extract terrorist from any country, transfer him to a friendly country that does allow that interrogation technique and procure the necessary intelligence. Whenever terrorist leader is found, utilize unmanned aerial drones to killed such target, if risk of death to innocent civilians exist, perform appropriate collateral damage analysis, seek appropriate level authorization for civilian casualty toll above thirty and eliminate high level target after receiving the appropriate approval. Al-Qaeda is a transnational criminal organization, operating in several countries and it is not under the operational control of any state. Countries in which Al-Qaeda operate do not have the resources to completely neutralize the organization. The US decision to hunt and killed Al-Qaeda members whatever they are violates the sovereignty of many states but seem to be the most effective alternative. Hunting Al-Qaeda members globally is the only way to ensure that they can no longer operate with impunity, forcing the leaders of Al-Qaeda into hiding disrupts the organizations operational capability and diminished the likelihood of future terrorist attacks, this in turn could save American lives. The larger goal of neutralizing Al-Qaeda is protecting American lives and US soil. Erosion of international law, including the right of sovereignty and self defense does not accomplish the larger goal.

16

Rule Based Reasoning: The US decision to use: extraordinary renditions, detention of enemy combatants indefinitely, targeting terrorist leaders with assassination, through unmanned aerial drones worldwide, torture or coercive examination techniques, short of torture, to extract valuable intelligence from capture enemy combatants, is necessary to defeat Al-Qaeda, protect US national security and the lives of US citizens worldwide. A rule that authorized state actors to launch perform the tasks listed above would not be morally permissible. Care Based Reasoning: The US would attempt to place itself in the shoes of Al-Qaeda in order to ascertain whether its decision to engage in a number of questionable practices of counterinsurgency would violate the golden rule. The US would not met the golden rule standard under these circumstances.

Unable to fit its strategy squarely within the legal framework of armed conflict, the US took the position that this war existed in a parallel legal universe in which compliance with legal norms was a matter of executive grace or taken out of diplomatic or public relations necessity. 27

27

Cindi Banks. Criminal Justice Ethics, Theory and Practice. (3 rd Ed) Sage Publications March 2012. 384 pages, 264.

17

In a memorandum to President Bush on 25 January 2002, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales argued that the US necessity to quickly obtain information from captured terrorist, had rendered the prohibitions against torture outlined at the Geneva Convention obsolete. We have gone to the international community in search of support for our cause, we have provided enough proof that the Taliban had actively aided Al-Qaida in perpetrating the 911 attack and we have managed to secure the authorization of the United Nations before toppling the Taliban. We have taken great pains to navigate the international legal system in order to maintain our higher moral ground and the legitimacy of our actions, all of the sudden, as we eyed a long and painful non conventional war, we started to cut corners. The Gonzales memorandum became one of the first steps in that direction. The Bush Doctrine: Since being elected, the Bush administration had differentiated itself from the Clinton administration by asserting a new set of foreign policy principles, the set of principles would later be known as the Bush doctrine. As Hobbes taught, if private reason is authoritative, if each is left to judge for himself what is right, we are left with a chaos of conflicting claims. In that case it seems that justice boils down to Thrasymachus slogan: Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Economist Targeted Killing, the ethics and realpolitik of assassination.
Whereas a narrow formalistic concept of war was predominant initially, the reform of the system with the revision of the Geneva Conventions in 1949 gave precedence to a broader approach, based on the more objective concept of armed conflict. Typology, page 70.

18