Following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 which left American devastated, United States of America President declared that these actions needed to be viewed as an act of war. This concept of an attack on American soil was, prior to September 11th, something completely foreign to the American people. Whether it be as a result of fear or anger, one thing was certain, the American people wanted some sort of retaliation to those who still are and were responsible. Nearly six years later the United States Armed Forces are still at war in Afghanistan, but more importantly also fighting a war on a second front in the nation of Iraq. It seems, however, that all of the public and media attention has shifted to the considerably more questionable war in Iraq, and consequently, it seems that some have forgotten we are even involved in Afghanistan.
[...] As a result of this, the war would become completely unjustified The second bone of contention for an unjust war today is the treatment of prisoners of war in Afghanistan and in secret military camps abroad. Additionally important is the lack of rights these POWs are receiving in prisons as far away as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.[19] Walzer additionally argues that prisoners must be treated humanely and that summary execution and torture are not acceptable.[20] While the actions taken in the prisons may not explicitly be torture, they are certainly a human rights violation and as a result a cause of an unjust war. [...]
[...] The principles of which makes the entering into war a morally justifiable action are usually defined as “having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means Perhaps one of the most frequently questioned and commented upon portions of jus ad bellum (justice going to war) norms is the possession of a just cause. This concept of a just cause is considerably more objective than some of the other justifications and as a result can effectively mask an unjust war. [...]
[...] Having achieved sufficient justification that going to war in Afghanistan is justified, it becomes important to maintain that justification by fighting appropriately in the war. These jus in bellum norms are equally critical to just war and involve the human rights of prisoners as well as many other critical aspects.[9] Additionally, the concept of justice in war involves things such as non-combatant immunity, human rights for prisoners and also the minimization of collateral damage. These three issues are the reason for now beginning to question the war in Afghanistan. The critical implications of human treatment are critical. [...]
[...] Press release from the Press Secretary, Sept http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010915-4.html (In his statement, President Bush said directly that the wreckage in New York City were the first signs in the battle of war) Definition of war from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Just War Theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm This is a combination of philosophical views of just war combined from a number of authors. I chose to examine it using all of these to determine the philosophical probability that the war is justified. See Also. Michael Walzer. Just and Unjust Wars. P 1-109 President urges patience and readiness. Press release from the Press Secretary, Sept Ibid. Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
