David Luban
David Luban – War on Terorism and the End of Human Rights
Read intro on 682
Third Geneva Convention - “Prisoners of war who refuse to answer (questions) may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”(683)
What is allowed in waging war:
Read pg. 685b
Much freer than law
It is permissible to use lethal force on enemy troops regardless of their amount of personal involvement in the war. Example: it is ok to kill a war cook.
Collateral damage is forseen but unintended – so it is allowable. Example: cop blowing up building and killing innocents is not allowed
Don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Don’t need much evidence, a hunch will do.
Combatants don’t have to have already harmed you, it is ok to attack targets that MIGHT attack you
If the person who is being attacked it is legitimate for them to fight back, this is not so if you are being arrested for breaking the law
Once the person whom you are waging war against is no longer a threat you stop attacking.
What is allowed in enforcing law:
Law-breakers don’t get to shoot back
Law breakers acts of violence subject them to legitimate punishment.
The Hybrid used by Washington and it’s problems:
“[G]iven Washington’s mandate to eliminate the danger of future 9/11’s, so far as humanly possible, the model of war offers important advantages over the model of law.”(682)
“Washington regards international terrorism not only as a military adversary, but also as a criminal activity and criminal conspiracy”(683)
Fighting back against U.S. is considered a legitimate punishable crime.
Either you’re with us or your against us. If you aren’t with us you can harbor enemies and their money, making you an enemy. This clashes with idea of what is allowed in war.
“By selectively combining elements of the war model and elements of the law model, Washington is able to maximize its own ability to mobilize lethal force against terrorists while eliminating most traditional rights of a military adversary, as well as the rights of innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.”(683)
“It seems too easy for the President to divest anyone in the world of rights and liberty simply by announcing that the U.S. is at war with them and then declaring them unlawful combatants if they resist. But in the hybrid-war law model, they protest in vain.”(684)
War suspends human rights
War on terror has no defeatable enemy and thus will never end.
Because the war has no end human rights will potentially be violated indefinitely
He Concludes: Because the law model and war model come as conceptual packages, it is unprincipled to wrench them apart and recombine them simply because it is in America’s interest to do so. To declare that Americans can fight enemies with the latitude of warriors, but if the enemies fight back they are not warriors but criminals, amounts to a kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose international morality in which whatever it takes to reduce American risk, no matter what the cost to others, turns out to be justified.”(686)
It is already eroding the moral fabric of the world. Pg. 687
Read intro on 682
Third Geneva Convention - “Prisoners of war who refuse to answer (questions) may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”(683)
What is allowed in waging war:
Read pg. 685b
Much freer than law
It is permissible to use lethal force on enemy troops regardless of their amount of personal involvement in the war. Example: it is ok to kill a war cook.
Collateral damage is forseen but unintended – so it is allowable. Example: cop blowing up building and killing innocents is not allowed
Don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Don’t need much evidence, a hunch will do.
Combatants don’t have to have already harmed you, it is ok to attack targets that MIGHT attack you
If the person who is being attacked it is legitimate for them to fight back, this is not so if you are being arrested for breaking the law
Once the person whom you are waging war against is no longer a threat you stop attacking.
What is allowed in enforcing law:
Law-breakers don’t get to shoot back
Law breakers acts of violence subject them to legitimate punishment.
The Hybrid used by Washington and it’s problems:
“[G]iven Washington’s mandate to eliminate the danger of future 9/11’s, so far as humanly possible, the model of war offers important advantages over the model of law.”(682)
“Washington regards international terrorism not only as a military adversary, but also as a criminal activity and criminal conspiracy”(683)
Fighting back against U.S. is considered a legitimate punishable crime.
Either you’re with us or your against us. If you aren’t with us you can harbor enemies and their money, making you an enemy. This clashes with idea of what is allowed in war.
“By selectively combining elements of the war model and elements of the law model, Washington is able to maximize its own ability to mobilize lethal force against terrorists while eliminating most traditional rights of a military adversary, as well as the rights of innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.”(683)
“It seems too easy for the President to divest anyone in the world of rights and liberty simply by announcing that the U.S. is at war with them and then declaring them unlawful combatants if they resist. But in the hybrid-war law model, they protest in vain.”(684)
War suspends human rights
War on terror has no defeatable enemy and thus will never end.
Because the war has no end human rights will potentially be violated indefinitely
He Concludes: Because the law model and war model come as conceptual packages, it is unprincipled to wrench them apart and recombine them simply because it is in America’s interest to do so. To declare that Americans can fight enemies with the latitude of warriors, but if the enemies fight back they are not warriors but criminals, amounts to a kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose international morality in which whatever it takes to reduce American risk, no matter what the cost to others, turns out to be justified.”(686)
It is already eroding the moral fabric of the world. Pg. 687
posted by Charles Carlson at
10:35 AM
