Injured Virginia Tech Student Describes The Chaotic Scene And Shooter: VIDEO

UPDATE - April 17, 2007 - Editor's note: I am posting at the secondary blog blog(also yesterday's articles below and Friday's stories at the overflow blog).
---

Deleted e-mails could prompt obstruction of justice charges for Rove, other White House officials

CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan featured on CNN's The Situation Room discussing millions of emails missing from official White House email systems ... learn more about CREW at http://www.citizensforethics.org

Trauma severe for Iraqi children

Study: In Baghdad, 70% showing signs

By James Palmer
USA TODAY

BAGHDAD — About 70% of primary school students in a Baghdad neighborhood suffer symptoms of trauma-related stress such as bed-wetting or stuttering, according to a survey by the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

The survey of about 2,500 youngsters is the most comprehensive look at how the war is affecting Iraqi children, said Iraq's national mental health adviser and author of the study, Mohammed Al-Aboudi.

"The fighting is happening in the streets in front of our houses and schools," Al-Aboudi said. "This is very difficult for the children to adapt to."

The study is to be released next month. Al-Aboudi discussed the findings with USA TODAY.

Many Iraqi children have to pass dead bodies on the street as they walk to school in the morning, according to a separate report last week by the International Red Cross. Others have seen relatives killed or have been injured in mortar or bomb attacks.

"Some of these children are suffering one trauma after another, and it's severely damaging their development," said Said Al-Hashimi, a psychiatrist who teaches at Mustansiriya Medical School and runs a private clinic in west Baghdad. "We're not certain what will become of the next generation, even if there is peace one day," Al-Hashimi said.

The study was conducted last October in the Sha'ab district of northern Baghdad. The low- to middle-income neighborhood is inhabited by a mix of Shiites and Sunni Arabs. Al-Aboudi said he believes the sample was broadly representative of conditions throughout the capital.

In the study, schoolteachers were asked to determine whether randomly selected students showed any of 10 symptoms identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as signs of trauma. Other symptoms included voluntary muteness, declining performance in school or an increase in aggressive behavior.

The teachers received training from Iraqi psychologists on how to identify and help students cope with trauma-related stress, Al-Aboudi said.

The study "shows the impact of the violence and insecurity on the children and on children's mental health," said Naeema Al-Gasseer, the Iraqi representative of the WHO. "They have fear every day."

The Iraqi government is aware of the problem but largely unequipped to address it, said Ali al-Dabbagh, a government spokesman. "Until we have proper security in Baghdad, there's not much we can do to help these children," al-Dabbagh said in Washington.

Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Survey Reports

What Americans Know: 1989-2007

Released: April 15, 2007

Summary of Findings

What's Your News IQ?
Take the Quiz

Since the late 1980s, the emergence of 24-hour cable news as a dominant news source and the explosive growth of the internet have led to major changes in the American public's news habits. But a new nationwide survey finds that the coaxial and digital revolutions and attendant changes in news audience behaviors have had little impact on how much Americans know about national and international affairs.

On average, today's citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago. The new survey includes nine questions that are either identical or roughly comparable to questions asked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 2007, somewhat fewer were able to name their governor, the vice president, and the president of Russia, but more respondents than in the earlier era gave correct answers to questions pertaining to national politics.

In 1989, for example, 74% could come up with Dan Quayle's name when asked who the vice president is. Today, somewhat fewer (69%) are able to recall Dick Cheney. However, more Americans now know that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is generally considered a conservative and that Democrats control Congress than knew these things in 1989. Some of the largest knowledge differences between the two time periods may reflect differences in the amount of press coverage of a particular issue or public figure at the time the surveys were taken. But taken as a whole the findings suggest little change in overall levels of public knowledge.

The survey provides further evidence that changing news formats are not having a great deal of impact on how much the public knows about national and international affairs. The polling does find the expected correlation between how much citizens know and how avidly they watch, read, or listen to news reports. The most knowledgeable third of the public is four times more likely than the least knowledgeable third to say they enjoy keeping up with the news "a lot."

There are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know. Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events).

Aside from news media use, demographic characteristics, especially education, continue to be strongly associated with how much Americans know about the larger world. However, despite the fact that education levels have risen dramatically over the past 20 years, public knowledge has not increased accordingly.

These are the principal findings of an in-depth Pew Research Center survey that interviewed a representative national sample of 1,502 adults between Feb.1-13, 2007. Respondents were asked to identify public figures who had recently been in the news. They also were asked questions that measured how much they knew about important and widely covered news events. Awareness of public figures varied widely.

More than nine-in-ten Americans (93%) could identify Arnold Schwarzenegger as the California governor or a former action-movie star - both responses were counted as correct in the scoring. An equally large proportion of the public identified Hillary Clinton as a U.S. senator, a former first lady, a Democratic leader, or a candidate for president. Clear majorities can also correctly identify Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (65%) and Sen. Barack Obama (61%). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is recognized by about half of the public (49%).

Other prominent national figures and world leaders are not as well known. When asked to name the president of Russia, just 36% recalled Vladimir Putin. Only about three-in-ten (29%) could correctly identify former White House aide Scooter Libby; the survey was conducted during Libby's trial - but before his conviction - on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Public knowledge of news events also varies widely. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) knew that as part of his revised Iraq strategy, President Bush planned to increase U.S. military forces in the country. But only one-in-four Americans (24%) are aware that both houses of Congress passed legislation to increase the minimum wage and 34% knew that Congress voted to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

Distinct patterns emerge when these results are analyzed by key demographic groups. Education proves to be the single best predictor of knowledge. Holding all other factors equal, levels of knowledge rise with each additional year of formal schooling. At the extremes, these educational differences are dramatic: People with postgraduate degrees answer, on average, about 17 of the 23 questions correctly, while those who did not finish high school average only about eight correct answers.

Other demographic differences are also striking. Men, on average, knew more than women, all other factors being equal. Older Americans - particularly those 50 years old or older - did better than younger people. Whites scored better than blacks, while more affluent Americans knew more than those with lower household incomes.

As part of the Pew Knowledge Project, people are invited to test their own news IQ by taking an interactive knowledge quiz now available on the Pew Research Center website. The short quiz includes versions of the some of the same questions that were included in the national poll. Participants will instantly learn how they did on the quiz in comparison with the general public as well as with people like them. Take the quiz.

Grading the Public

To measure overall knowledge levels, a core group of 23 of the 26 questions was used to form a knowledge index. Each correct answer counted as one point, producing a scale that ranges from zero - no correct answers - to 23, a perfect score. Each respondent received a score based on the number of questions he or she answered correctly.¹

Eight people out of the 1,502 respondents answered all 23 questions correctly. At the other end of the spectrum, five people failed to answer a single question correctly. The average respondent got about 12 of the 23 questions right, or slightly more than half. 10 percent answered 20 or more questions accurately - and 5% got more than 20 questions wrong or said they did not know the answer.

Using a common school grading scale in which 90% correct is the minimum necessary to receive an A, 80% for a B, 70% for a C, 60% for a D and less than 60% is a failing grade, Americans did not fare too well. Fully half would have failed, while only about one-in-six would have earned an A or B. While such a scale is useful in the classroom, it may be a poor way to judge whether people are sufficiently informed. Opinions vary about what people "should" know about news events, and a different mix of questions could easily have produced very different results.

In fact, an experiment conducted in conjunction with this survey suggests that when people are given a "multiple-choice" version of key questions, the proportion who selected the correct response increased, sometimes dramatically.

For example, only 36% were able to volunteer Putin's name when asked in the February poll, "Who is the president of Russia?" But 60% correctly selected Putin when the question was asked this way in the test survey: "Can you tell me who is the president of Russia? Is it Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, Mikhail Gorbachev, or is it someone else?" Similarly, only 21% correctly answered that Robert Gates is the secretary of defense in the February survey, compared with 37% who did so when asked to choose whether Gates was the defense secretary, a senator from Michigan, the chairman of General Motors or held another job.

On other questions, the differences attributable to alternative formats were less dramatic. About three-in-four (76%) were able to volunteer unaided that the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives. When on the test respondents were asked which political party controlled the House, followed by the prompt: "Is it the Democratic Party or the Republican Party," 82% answered correctly, a six-percentage point increase.

The results do not suggest possible explanations for the differences. Some of the gap may be explained by lucky guessing on the part of people who heard the correct choice along with some incorrect alternatives. Or perhaps asking people to volunteer an answer causes some to grow anxious and momentarily forget the right answer, or simply to say they do not know in order to hurry the interview along.

Demographic Differences in What Americans Know

To compare knowledge levels between demographic groups, the sample was divided into roughly equal thirds on the basis of how many of the 23 questions they answered correctly. About 35% of the sample answered 15 or more correct out of 23 core questions. For purposes of this analysis, they were classified as the "High" knowledge group. About 31% answered 10 to 14 questions correctly, and they were classified as having "Medium" levels of knowledge. Those who got nine or fewer questions right were assigned to the "Low" knowledge group.

Using this yardstick, differences in knowledge levels among core demographic groups stand out in sharp relief. More than six-in-ten college graduates (63%) fall into the high knowledge group, compared with 20% of those with a high school education or less - among the largest disparities observed in the survey. At the other end of the scale, half of those who had no more than a high school diploma (49%) are in the low knowledge group while only about one-in-ten college graduates (11%) fare as poorly.

Traditionally, men are more likely than women to say they closely follow politics and international affairs, and the results of the knowledge survey appear to reflect this divide. Nearly half of all men (45%) score in the top third, compared with 25% of women. Among those at the bottom third of the scale, women (42%) outnumber men (26%). Whites are more likely to be represented in the top group, while a larger proportion of blacks than whites (44% vs. 31%) fall into the low-knowledge group.

Dramatic differences emerge when the results are broken down by age. Young people know the least: Only 15% percent of 18-29 year-olds are among the most informed third of the public, compared with 43% of those ages 65 and older. But it is not these oldest respondents who know the most. Instead, it is people in the age group younger than them - those ages 50-64 - who are slightly more likely to finish among the third of the sample who know the most (47% vs. 43%) and less likely to be represented among those who know the least (22% vs. 28%). This difference likely is caused by the very different life circumstances of the two oldest age groups. Many of those 65 and older are retired from work, and health problems as well as lifestyle changes can disproportionately work to diminish the interest or ability of some in this generation to keep up with the news.

More affluent Americans also are disproportionately represented in the high-knowledge group, a difference that held even after level of schooling, age, gender and race were taken into consideration in the analysis. A clear majority (55%) of those with household incomes of $100,000 or more are among the third of the sample that knew the most, compared with just 14% of those with household incomes of $20,000 or less.

Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be represented in the high-knowledge group. But significantly fewer Republicans (26%) than Democrats (31%) fall into the third of the public that knows the least.

The survey also suggests that people who know more about politics and world events also tend to correctly identify popular celebrities. For example, nearly eight-in-ten respondents (78%) in the high-knowledge group could identify football star Peyton Manning, compared with 45% of those in the low-knowledge group. Similarly, those conversant with politics and world affairs also are more likely to correctly describe singer and actress Beyonce Knowles. While based on only two questions, these finding do suggest that more informed people may know a bit about a wide variety of subjects, including pop culture.

Knowledge Domains

Knowledgeable people tend to know things about both politics and foreign affairs while less informed Americans tended to know little about either subject, the survey found. For example, nine-in-ten of those who could name Vladimir Putin as the president of Russia also could identify Barack Obama. Similarly, nine-in-10 of those who didn't know the Illinois senator also couldn't correctly name the Russian leader.

Some demographic groups also did comparatively better on questions that broadly resonated with group members. For example, the survey found that blacks generally lagged behind whites in terms of their overall political knowledge. But African Americans had no trouble recognizing either Rice or Obama: 70% of all blacks and 66% of whites could identify Rice, and both races did about equally well identifying the Illinois senator. Other results suggest that women were somewhat more likely to know more about domestic politics than they did about international affairs, while men were more likely to know about as much on both subjects.

But overall, there was a close correlation between what people knew about domestic politics and foreign affairs. Only a handful of Americans - less than 3% of the total sample - were "knowledge specialists" who knew a lot about one subject but comparatively little about the other.

Knowledge and Political Engagement

More informed Americans enjoy keeping up with the news, believe they have a personal stake in what goes on in Washington, and are significantly more likely to be registered to vote than people who know less, the survey found.

Among those in the third of the sample who know the most, the overwhelming majority (90%) are registered to vote compared with about half (53%) of the least knowledgeable Americans. The knowledgeable public also is more likely to see issues debated in Washington as having a direct impact on their lives (73% vs. 59%).

Rather than being a burden, the survey suggests these informed Americans like keeping up with what's going on in the news. About seven-in-ten (69%) in the high-knowledge group say they enjoy keeping up with the news "a lot," compared with only 16% of the least informed.

Political Knowledge Over Time

The public's ability to recall the names of leading political figures has not changed substantially since 1989. In the current survey, 69% correctly named Dick Cheney as the vice president. In May 1989, slightly more (74%) were able to name Dan Quayle as vice president. Somewhat fewer people could name their state's governor now than did so in 1989, but again the differences are not dramatic (66% now, 74% then).

In terms of knowledge of politics and current events, significantly fewer people now know that the U.S. buys more goods from abroad than it sells than did so in 1989 (68% now vs. 81% then). But the political climate for this issue also has changed considerably. During the late 1980s, the U.S. trade deficit - especially trade tensions with Japan - drew much greater attention from the press and politicians than they do today.

On the other hand, there are subjects about which the public is better informed now than it was in 1989. Roughly three-quarters of Americans (76%) know that the Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives, compared with 68% in 1989. The extensive press coverage of both the Democrats' victory last fall and the new Congress may be factors in the relatively high level of public awareness of this fact. In June 1995, a few months after Republicans won control of Congress, 73% knew that the GOP had a majority in the House - the second-highest percentage correctly answering this question since 1989.

In addition, 37% know that Chief Justice John Roberts is generally considered a conservative, rather than a moderate or liberal. Somewhat fewer were aware of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist's ideological background in 1989; 30% knew he was a conservative. In both cases, however, substantial numbers were unable to offer a response about the chief justice's ideology - 50% in 1989, 48% currently.

Differences in news environment also are apparent in other comparisons. In early February, 29% of the public could correctly identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was then facing trial for lying to federal investigators probing the unauthorized release of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the news media. In April, 1990, 60% of the public could identify former White House aide John Poindexter, who was then on trial for his involvement in the Iran-contra scandal, a much higher-profile, longer running and widely covered investigation than the Plame leak probe.

But a deeper analysis of the five identical questions asked in both 1989 and 2007 reveals a surprising pattern: Americans didn't do as well in 2007 compared with how similarly-educated Americans performed in 1989. Across the board, scores declined significantly among college graduates, those with some college as well as for those with a high school education or less.

For example, 74% of those with college degrees answered at least four questions correctly this year, compared with 80% in 1989. A similar pattern emerged among those who had attended college for at least a year but did not graduate: 51% in 2007 but 59% in 1989 got at least four questions right. Among those with no more than a high school diploma, the proportion getting four or five answers right declined 11 percentage points to 30%.

What keeps the overall knowledge scores from declining is that college grads still know more than less well-educated Americans - even if they know less in absolute terms than college grads in the past - and there are proportionally more of them now than there were 18 years ago. Currently about 27% of the public are college graduates, compared with 17% in 1989. At the same time, there are fewer people who have only a high school education (50% now compared with 60% in 1989). Education still leads to increased knowledge about prominent people and events in the news - but it does not confer as much of an advantage now as it did in 1989.

News and Knowledge

People inevitably must learn most of what they know about current events and political figures from the news media, since few have any direct way to obtain this information. Not surprisingly, people who say they regularly watch, read, or listen to the news know more than those who don't. And people who use more news sources know more than those who use fewer sources. The differences are dramatic. Nearly three quarters (73%) of those who say they don't get news regularly from any news source fell into the low knowledge group - correctly answering an average of only six out of the 23 questions in the quiz. By contrast, about half of those who regularly use at least seven sources score in the high knowledge group - getting an average of 18 questions correct.

The poll's respondents were asked if they regularly watched, read, or listened to each of 16 different sources.² Nearly everyone (94%) said they regularly get news from at least one of the news sources listed, and the average number of sources regularly used was between four and five (4.6). The audience size ranged widely. Local media garnered the largest regular audiences, with majorities reporting that they regularly watched local television news (71%) and read a daily newspaper (54%). Other television sources were also popular, with somewhat fewer than half watching network evening news (46%), the Fox News Channel (43%), and CNN (39%). About one third of respondents (34%) said they regularly watched the major network morning news shows.

Three more specialized television sources attracted smaller audiences. Fewer than one-in-five said they regularly watch "The O'Reilly Factor" with Bill O'Reilly (17%), comedy news shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (16%), or the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (14%).

Nearly four-in-ten people (37%) regularly use at least one type of internet news source, either the news pages of major search engines such as Google or Yahoo (25%), the websites of the television news organizations (22%), or the websites of major national newspapers such as the New York Times or USA Today (12%). Additionally, about one-in-ten (11%) read online blogs where people discuss events in the news.

Two radio sources were included in the list: 28% said they regularly listen to news from National Public Radio, and 8% are regular listeners to Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

Profile of Audiences

But not all news sources are created equal. The audiences for different sources vary greatly in how much they know about what's going on, a consequence both of the kinds of people who rely on each type of medium and how much they may learn from specific sources.

Internet news sources, National Public Radio, news magazines, and Rush Limbaugh's radio show have the best educated audiences, with each of these having at least 36% of their regular readers and listeners having graduated from college. The internet sources along with the comedy news shows attract younger-than-average audiences, though many older Americans regularly get news from these sources as well. The audience for the morning network news shows is disproportionately female (61%), while Limbaugh's audience is heavily male (65%). A greater than average number of men are found in the audiences for the major newspaper websites (59%), for comedy news, The O'Reilly Factor, news magazines (54% each), and the TV news websites (53% male).

Conservatives and Republicans are especially attracted to Limbaugh, while more Democrats are found among the audiences for the NewsHour, the comedy news shows, news magazines, and the websites of major newspapers.

Which Audiences Know the Most?

Attention to the news is strongly associated with knowledge levels, but some news audiences know considerably more than others. Overall, 35% of the public was classified as having a high level of knowledge - on average, 18 correct answers out of the 23 total questions. Half or more of the audiences for six media sources scored this high: the comedy news shows and major newspaper websites (54% in the high knowledge group), the NewsHour (53%), National Public Radio (51%) and Rush Limbaugh's radio show (50%). Regular readers of news magazines were not far behind (48%).

By contrast, the regular audiences for many other sources scored no higher than the sample average. The audiences for morning news (34% high knowledge), local TV news (35%), Fox News Channel (35%), blogs (37%), and the network evening news (38%) were not significantly different from the norm for the whole sample (35%). The audiences for CNN, internet news sites such as Google and Yahoo, local newspapers, and TV news organization websites scored slightly higher (41%-44% high knowledge).

This pattern is evident on many of the individual questions in the survey. For example, 32% of the public overall could name the Sunni branch of Islam, but 52% of readers of major newspaper websites could do so, as could 50% of the regular audience for the comedy news shows and 49% of NPR's regular audience. Similarly, 29% of the general public could identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but 45% of the NewsHour audience and 41%-44% of the regular audiences of Bill O'Reilly, comedy news shows, NPR, Rush Limbaugh, the national newspaper websites, and news magazines could do so. On both of these questions, the audiences for morning news, local TV news, Fox News Channel, blogs, and the network evening news either matched or did only slightly better in answering correctly than did the average American.

The fact that a particular news source's audience is very knowledgeable does not mean that people learned all that they know from that source. As noted earlier, some news sources draw especially well-educated audiences who are keenly interested in politics. Because of their education and life experiences, these individuals have more background information and may be better able to retain what they see in the news, regardless of where they see it.

Similarly, the news-hungry public tends to visit many outlets. The audiences for sources such as major TV news websites, the comedy shows, or the O'Reilly Factor tend to be fairly omnivorous in their media consumption - an average of more than seven separate sources for the regular audiences of each of these, compared with the overall average of 4.6 sources. Well-informed people do gravitate to particular places, but they also make use of a much wider range of news sources than do the less informed.

Still, differences in background characteristics and overall news habits do not explain all of the differences in knowledge across news audiences. Even after taking into account their overall news gathering habits and their political and demographic characteristics, the audiences for the comedy shows, The O'Reilly Factor, the web sites of national newspapers, and NPR all have significantly higher knowledge scores than the average.

Notes

¹Three questions were excluded from the scoring because they did not measure knowledge of political or world affairs. These questions included one that asked respondents to identify singer and actress Beyonce Knowles and a similar question about professional football star Peyton Manning. Responses to a third question about the roots of the conflict in Iraq did not correlate with knowledge about politics, current events or international affairs, and as a result this question was dropped from the scale.

²This question ("regularly or not") produces somewhat higher audience estimates than are found in Pew's biennial media consumption survey, which offers respondents the choice of "regularly, sometimes, hardly ever, or never." For example, last year's survey found 22% saying they were regular viewers of CNN; in the current survey, 39% did so. Similar differences are found for most of the sources tested.

FULL REPORT - PDF

A Moral Inquiry into the Killing of Noncombatants

Presented at The Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics (JSCOPE) 2004

Terrorism and Response:

A Moral Inquiry into the Killing of Noncombatants

Camillo C. Bica, Ph.D.

School of Visual Arts, New York

cbica@sva.edu

Inherent in modern war-making practice is the conviction that there is a significant moral difference between killing innocent civilians in an attack such as that on the World Trade Center or on a bus filled with college students and killing noncombatants during a military response to such an attack. This conviction is clearly demonstrated in a myriad of Israeli reprisals against Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and in the United States war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Vietnam. It is reflected in the language used to describe the noncombatant deaths, the value laden term "terrorism"1 in the case of the former, and the morally neutral term "collateral damage" in the latter.

The basis for this distinction, it is alleged, hinges upon a recognition of the moral importance of intent as set forth in the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE).Terrorists are acting immorally and are morally culpable and liable for their actions because they intend the noncombatant deaths in their attacks. They are committing murder. Those who respond to terrorism (responders), however, claim only to be targeting the terrorists, or the regimes that support terrorism, and any noncombatant deaths that occur, though foreseen, are, it is alleged, the unfortunate, unintended, by-product of a "moral act" of combating terrorism. Such killing, under a DDE interpretation, is not murder but collateral damage.2 Consequently, DDE theorists conclude, responders are acting morally and are non liable and non culpable for the noncombatants they kill.

In this essay I will utilize a rights-based perspective and argue that to kill noncombatants in a terrorist attack or during what I will term a "collaterally violent" response to such an attack is morally equivalent, that both are morally wrong, and neither are acts of war, but murder. In doing so, I will distinguish collateral violence from accidental killing and from the killing of noncombatants that may occur despite the implementation of reasonable precautions. Finally, I will identify what I contend to be a valid application of the DDE to acts of war.

Some Assumptions about Rights

A right is a claim against others and the correlative of a duty that others respect that right. A privilege is the absence - - or lack - - of a duty.3 Among the rights that human beings enjoy are the rights to life and liberty - - fundamental human rights - - and to live in a nation that enjoys territorial integrity and political sovereignty - - rights as citizens.4 Moral patients, i.e., all human beings, may assert these rights - - act in self, other, or national defense - - should their rights be violated or threatened. Whatever their origin, whether by nature or convention, rights are an assertion of human dignity, an integral part of our moral world, and presupposed in the very possibility of a moral community. These rights find expression as moral principles in Kantian-like imperatives of respect for and the intrinsic worth of persons, and within a myriad of international agreements and conventions of war. Rights and their correlative duties are, in my view, not absolute. Rather, they are prima facie, and in the event of conflict, may be overridden in behalf of a more stringent right or duty.

Further, the use of violence, deadly force, and war, may be, all things being equal, a justifiable Defensive Response Alternative (DRA) in situations of serious rights violation, such as in aggression. The moral justification for such a response, in my view, hinges upon the immorality and impermissibility of the aggressor’s violating a victim’s rights and failing to fulfill his obligation to respect such rights. That is, aggression warrants the sanction of override or forfeiture of the aggressor’s right to life and a liability to be harmed and/or killed, all things being equal, in self, other, or national defense.5 Such sanctions are warranted despite whether the aggressor is acting knowingly and with intent, or in ignorance, under duress, or unintentionally. That is, the use of violence, deadly force, and war may be a justifiable defensive response, all things being equal, to what has been termed in the literature as an "innocent aggressor."6

Distinguishing War from Terrorism

War, even as a response to terrorism, is rule governed. According to Just War Theory7 and a myriad of international agreements and treaties, war is evaluated according to whether established criteria are satisfied.8 Traditionally, these criteria are divided into two categories, the jus ad bellum criteria - - governing when war may be utilized - - and the jus in bello criteria - - governing how war is prosecuted. While there are several criteria in each category, the two most relevant to this essay are the jus ad bellum criterion of just cause, i.e., as a response to aggression, and the jus in bello criterion of Discriminating and Affording of Immunity to Noncombatants (henceforth the Criterion of Discrimination or the COD), i.e., not harming and/or killing noncombatants.9 War, then, is judged twice and these criteria are conjunctive rather than disjunctive, i.e., both sets of criteria must be satisfied if war is to be just. It is important to note that the COD, as traditionally interpreted, is Deontological rather than Teleological. That is, killing noncombatants is morally wrong - - intrinsically evil - - and, therefore, absolutely prohibited, regardless of particular situational variations or consequentialist considerations of "greater good"- - calculations of the relative proportion of nonmoral good to evil that doing or refraining from doing the act promotes in the world.

An important functional distinction between the categories of criteria has gone relatively unnoticed in the traditional interpretation of the conventions of war. It is my contention that while compliance or noncompliance to the jus ad bellum criteria constitutes a judgment of value, i.e., an evaluation of a war’s justness or unjustness, the jus in bello criterion of discrimination provides an evaluation not of value per se but of classification, what I will term "war status." That is, a use of violence and/or deadly force that violates a jus ad bellum criterion but which discriminates and affords immunity to noncombatants - - the jus in bello criterion is satisfied - - is unjust, but may be war none the less. No one jus ad bellum criterion is necessary for war status.10 Michael Walzer, in his important work, Just and Unjust Wars, recognizes such a possibility - - an unjust war fought justly.11 Since noncombatants, however, are neither directly nor indirectly involved in the prosecution of the war or of the aggression, they have done nothing to warrant being warred against. Consequently, contra Walzer, the use of violence and/or deadly force in which noncombatants are not discriminated and afforded immunity - - the jus in bello criterion is not satisfied - - even if for a just cause, initiated by a recognized authority, etc., is not war but homicide and slaughter. Such crimes against humanity12 to further some goal or objective whether political, religious or social are the very characteristic foundational to terrorism.13 Wars, even unjust wars, discriminate and afford immunity to noncombatants. Terrorism, unlike war, knowingly harms and kills noncombatants. The jus in bello criterion of discriminating and affording of immunity to noncombatants, therefore, is both a necessary criterion of war and, the violation of which, is a key characteristic of terrorism. That is, the Criterion of Discrimination differentiates war from terrorism and killing in war from murder.14 If the acts of murder and crimes against humanity are the isolated acts of a deranged individual(s) during a conflict that would otherwise satisfy Just War criteria, war status may not be affected. However, if such acts are not an aberration but a policy or strategy for conducting the hostilities - - achieving victory - - war status is not warranted or may be withdrawn in such cases.15 While there may be unjust wars fought justly, it is not the case that there are just wars fought unjustly.

Moral Permissibility and Sanctions

Given the moral stringency of the Just War Theory’s Criterion of Discrimination, I offer the following principles as a general guideline for determining permissibility, liability, and culpability for one’s actions in war.

The Moral Permissibility Principle (MPP): an act of war is morally permissible within the context of an otherwise Just War (that is, the Jus Ad Bellum criteria have been satisfied), if and only if the act does not violate or pose a real and immediate threat to violate the right to life of noncombatants - - does not kill noncombatants.

The Moral Culpability Principle (MCP): Moral culpability for an act of war, i.e., moral blame and condemnation - - being subject to retribution and punishment after the fact - - is warranted only as a consequence of acting impermissibly knowingly and with free will and consent, i.e., knowingly violating or posing a real and immediate threat to violate the right to life of noncombatants.

The Moral Liability Principle (MLP): Liability for an act of war, i.e., the forfeiture or override of the agent’s rights or immunity and being the object of the justifiable use of violence and deadly force in self or other defense - - is warranted only as a consequence of culpably or non-culpably acting impermissibly - - i.e., knowingly, unintentionally, or accidentally violating or posing a real and immediate threat to violate the right to life of noncombatants.

Since the taking of any human life is serious and morally regrettable, an act of war, to be morally permissible, must have both a valid moral reason permitting its occurrence - - it must satisfy the jus ad bellum criteria - - and be prosecuted morally - - it must satisfy the jus in bello criteria. These criteria constitute justification, not merely explanation, and establish the act as either moral or morally neutral. Morality, then, even in instances of conflicting principles or values, is never held in abeyance and acting immorally is never necessary or permissible in war or elsewhere, i.e., there are no necessary evils. Further, and this is crucial, a morally permissible act, since justified, never incurs liability nor culpability.

The Doctrine of Double Effect

The DDE has evolved as a means of resolving dilemmas in which an absolute moral principle prevents actions for which there are strong, even morally compelling, reasons. First developed by Catholic casuists during the Middle Ages, the DDE, it is alleged, achieves a resolution by morally differentiating the intended effects of an act from those that are unintended, though foreseen. Thomas Aquinas observes,

". . . nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental."16

The DDE, then, "redefines" the scope of the absolute prohibition’s application. By focusing upon the moral significance of intention and its relevance to moral agency and responsibility, it morally distinguishes killing as an unintended, secondary effect - - collateral damage - - from murder, claiming only the latter as absolutely prohibited. Consequently, the absolute prohibition is preserved and, if intention is withheld, an act of killing noncombatants may be permissible. Herein, then, lies the alleged critical moral distinction between the acts of the terrorist and those who respond to terrorism, between terrorism and collateral damage, and between murder and the unintentional killing of noncombatants. Terrorists intend to kill noncombatants, responders intend only to kill terrorists.

Enlightened moral theorists have recognized the DDE’s potential for misuse and have enhanced its criteria to include not only intention, but proportionality and what I will term "non instrumentality" as well. The following is typical of such an enhanced formulation:

"A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:

(1) that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;

(2) that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;

(3) that the good effect be not produced by the means of the evil effect (non-instrumentality);

(4) that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect (proportionality)."17

Applying the DDE Resolution

As noted above, it is through the application of the DDE that dilemmas posed by a conflict between absolute moral principles and other important values are often resolved. To unpack the moral subtleties and implications of the DDE resolution, consider the following moral dilemma posed by the conflict between accomplishing an important military goal - - military necessity - - and the moral principle requiring that noncombatants be discriminated and afforded immunity in war - - the COD

Terrorist Conference: In response to a particularly heinous terrorist attack in which three thousand innocent civilians were killed, the nation of Kovinia has declared war on terrorism, specifically upon the professed terrorist organization al Dumas. Al Dumas has claimed responsibility for the attack and has vowed to continue the slaughter until their religious and political goals are achieved. No one doubts their resolve or their capacity to do so. The Kovinian intelligence agency has received information from reliable sources that, in about two hours, at a specified location in the center of the city of Montagne, the best trained and motivated terrorists will meet with the al Dumas leadership to discuss and plan future, even more devastating, attacks upon the Kovinian capital city. After considering all military options, the Kovinian leadership concludes, given the time restraints and availability of forces in the area, that air bombardment is the only militarily effective means of neutralizing the terrorists. Captain John is a pilot in the Kovinian bomber group sent to attack the terrorists. As he approaches the target, he realizes, that should he and the other pilots complete their mission, despite the sophistication of their satellite guided weaponry and their willingness to exercise "due care" and accept greater risk by flying at a lower altitude, many Montagnian civilians living in this busy and densely populated area of the city, will be injured and killed. While Captain John appreciates the importance of following orders, of ending terrorism, and of saving untold numbers of future victims of terrorist attacks, he also understands the moral and legal principle of noncombatant immunity and his obligation not to harm and kill noncombatants under the COD. What should Captain John do in this situation?

While it would be preferable, of course, to utilize alternative means to neutralize the terrorists (e.g., capturing them individually, killing them when noncombatants are not endangered, etc.), must this fortuitous opportunity to "decapitate" the terrorist leadership, to incapacitate the terrorist network’s infrastructure, and save untold thousands of future victims be squandered? Perhaps not if this conflict between military necessity and the dictates of morality - - the COD - - may be resolvable through the application of the DDE.18 In Terrorist Conference, the act of bombing a gathering of known terrorists and their leaders is "in itself from its very object" a moral act of war (DDE criterion 1). Captain John’s intent, should he bomb the conference, is to end terrorism and save the lives of thousands of future victims (DDE criterion 2). These goals will be accomplished by the moral act of bombing the terrorist conference - - killing the terrorists - - and not by the deaths of the Montagnians (DDE criterion 3). Ending terrorism and preventing the deaths of future victims is a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect - - the Montagnian deaths - - to occur (DDE criterion 4). Captain John will exercise "due care" and accept greater risk to avoid noncombatant deaths.19 Consequently, one may argue, with the DDE criteria satisfied and lacking a militarily effective alternative, it is morally permissible for Captain John to complete his mission.

Observations on Terrorist Conference

In Terrorist Conference, the Montagnians have done nothing to warrant override or forfeiture of their right to life and immunity, i.e., they are not terrorists, nor do they support terrorism, nor are they linked in any way to the terrorist attacks. Consequently, moral agents, including Captain John, continue to have a duty not to kill them. Yet, the DDE, allegedly, renders the attack on the conference morally permissible. It does so by "overlooking" the rights violation,20 focusing, instead, upon the moral distinction between what is intended (the good effect) - - ending terrorism and saving the lives of future victims - - for which Captain John is responsible, and what is unintended though foreseen (the evil effect) - - the deaths of the Montagnians - - for which he is not responsible. Further, since, under this interpretation, Captain John is acting permissibly in bombing the conference he ought warrant neither culpability nor liability for his act. That is, Captain John suffers no moral condemnation, forfeiture of rights, nor loss of claim against others, including the Montagnians, that they not kill him. In fact, he should probably be awarded a citation for his courage and moral upstandingness.

Terrorist Conference from Another Perspective

Consider next a modification of Terrorist Conference that shifts the focus from Captain John’s perspective, the potential bomber, to the Montagnians, the potential victims.

Terrorist Conference Victim’s Perspective (TCVP): This case is identical to Terrorist Conference except, in this scenario, the Montagnians, living in proximity to the conference site, become aware that an attack is imminent. They realize, should Captain John bomb the conference, due to the crowded urban environment in which they live, they would be unable to escape injury and death. While appreciating the evils of terrorism and sympathizing with the plight of future victims, they are unwilling, however, to sacrifice themselves in their behalf. Consequently, noting Captain John’s intent to carry out his mission, the Montagnians repeatedly radio him not to drop his payload. Having already been convinced by DDE reasoning that it is permissible that he does so to end terrorism and save future victims, the Montagnian pleas have gone unheeded. As Captain John begins his approach to the target, the Montagnians prepare to fire their SAM (surface to air) missiles. What should the Montagnians do in such a situation?

In morally evaluating the Montagnian response, two factors are relevant. First, to sacrifice oneself for a noble cause or for the well-being of others, though admirable, is supererogatory and not morally required. Second, despite how another individual (Captain John) elects to resolve a moral dilemma, the Montagnians maintain their rights and claims against others unless they consent to sacrifice themselves or act to warrant forfeiture or loss. Consequently, in bombing the Conference, Captain John violates the rights of the Montagnians and fails to fulfill his obligation to respect such rights. What is irrelevant in TCVP is whether Captain John has agency, whether the threat to the Montagnians is directly intended or unintended, and whether the Montagnian deaths are the primary or secondary effect of the act of bombing the terrorist conference. In other words, what is irrelevant is the application of the DDE.

Further, in TCVP, since their lives are in jeopardy should Captain John bomb the conference, the Montagnians maintain their right to respond defensively. Consequently, it is morally permissible for them to kill Captain John, all things being equal, in self-defense. Further, in a scenario in which the Montagnians are unarmed, it is, perhaps, also justifiable for a morally sensitive third party, perhaps the concerned citizens of a neighboring city, to fire their air defense weapons to prevent Captain John from killing the Montagnians - - an act of humanitarian intervention. It is not the case, by the way, as a consequence of now being threatened by a Montagnian defensive response, that Captain John may target them claiming self-defense.

The fact that the Montagnians and, perhaps, others, may justifiably - - have the privilege to - - kill Captain John in self defense is morally significant. It indicates that his right to life and claim against others has been forfeited or overridden. Clearly, Captain John’s liability is a consequence of his bombing (or threatening to bomb) the terrorist conference and killing (or threatening to kill) the Montagnians. Since, as implied by the Moral Liability Principle, acting morally and permissibly ought never warrant such sanctions, i.e., a forfeiture of rights, loss of claim, and being the victim of the justifiable use of violence/deadly force in self/other defense, the Montagnian privilege to kill Captain John indicates the failure of the DDE to do the moral work alleged, that is, to render the bombing of the terrorist conference morally permissible.

Acts of Collateral Violence

Where the DDE resolution goes wrong in such cases as Terrorist Conference is in the moral importance it assigns to the directing of intent. That is, it relies primarily upon the intended effect of the act as proclaimed by the actor, rather than taking into account the entire set of foreseen probable effects, as the crucial moral consideration for determining permissibility and moral value. Under the DDE resolution, since Captain John proclaims his intent is only to kill the terrorists, the good effect, it alone becomes determinate of the permissibility and moral value of the act of bombing the conference. Consequently, the foreseen evil effect of killing the Montagnians becomes somehow abrogated and moral responsibility for their deaths somehow diffused.

What is clear in Terrorist Conference, or at least should be clear, to all moral agents including Captain John, is that Montagnian deaths in such an attack are as probable an occurrence as are the deaths of the terrorists. Consequently, Captain John does not merely foresee the possibility that, despite reasonable preventive precautions, sometimes things go awry and noncombatants will be killed. Captain John kills the Montagnians knowingly and with free will and consent in order to achieve the goal or objective of ending terrorism.

In cases such as Terrorist Conference, therefore, killing noncombatants is not accidental, but what I will term an "act of collateral violence."21 That is, an act, motivated by military necessity, in which noncombatants are harmed or killed, not with direct intention nor as the primary goal or purpose of the act, but, nevertheless, knowingly and with as high a degree of probability as is the harming or killing of the combatants. Since Captain John has good reason to expect that Montagnian deaths will occur from causes under his control, that is, they are as probable an occurrence as are the deaths of the terrorists, the fact that Captain John has directed his intent toward killing only the terrorists does not absolve him of causal and moral responsibility. Morality requires more than merely a proclamation of good intent.

The refutation of the DDE resolution as it applies to acts of collateral violence makes clear that the alleged distinction between terrorism and a collaterally violent response to terrorism is misguided and merely a pretense or rationalization for retaliation and revenge. Both acts knowingly kill noncombatants to achieve some goal or objective. Both terrorists and responders violate their victim’s right to life and fail to fulfill their obligation to respect such rights. Both are morally liable and suffer a forfeiture or override of their rights or immunity and being the object of the justifiable use of violence and deadly force in self or other defense. Both are morally culpable and subject to moral blame, condemnation, retribution, and punishment after the fact. Consequently, there is no moral difference between acts of terrorism and of collateral violence. They are morally equivalent. Neither are acts of war but of murder. Neither the terrorists nor the responders in such cases are combatants but brigands and murderers.

Distinguishing Accidental Killing and Unintentional Killing from Collateral Violence

There is an important moral difference in war between killing noncombatants during (a) the bombing of a military bridge in a very remote location that has hitherto been used exclusively by terrorist traffic; (b) the bombing of a bridge on the outskirts of a town that is used primarily by the terrorists but occasionally by civilian traffic after repeated leaflet drops warning the civilian population of the impending attack; and (c) the bombing, without warning, of a bridge in the center of a busy metropolitan area that serves as a major thoroughfare for civilian traffic. The moral difference between these scenarios hinge upon the likelihood of noncombatants being killed in the attack, the precautions implemented to prevent noncombatant deaths, and a reasonable interpretation of intent.

Although the pilots may, in both cases (a) and (b), foresee the possibility, however remote, that they may kill noncombatants in their attacks, given the remoteness of the bridge and its hitherto exclusive terrorist use in case (a), the very limited civilian use and the reasonable precautions implemented in case (b), and as the intent, in both cases, is to kill the terrorists, the pilots are warranted, all things being equal, in claiming moral permissibility for their mission. Should noncombatants be killed in case (a), their deaths, I believe, would clearly be accidental since such an unfortunate and tragic occurrence was both highly improbable and unintended. Should noncombatants be killed in case (b), their deaths, though, perhaps, more likely than in case (a), would clearly be unintended. In case (c), however, since noncombatant deaths are as probable an occurrence as are the deaths of the combatants and reasonable preventive precautions have not been implemented, there is no warrant for claiming moral permissibility for the mission. The killing of noncombatants in this case is neither accidental nor unintentional despite the claim by the pilot that his intent is only to kill the terrorists. As noted earlier, morality requires more than merely a proclamation of good intent. Case (c) is an example of collateral violence and, as such, morally impermissible. Though I will not argue the point here, I have grave doubts whether any preventive precautions would be reasonable in situations such as case (c) given the nature and location of the bridge. It may well be the case, therefore, that for those who take morality seriously, sometimes targets must be ruled out entirely despite the dictates of military necessity.

It is important to notice that in all three cases, should noncombatants be killed or seriously threatened by the attacks, the pilots do violate, or pose a real and immediate threat to violate, the rights of the noncombatants they kill or endanger. Further, since the noncombatant victims of these attacks have neither lost nor forfeited their claim against the pilots that they not be killed, they retain their right to respond - - to kill the pilots, all things being equal - - in self-defense. Consequently, the pilots, even in cases of the accidental and unintentional killing of noncombatants, have become liable - - they are innocent aggressors. That is, they do suffer a forfeiture or override of rights or immunity and being the object of the justifiable use of violence and deadly force in self or other defense. Since their liability is clearly a consequence of killing or threatening to kill noncombatants during the bombing of the bridge, and as acting morally and permissibly never warrants such sanctions, the attacks in all three scenarios are morally impermissible.

What has next to be determined is moral culpability - - whether the pilots deserve moral condemnation, blame, and being the object of retribution and punishment, after the fact, for their rights’ violations. It is here, I believe that DDE has moral relevance. In cases (a) and (b), given the pilots warrant to claim permissibility and the fact that the killing of the noncombatants is accidental and unintentional, the pilots are non-culpable, morally excused (though not justified) for their rights’ violation - - they are not committing murder nor are they prosecuting an act of terrorism. What the DDE does not do, even in such cases, is to render the acts morally permissible or justifiable, or the pilots non-liable. The DDE, then, has relevance only to determinations of culpability and functions only to excuse the pilots after the fact in cases where noncombatants are killed accidentally and unintentionally.22 In case (c), however, and in all cases of collateral violence, since the pilot bombs the bridge knowing that noncombatant deaths are as probable as are the deaths of the combatants, he is both liable and culpable - - subject to be killed, all things being equal, in self or other defense, and deserving of moral blame and condemnation and subject to arrest, and if convicted, punishment after the fact.

The Warrant Theory of Permissibility

Given the moral importance of the JWT’s criterion of discrimination and my rather stringent interpretation of moral permissibility, doesn’t the possibility, however remote, that noncombatants may be accidentally and unintentionally killed in an act of war, together with our predilection not to act immorally, render all war morally unacceptable? If we can never be certain that an act of war is morally permissible - - that noncombatants will not be killed - - must we either embrace an Absolute Pacifism or abandon morality altogether?

Determining the moral permissibility of an act of war is a difficult and arduous task given the gravity and unpredictability of all that war entails. What is required, however, in determining whether a particular act of war may be prosecuted- - in an otherwise moral war - - is not infallibility, that is, that we could never be wrong in determining permissibility, but only that our claim of permissibility be warranted. Though it is beyond the scope of this essay to answer the many questions of interpretation raised by this criterion of warrant, suffice it to say that some of its main requirements can be garnered from cases (a) and (b) above. These cases illustrate quite nicely when an agent may be warranted, based upon reasonable and rational deliberation regarding the available evidence, in claiming permissibility. They also illustrate, however, another important aspect of the Warrant Theory. That is, given our human fallibility and the vagaries of chance, an agent may be mistaken in his claim should noncombatants be killed. It is crucial to the Warrant Theory of Permissibility that we accept the limits of our powers of discernment and understand that warrant does not guarantee moral permissibility and justification. Should act "a", for example, that agent "x" is warranted in claiming to be morally permissible at time T1, result in the killing of noncombatants at time T2, one must conclude, not that it is sometimes permissible to kill noncombatants, but that x’s determination of permissibility at T1, though warranted, was incorrect. In this way permissibility claims are similar to knowledge claims. That is, though we may be warranted, based upon reasonable and rational deliberation regarding the evidence available at time T1, in claiming to know that the earth is flat, since at T2 it becomes apparent that the earth is not flat, we must conclude, therefore, not that we sometimes know things that are incorrect, but that the claim to knowledge at T1, though, perhaps, warranted, was invalid. We cannot know something that is not the case. The fact, by the way, that sometimes we can be wrong about knowledge claims doesn’t, in my view, entail skepticism - - that there isn’t anything that we know or that we can never act on our claims to knowledge. It merely recognizes our human limitations. Similarly, the fact that we can be mistaken about permissibility claims does not entail an Absolute Pacifism - - the view that the use of force or violence is never morally permissible - - or a War Realism - - the view that war is amoral and only pragmatic determinations of military necessity and efficacy are relevant to determining behavior in war. It merely recognizes our human limitations. That is, we can make claims of knowledge and permissibility and, if warranted, act on these claims despite the possibility that we may be mistaken.

One may object, however, that since, in cases (a) and (b), warrant and intention have been satisfied, and the killing of noncombatants was accidental and unintended, can’t the act of bombing the bridge correctly be described, not as killing noncombatants, but as killing terrorists? And, since killing terrorists is a permissible act of war, might one not conclude, therefore, that the act of bombing the bridge in case (a) and (b) is morally permissible despite the fact that noncombatants are killed? This question illustrates the importance of interpretation to ethical judgment, what has been termed the "Problem of Relevant Descriptions," the view that the rightness or wrongness, permissibility or impermissibility of an act depends upon how one describes the action and its attendant intentions. This objection fails, however, as the pilots becoming liable as a consequence of bombing the bridge, even in cases of accidental and unintentional noncombatant deaths, provides insight into resolving the Problem of Relevant Descriptions - - insight into how the act of bombing the bridge should be described. Liability cuts through the confusion, prejudice, bias, ideological agenda, and manipulative language, and provides a substantive basis for objectivity in description and hence, in moral evaluation. That is, the pilots in cases (a) and (b) are not merely killing terrorists, since one does not become liable for such actions, they are killing noncombatants.

Prima Facie and Actual Duties

My argument against the DDE resolution in cases of collateral violence is contingent upon an interpretation of the COD that views rights and duties as absolute. However, as noted above, rights and their correlative duties are, in my view, not absolute, but prima facie. Prima facie rights and duties apply without exception - - are absolute - - unless and until they are overridden as a result of a conflict with a more stringent right or duty - - the actual right or duty. Consequently, it is conceivable that in some situations of conflict, a prima facie right to life and duty to respect that right may be overridden and the right bearers, in this case the noncombatants, may be morally targeted, injured, and killed. To determine whether this rejection of absolutism constitutes an abandonment, or at least a weakening, of the COD, consider the following parameters for the practical application of prima facie rights theory to acts of war.

What is relevant in determining an actual right and duty in a situation of conflict is the relative stringency of the conflicting prima facie rights and duties. Further, determinations of stringency is not "agent relative," that is, moral legitimacy, in such cases, demands that moral judgments be made behind a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" independent of considerations of familial or national identity of the right bearer. Secondly, all prima facie rights and duties of the same sort have equal moral importance. Thirdly, determinations of moral stringency are not aggregative or teleological, that is, the rights of a few noncombatants cannot be overridden in behalf of the equally stringent rights of the many. Though a thorough consideration of this issue is beyond the scope of this essay, suffice it to say that, ". . . rights cannot be justifiably protected by violating another right which . . . is at least equally important."23 To do so would be to violate the principle of respect for persons, treating the few, not as ends in themselves, but as a means to the ends of the many.

The dilemma illustrated in Terrorist Conference, for example, hinges upon a conflict between Captain John’s prima facie duty not to kill the Montagnian noncombatants and his prima facie duty to save the lives of, perhaps, a greater number of his fellow citizens, possibly even members of his own family, who would be potential victims of future terrorist attacks. Again, a determination of liability will be crucial to resolving this interpretation of the conflict in Terrorist Conference. That is, liability provides insight into evaluating the relative stringencies of the conflicting prima facie duties and in determining which duty becomes actual. Should Captain John choose not to bomb the conference, the future victims of terrorism - - the inhabitants of the Kovinian capital - - despite their realization of the possible importance of this bombing mission to their future well-being, may not kill Captain John in "self-defense" (knowing, perhaps, that, once dead, Captain John’s plane will crash into the conference site killing the terrorists). The observation that the Montagnians may, and the possible future victims may not, kill Captain John in self-defense provides insight into the scope and stringency of the conflicting duties in this situation. While individuals have a claim against others that they not kill them, they do not have a claim - - or, at least, not as stringent a claim - - against others that they save their lives. By bombing the conference, Captain John violates Montagnian rights and claims against him not to be killed. Should Captain John choose not to bomb the conference, however, no rights - - or less stringent rights - - of the possible future victims will be violated. Consequently, Captain John’s actual duty in Terrorist Conference is to abort his mission - - not to kill the noncombatants - - despite the possibility of a future terrorist attack that will kill, perhaps, a greater number of his fellow citizens, including members of his family.

Corroborating this very difficult moral decision is what has been termed the Principle of Intervening Action.24 Should the very same terrorists who would have been killed had Captain John bombed the conference, later attack the Kovinian capital city, the responsibility for the Kovinian deaths - - for the violation of their rights - - is attributable not to Captain John but to the terrorists. Consequently, the possibility that many Kovinian noncombatants may be killed in a subsequent terrorist attack, does not impact upon his duty not to kill the Montagnians.

The acceptance of the prima facie nature of rights and duties, therefore, does not weaken the COD as it has little, if any, practical impact upon how it is implemented. It is my view, despite W. D. Ross’s less than adequate account of the relative weights of prima facie duties, that in the world as we know it, populated by beings as we know them, there is no stronger right then the right to life and no stronger duty than the duty to respect that right.25 Consequently, in the event of conflicting prima facie rights and duties, respect for life and the correlative duty to not to kill noncombatants, becomes an actual duty. That is, the killing of noncombatants is actually unjustifiable and immoral even under those circumstances of supreme emergency or to save other innocents, etc.

Further Clarification

To be more concise, moral dilemmas such as that presented in Terrorist Conference are not, strictly speaking, instances of conflicting prima facie rights. While human beings possess a right to life and not to be harmed unjustifiably, they do not possess the right to use all and every possible recourse available in asserting those rights. The use, therefore, of a particular Defensive Response Alternative (DRA) is not, in and of itself, a right. So to morally condemn one DRA - - bombing the conference - - is not to override nor ignore an individual’s or group of individual’s - - the Kovinian’s - - right to life and not to be harmed unjustifiably, but merely, for the sake of fairness, to recognize that others - - the Montagnians - - possess similar rights as well. Further, in ruling out bombing the conference as a morally viable DRA, one is not condemning the Kovinians to passively submit to injury/death, but is instead, requiring them to select another DRA. Not every act of self/national-preservation is a morally appropriate act of self/national defense. Deadly force is one of several possible DRA, and one which, if it is to be a moral act of war, must be subject to the rather stringent restrictions and controls of the COD. It may be the case, then, that potential responders may be morally obliged to forego the utilization of a particular act of war (the bombing of the conference) and opt, rather, for another DRA to assert their rights, even if such an DRA proves riskier, costlier, less politically expedient, more time consuming, etc. And, in a very unlikely scenario in which a particular act of war is the only DRA available, it may well be the case that the potential victims will be morally required to acquiesce to the aggression, i.e., to suffer a rights violation without "effective" response.

A Practical Concern

One may object that such a strict interpretation of the COD as I have presented in this essay is unrealistic as it places unacceptable restrictions upon military necessity, that is, upon a nation’s ability to protect its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and its citizenry. Consequently, though morally well-intentioned, it undermines Just War Theory and encourages War Realism, that is, an abandonment of any application of moral criteria to war. This objection fails, I believe, as it implies that either morality must accommodate the dictates of military necessity, to include the killing of noncombatants, or face total irrelevancy. In doing so, it views morality, in its application to acts of war, as a tactic of advantage, i.e., as having relevance only should belligerent nations find it conducive to their national and military interests.

Morality is not a tool of diplomacy nor a weapon of war to be abandoned or manipulated should its tenets prove inconvenient to the accomplishment of some goal or purpose. If morality is to have any meaning and if we as individuals and as a nation are to avoid hypocrisy, morality must be applied fairly and without prejudice, bias, or consideration of advantage. It my well be the case, in the event of a conflict between moral principles and perceived military necessity, that the former - - the dictates of morality - - rather than the latter that must prevail.

Conclusions

No one denies that in war and the response to terrorism noncombatants may be accidentally and/or unintentionally killed. My argument against the DDE is not intended to refute that possibility. It is also tragically clear, however, that the DDE resolution has become so commonplace that its legitimacy is taken for granted and rarely questioned. On April 8, 2003, for example, in an attack strikingly similar to Terrorist Conference, a U.S. warplane dropped four 2000 pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMS) and blasted a smoking crater 60 feet deep in the busy, densely populated, well-to-do, al-Mansour section of western Baghdad in the hope of killing Saddam Hussein and his sons. While Saddam Hussein and his sons escaped injury and death in the attack, some sources estimate the noncombatant deaths at fourteen, some of them children.26

As victims of terrorism, our cause may be just and our outrage real. While such aggression at the hands of terrorists may justify the use of force, violence, and war as a response, it does not relieve the respondent of its obligation to act responsibly - - its obligation to discriminate and afford immunity to noncombatants. That is, being the victim of terrorism does not warrant our becoming terrorists.

In this essay, I have argued from a rights-based perspective for a stringent interpretation of the criterion of discriminating and affording of immunity to noncombatants and that a violation of this principle, whether bc y terrorists or by those responding to terrorism, is immoral. Furthermore, I have argued that violating the COD cannot be justified or even excused by rationalizing such acts of murder as collateral damage.

I have no illusion that my account is the final word, nor that the assumptions upon which it is structured are acceptable to everyone. I offer it as a work in progress and invite my readers to join the dialogue on this critical and tragic phenomenon of the 21st century.

Endnotes

1. Some thinkers have argued quite forcefully against terrorism as intrinsically unjustifiable or unjustifiable by definition. See for example, Virginia Held, "Terrorism, Rights, and Political Goals," in Violence, Terrorism, and Justice, R.G. Frey and Christopher Morris, ed., Cambridge University Press, 1991

2. The U.S. Air force defines collateral damage as the "unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities." United States Air Force Intelligence Targeting Guide, Air Force Pamphlet 14-210 Intelligence, 1 February 1998, p.182.

3. For perhaps the foundational work on rights, see Hohfeld, Wesley N., Fundamental Legal Conceptions, ed. W.W. Cook (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919). For an insightful discussion of Hohfeldian thought, see Thomson, Judith J., The Realm of Rights, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990).

4. I choose to term these "the rights of citizens" rather than the "rights of nations" as it is my view that rights are a function of individual human beings rather than of collective entities such as a nation.

5. For an in-depth discussion of the criteria for the justifiable use of violence/deadly force in self, other, or national defense, see my Just War Theory and a Practical Pacifism, Ph.D. diss., City University of New York, 1995, pp. 15-36.

6. See among others, Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, The Realm of Rights, pp 366-367.

7. I will accept, without argument, the legitimacy of Just War Theory and that the immorality and illegality of harming and killing innocents is self-evident. I have argued elsewhere for a rights-base foundation for both. See my Just War Theory and a Practical Pacifism, Ph.D. diss., City University of New York, 1995, pp. 15-37.

8. For an interesting and encompassing examination of the rules of war, see, among others, Robert Holmes, On War and Morality (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 146, and James Turner Johnson, Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981.

9. While non-innocent noncombatants, such as munitions workers, some politicians, etc., may be liable to be harmed and killed in war, all innocent non-combatants, henceforth to be referred to as "noncombatants," must be afforded immunity.

10. Of course if enough jus ad bellum criteria are not satisfied the war status may be jeopardized.

11. Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977). P. 21-47.

12.Crimes against humanity are defined as, "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts against any civilian populations, before or during war; or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds . .." Article VI of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, U.S. Army Pamphlet 27-161-2, International Law, Vol. II, pp. xi-xvi.

13. See for example, Jenny Teichman, "How to Define Terrorism," Philosophy 64, 1989, pp. 505-517.

14. Though not sufficient.

15. I see no reason why, if the violation of the COD becomes policy, that a war may not degenerate into slaughter, genocide, massacre and butchery - - that war status may be lost. Based upon this observation, one may argue that the carpet - - "terror" - - bombing of cities that characterized WWII warranted a forfeiture of war status.

16. Quoted in Paul Ramsey, War and the Christian Conscience, (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1961), p. 39.

17. Mangan, Joseph, "An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect," in Theological Studies 10, p. 43.

18. DDE resolutions have become so common that the United States Air Force and various study groups and "Think Tanks" have developed "macro" and "standard" models for determining expected collateral damage. "One such model is TANDEM (Tactical Nuclear Damage Evaluation Model), developed by the RAND Corporation. This program takes target data such as location and the probability of damage to targets and population centers, vulnerability numbers, inter-relation maps, weapon assignments (yield, height of burst, CEP, etc.) and other factors as inputs. TANDEM is analyzed, and outputs may indicate target damage, collateral damage, and bonus damage. USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide, United states Air Force Pamphlet 14- 210 Intelligence, 1 February 1998, 182-3.

19. Thus satisfying what Michael Walzer regards as a further criterion for the application of the DDE. See Just and Unjust Wars, pp. 151-159.

20. The fact that Captain John is relieved of responsibility for the evil effect of his act, has lead some to believe that no rights have been violated. See Jeff McMahon, "Self-defense and the Problem of the Innocent Attacker," Ethics 104, no. 2 (January 1994). While I will defer a discussion of this complicated issue to another occasion, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues quite convincingly that " . . . fault is not required for the violation of a right." Judith Jarvis Thomson, "Self-defense" in Philosophy and Public Affairs 20, no. 4, (Fall 1991), p. 301.

21. An appropriate term, I think, since the innocent victims of DDE resolutions (such as the Montagnians in Terrorist Conference) are rhetorically dehumanized by being collectively designated as "collateral damage." For a more detailed exposition of collateral violence see my, "Collateral Violence and the Doctrine of Double Effect," in Public Affairs Quarterly 11, no.1, January 1997.

22. This case clearly illustrates the moral difference between justifiability and excusability.

23. Alan Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications, University of Chicago Press, 1982, pp. 231-232.

24. The argument for a causal connection between Captain John’s not bombing the conference and the deaths of the Slovinians, I believe, does not hold up in this situation. According to the Principle of Intervening Action " . . . when there is a causal connection between some person A’s performing some action (or inaction) X and some other person C’s incurring a certain harm Z, A’s moral responsibility for Z is removed if, between X and Z, there intervenes some other action Y of some person B who knows the relevant circumstances of his action and who intends to produce Z or who produces Z through recklessness. The reason for this removal is that B’s intervening action Y is the more direct or proximate cause of Z and, unlike A’s action (or inaction), Y is the sufficient condition for Z as it actually occurs." Alan Gewirth, Human Rights, Essays on Justification and Applications, University of Chicago Press, 1982, p. 229.

25. Robert Holmes makes the point well. He writes, "To ask whether it is wrong to kill innocent persons in wartime might be to ask whether it is ever in fact right, given the world as it is or likely to be. Or it might be to ask whether it is right under any conceivable circumstances, however absurd or contrived . . . One could believe that it is never right to kill innocent persons in a world as we know it but concede that if the world were radically different that world change." Robert Holmes, On War and Morality, p. 195.

26. The Decatur Daily News, April 8, 2003

Copyright 2003

Camillo C. Bica