The right against terrorism is now one of the US security priorities, especially after the massive terrorist attack that occurred on 11th September 2001. Both the government and its agencies are now doing all they can in order to ensure that American and the world as a whole is safe from terrorist attacks. Even though the move by the US is supported by Americans and the world, there are some actions and policies targeting terrorism that have raised questions, as they are seen to violate human rights and freedom. For instance, according to the New York Times, President Obama Authorized the use of a drone to attack those suspected to be the enemy of the combatants, which led to the death of an American by the name Anwar al-Awiaki who reportedly worked with Al-Qaida. The action may have prompted Scott Shane, a writer for the Times, to file a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the Justice Department to obtain a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel detailing the justification for killing American citizens without trial in order to fight terrorism. The two cases involving Obama and Shane can be explained through the use of Kant and Bentham theories (Orend, 2004).
According to Kant’s Just War Theory (JWT), enemies that share some values are likely to explicitly or implicitly agree on some rules to their warfare. On the contrary, when the warring parties differ greatly in terms of race, religion, or values, they perceive each other as less human. The main principles of JWT include having just cost, war being the last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having reasonable chances of success, and the proportionality between the means and the end (Orend, 2004). According to Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism, the main aim of the law should be to prevent evil and promote good in the society. He argued that the law should be used to maximize happiness and to minimize unhappiness. The two theories can be used to comment on the two cases.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
JWT can be used to justify and disapprove the action by Obama to order the use of a drone against the perceived enemy of the combatants. The fact that president Obama was the one who authorized the use of a drone is an indication that it was most likely that the enemy to the combatants was posing a lot of threat to the soldiers. In many cases, the security situation is always analyzed by state security teams before action is taken against the perceived security threat or an enemy. Therefore, based on the Kant’s theory, Obama was the proper authority to order the use of a drone against the enemy of the combatants (Orend, 2004).
However, the big question is whether the use of a drone to attack the perceived enemy was the last resort. It is possible that there were some alternatives that could be used to finish the enemy rather than the drone. For instance, the combatants could have confronted the enemies and disable them. Hence, based on the principle of JWT, the president did not exploit all the alternatives before ordering the use of a drone. The use of drone could have also been not proportional to the damage that was caused (Ferraro, 2010).
In addition, according to Kant, Obama may have had a good intention when he authorized the use of a drone against the perceived enemies of the combatants. Maybe he wanted to protect the lives of the combatants and save the security resources that could have been used. Unfortunately, the intention of the use of a drone in this case is not clear. At the same time, personal interest cannot be ruled out. Either the president or some of his security advisors could have had some personal interest in using a drone against those who attacked the combatants. Nevertheless, it was apparent that the use of drone was the most success means that could be used to destroy attackers (Ferraro, 2010).
Therefore, according to Kant’s theory, Obama was the right person to declare the use of drone because it was the most successful means that could be used to destroy the enemies and to save the lives of the combatants. However, the use of drone was not the last resort and the means was not proportional to the end. Besides, the intention might have been good, but it was also possible that someone was trying to achieve personal interest (Ferraro, 2010).
Bentham’s theory can also be used to comment on the case involving Obama and the authorization of the drone. According to Bentham, an action is morally right when it promotes happiness or prevents unhappiness (Ferraro, 2010). The use of drone was meant to achieve happiness among the combatants and Americans because the enemy could have caused the death of inflicted great pain among US soldiers. At the same time, Obama authorized the use of a drone in order to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness. The attackers could have killed may Americans combatants, leading to a lot of pain and agony among their families and America as a whole. As a result, based on Bentham’s argument, it was right for Obama to order the use of drone because it helped in maximizing the benefits among Americans. However, there was also pain among enemies who were killed and their enemies. Maybe the number of enemies who were killed was more than that of the US combatants. In that case, the decision by Obama would have been morally wrong and based on self interests.
The case involving Shane can first be explained using Kant’s theory. Shane seemed to have been more concerned about the welfare of Americans than other US enemies. Therefore, she suggests that American should not be killed without trial, even if they pose a lot of threat to American people and the world as a whole. This argument by Shane is supported by Kant’s theory that says that warring parties who share some values are likely to agree on the limits of warfare while those who differ in terms of race, religion, and beliefs are likely to perceive one another as less human. Interestingly, Shane pays less attention to other foreigners who are killed by American without trial (Draper, 2002).
Shane’s case can also be analyzed based on Bentham theory. The move by Shane is against Bentham’s argument of maximizing happiness. The Use of drone only killed a few Americans who were posing a lot of threat to a large number of people. Therefore, according to Bentham theory of utilitarianism, using a drone to kill a few Americans to bring happiness to a great number of people is morally right (Draper, 2002). Besides, the Americans who are killed without trial are terrorists who pose a lot of threats to their own countries. Hence, it is important for Shane to reconsider her decision of filing a lawsuit against the Justice Department because the main aim of using a drone is to protect Americans and the world against terrorism.
The court should also ensure that the lawsuit does not affect the security of Americans (Cotterrell & Twining, 1987). The majority of security information is confidential in order to prevent it from reaching the enemy. Security details are some of the classified information that should not reach the media because leaking them alone is a threat to national security (Elsea, 2006). A modern terrorist is using the internet to access crucial security information that they can use to plan terrorist attacks. Therefore, due to the sensitivity of the memo to the national security, the judge deciding on the case should use weigh the cost and benefits in order to maximize happiness.
In conclusion, Both Kant and Bentham theories can be used to explain some of the security decisions that are made by the concerned authorities such as the president and the judge. War has a lot of effect on the society and it interferes with the life of many people. As a result, careful and rational decisions should be made before attacking the perceived enemy. Importantly, war should be used as the last resort in solving various conflicting issues. But it is also important to take care of the rights of the enemies. At the same time, due to the sensitivity of security information, the media should cautious on the information that they release to the public. Not all information should be made public.
References
Cotterrell, R., & Twining, W. (1987). Evidence in Context. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
DRAPER, A. (2002). An Introduction to Jeremy Bentham's Theory of Punishment. Journal of Bentham Studies , 5 , 1-17.
Elsea, J. K. (2006, December). The protection of classified information: The legal framework. Library of Congress Washington Dc, Congressional Research Service.
Ferraro, F. R. A. N. C. E. S. O. (2010). Direct and Indirect Utilitarianism in Bentham's Theory of Adjudication. Journal of Bentham Studies , 12 , 1-24.
Orend, B. (2004). Kant's ethics of war and peace. Journal of Military Ethics , 3 (2), 161-177.
