The Ethics of Counter-Terrorism

[ck4829]

Here's something I've come up with. If used I think it will improve our standing in the world, get us closer to catching Osama, and if the Democrats use it, then it will make them look strong (but fair) when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Whenever a Counter-Terrorist tactic is used or conceived, a series of questions should be asked to determine whether a counter-terrorist tactic is ethical and right.

1. Does this tactic stay true to international law?

2. Does this tactic only affect the terrorists or people suspected to be terrorists?

3. Does this tactic NOT degrade us to the level of terrorists or use terrorism in itself?

4. Is it at the least nearly impossible to abuse this tactic and use it against not terrorists, but the public or political opponents?

If the answer is no to a tactic then it is unethical and it isn't right to use it.

So, using this list, here's what's OK and what isn't.

OK: Actually battling the terrorists, surveillance of terrorist camps, giving aid to non-terrorist Muslim organizations, capturing terrorists and trying them, etc.

Not OK: Domestic surveillance, torture, hostage taking, "shock and awe", the current no-fly list, land mines, cluster bombs, indefinite detainment etc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Yes, that sounds reasonable

You'd hope it's the kind of checklist that people unconsciously have, but obviously the average Republican politician doesn't.