Terrorism, Innocence, and War

Area Bombing and State Terrorism

• Continuous historical development from Churchill's area bombing decision to nuclear war plans.
• Includes bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
• SAC plans for nuclear attacks on Russia.
• American SIOPS for nuclear war.
• These actions suggest acceptance of city devastation under certain circumstances.
• The principle of soldiers fighting soldiers is disregarded.

British Policy and a New Era of Warfare

• Area bombing inaugurated a new era: state terrorism.
• Routinely added to powerful nations' policy options.
• Disagreement with the view that area bombing is a new form of besieging cities.
• Sieges involved soldiers inside and outside the city, resembling a battlefield with a wall.
• Modern bombing campaigns lack this wall, with planes above and the city below.
• If terrorists prioritize killing civilians over harming soldiers, modern bombings qualify as terrorism.

US Government and Aerial Devastation

• With the largest air force, the US government prefers its soldiers' lives over non-American civilians'.
• Accustomed to raining devastation from the air.
• Americans from 1945 to 2001 likely approved bombing campaigns due to lack of personal experience as targets.
• September 11, 2001 attack provided first-hand experience of aerial terrorism.
• Americans correctly condemned the 9/11 terrorists as evil.
• However, their policies since 1945 are similar in nature.

Terrorism, Innocence, and War

• Essay written after 9/11 attacks addresses terrorism, innocence, and war.
• Some link terrorism with attacks on the innocent.
• In war, innocence is defined as being a noncombatant who does not pose a threat, not absence of guilt.
• Osama bin Laden claimed to be acting in defense of the innocent.
• Terrorists act as a law unto themselves, challenging the rule of law.
• Osama bin Laden's self-election as avenging angel poses a threat to humanity.

The Power of Words After 9/11

• Events of September 11, 2001, are hard to describe or explain.
• The United States must respond, requiring words to formulate goals and justify means.
• "Terrorism" and "war" are key words used after September 11.
• Carlin Romano suggests that the term "innocence" needs more attention.
• Clarification and defense of innocence could aid in the fight against terrorism.

Innocence and Its Meanings in War and Terrorism

• "Innocence" connects "war" and "terrorism."
• Terrorists are considered murderers because they kill the innocent.
• In war, international law prohibits targeting civilians, assuming innocence.
• Romano argues that terrorism cannot be morally justified because terrorists choose victims haphazardly, disregarding innocence or guilt.
• This view uses a crime and punishment model where punishment should only fall on the guilty, following due process.
• Terrorists do not meet this demand of just punishment.
• In war, "innocence" has nothing to do with blameworthiness; it distinguishes between those who can be targeted (combatants) and those who cannot (noncombatants).
• This distinction stems from self-defense: lethal force can be directed against the aggressor's military force.
• From a moral-wrongdoing perspective, many military personnel may be innocent (reluctant conscripts), while some civilians may support aggression.
• However, self-defense focuses on whether one is a combatant or not, regardless of moral quality.
• War must discriminate between these two classes.
• Combatants include those in military service who wear uniforms, bear arms, and are trained.
• Soldiers are fair targets, even when sleeping or in rear areas.
• Soldiers hors de combat (injured or captured) have the same immunity as civilians.
• Civilians actively participating in the war effort, like leaders directing military policy, are considered combatants.
• The Geneva Convention of 1949 and U.N. Resolution on Human Rights of 1968 grant immunity to those "not taking part in hostilities."
• The very old and very young clearly qualify for noncombatant immunity.
• Both crime/punishment and self-defense viewpoints condemn the September 11 attacks.
• Attackers targeted civilians in the World Trade Center violating laws of war.
• Attackers provided no advance notice or due process.

Terrorism and the Laws of War

• Universal condemnation of September 11 signals its wrongfulness.
• Laws of war and related distinctions are creations of states and their interests.
• Groups without state representation are barred from using violence to address grievances and are deemed criminals.
• The U.N. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997) criminalizes lethal device explosions in public places, regardless of political, philosophical, or ideological motives.
• No cause justifies violence if the actor is not a state.

Historical Context and Rebellious Violence

• The United States was founded on violent rebellion against lawful authority.

• Thomas Jefferson supported "a little rebellion" as necessary for the political world, such as Shay's Rebellion.

• Jefferson: $$"I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. … What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure."

• John Brown is viewed by some as a martyr despite actions that would be considered terrorism today.

• Brown's actions included revenge killings at Pottawatomie Creek and seizing hostages at Harper's Ferry.

Conflicting Views on Violence and Terrorism

• Many reject the uncompromising U.N. position against irregular violence, believing some causes justify shedding even "innocent" blood.
• The League of Arab States condemned September 11 but does not unconditionally accept the U.N.'s definition of terrorism.
• Terrorism Definition (League of Arab States):
  • Any act of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger.
• Convention addendum:
  • All cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offense.
  • The UN recognizes a right to self-determination and resistance against foreign domination.

Bin Laden's Perspective and Self-Justification

• Osama bin Laden viewed the September 11 attack as striking against an alien dominator of Arabia.
• Claims the attack was part of a campaign to remove infidel armies from Islamic lands.
• Argues that millions of innocent children are dying in Iraq due to the American-led embargo.
• Why shouldn't the blood of a few save the lives and liberty of many in the long run?
• Challenges conventional views of innocence, questioning why civilians causally implicated in oppression are immune from attack.

Contesting Grounds for Guilt and Innocence

• Romano: Terrorists believe in some "philosophy of innocence, however pinched."
• They assume the guilt of victims on flimsy grounds.
• These grounds do not align with international law conventions.
• Massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics:
  • Black September viewed the athletes as representatives lending legitimacy to a criminal state (Israel).
  • These are contestable grounds for charges of "guilt."

The Rule of Law vs. Private Judgment

• Dismissing terrorists as evil incarnate is too simplistic.
• Terrorists appeal to morality without appealing to law.
• They act as a law unto themselves.

The State of Nature and the Absence of Law

• Political theorists use the "State of Nature" to explain and defend government.
• The problem in the State of Nature is not immorality but the individual enforcement of morality.
• Each person vindicates their own rights and the rights of others.
• This leads to never-ending retaliation and blood feuds.
• Enforcement of justice in the State of Nature is problematic due to bias, unclear definitions of crime, and lack of validated evidence.
• Private understanding leads to violence.

The Solution: Established Law and Impartial Judges

• Locke proposes a settled, known law received by common consent.
• Also requires a known and indifferent judge with authority to determine controversies.
• This solution prevails in domestic cases but domestic law is not always product of common consent.
• Rebellious violence against law elicits sympathy and fear.
• Vigilantism can redirect the law toward a more just course.
• Revolution can be justified when the existing regime is oppressive.
• Ambivalence arises from sympathy for the oppressed and fear of private judgment substituting for law.

International Law and the Rule of Law

• At the international level, the rule of law rescues the community of states from intolerable anarchy.
• International law is a patchwork of treaties and understandings among independent actors.
• Few tribunals exist with full authority to determine differences among nations.
• Laws and conventions bring order, including laws of war and conventions against terrorism.
• These laws often disadvantage non-state actors.
• Support for non-state actors in violent response to perceived wrongs is worrisome.
• Osama bin Laden elects himself as the vindicator of Islamic honor and rights.
• Self-elected vigilantes may be tolerated but are dangerous when they can destroy many lives.
• Private judgment is a menace.

Private Judgment by States and Its Consequences

• Countries undermine international law by reserving private judgment about its application.
• Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) outlawed war but allowed each signatory to judge its own acts of self-defense.
• Nazi leaders at Nuremberg trials argued the tribunal had no standing to judge Germany's war policy.
• The United States and Great Britain argued that a state's self-defense is subject to review by the international community.
• This established that no state can take complete refuge in private judgment.
• A system where each party can veto the application of the law is not a system of law at all.

US Actions and the Principle of Law

• The United States has not always honored its own handiwork in international law.
• In 1985, the US argued that its support for the Contras in Nicaragua was nonjusticiable and could only be reviewed by the Security Council.
• This looks self-serving and undermines the insistence that other states submit to collective judgment.
• Private judgment, whether manifested by terrorists or rogue states, is a hazard.
• We must not claim it as our special prerogative.

Revisiting Innocence and the State of Nature

• Ideas of due process and non-combatant immunity are conventions accepted within and among states.
• These rules discriminate between the guilty and not guilty, and between those taking part in hostilities and those not.
• These rules keep us out of the State of Nature.
• Partiality and unconcern distort private judgment.

The Peril of Assured Infallibility

• If you were assured of reliable judgment or infallibility, you would need no conventions of innocence.
• No conventional limitations withstand the conceit that God is on your side.
• If God orders you to war, you destroy without compunction or distinction.
• Christians have developed a doctrine of just war emphasizing noncombatant immunity.
• However, Deuteronomy 20 presents a challenge.
• We must adhere to distinctions and discriminations embedded in conventions on war and terrorism.

The Delusion of Acting in Concert with God

• The delusion that he and God act in concert makes Osama bin Laden's self-election as avenging angel a threat.
• He would kill all that breathes among his "enemy."
• He would destroy whole cities.
• Bin Laden declares America was "hit by God."
• God has made America the enemy, and bin Laden executes His will.

False Claims of Divine Justification

• Jerry Falwell's post-September 11 statement claimed God lifted protection from America due to the ACLU, gays and lesbians, abortionists, pagans, secularists, and the Federal court system.
• Falwell later repudiated his remarks, stating he does not know God's will or plan.
• Neither he, nor you, nor I know, nor does Osama bin Laden.
• The United States can ensure that the lives lost on September 11 continue to signify something through prudent action.

Questions

• What are some different senses of "innocence," and in what contexts are they usually invoked?
• Why is "private judgment" a hazard that must be contained? Why might the principle or the rule of law be as important as Fullinwider claims?