Tag: September 11

9/11 and “just war”

Posted on by kathiemm

As the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. approaches, we suggest that you review the principles of just war described here by Dr. Michael Corgan. Then consider:

Aftermath of 9/11 attacks: View of World Trade Center ruins
Image in public domain
  • Can the extremists who made the attacks in 2001 justify them based on just war principles?
  • Was the U.S. response to those attacks consistent with just war principles?

First, it is clear that the 9/11  attacks violated most–but perhaps not all–of the generally accepted principles of a “just war.”  Specifically:

  • It was not undertaken as a last resort.
  • It was not committed by a legitimate authority.
  • It was committed in pursuit of a hopeless cause, which is not morally justifiable according to just war principles.
  • Establishing peace was not the goal of the attack (as stated by Bin Laden himself).
  • The attackers did not discriminate between combatants and civilians; worse, they deliberately targeted civilians.

Whether the attack violated two other just war principles is a matter of debate. Specifically, for a war to be just:

  • It must have a just cause. Although some people around the world would argue that there was some truth to Bin Laden’s diatribe concerning American aggression against Muslims in the Middle East, the attacks were not undertaken to prevent or stop a genocide.
  • The violence inflicted must be proportional to the injury suffered. The death, pain, and destruction created by the attacks was tremendous. Was it disproportionately high in relation to any violence the U.S. might have been responsible for prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Finally, many proponents of just war theory in the U.S. (including President Jimmy Carter) have argued that the post 9/11 attack on Iraq by the U.S. was also not a just war. As you consider the just war principles stated above, what do you think of this question?

Listen to what this Iraq war veteran says:

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

The immorality of torture

Posted on by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we are pleased to feature a book review by Carly Warren, who completed my course in Psychology of War and Peace this summer.]

Review of George Hunsinger’s Torture Is a Moral Issue: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and People of Conscience Speak Out

by C.J. Warren

In the aftermath of World War II, an international decree was established in an attempt to protect human rights. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the very same agencies that helped create and establish the international system for the protection of human rights began to reconsider it.

Torture is a Moral Issue book coverTorture, which is internationally forbidden under all circumstances, is now being openly presented and justified as a means to gain military intelligence. Consequently, the fundamental system that was established to protect all human rights has been weakened by its very own founders.

George Hunsinger’s edited collection, Torture Is a Moral Issue, sidesteps the question of whether torture is legally acceptable and instead asks if it is morally acceptable. This compilation of work, from almost two dozen active combatants and survivors of torture, turns to the basics of religion and morals to argue for an immediate end to the practice.

Hunsinger and contributors shift the focus of the torture debate from legalities and loopholes to moral values, thus taking it out of the shadows where governments have  justified its practice.

The book begins with background information that establishes the incidence and severity of torture, and importance of the debate. The dramatic firsthand accounts from a former U.S. military interrogator and torture survivor bring hard realism to the topic.

Muslim, Christian and Jewish arguments against torture form the bulk of the book. However, the religious theme is not overpowering, enabling both secular and religious individuals to understand and identify with its arguments.

This book has been described as hard-hitting because it refuses to let any justification for torture stand unchallenged. Its special value lies in the ethical and realistic advice on how to make changes and find solutions. Without knowledge and the will to understand, we cannot evolve or make strides towards eliminating this inhumane practice.

Government’s right to invade: National differences in views

Posted on by kathiemm

In response to the attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States and its allies waged war against Afghanistan. The Gallup International Terrorism Poll 2001 showed that 88% of the American public agreed with this military action.

In the months preceding the start of the Iraq war, national support for invasion never dropped below 55%, probably reflecting the Bush administration’s framing of the Iraq war as an extension of the “war on terror.”

Protest in Spain against Iraq war
Protest in Spain against Iraq war. Photo by Francisco M. Marzoa Alonso; Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 license.

In contrast, the Flash Eurobarometer 151 surveyed citizens of the 15 European Union nations in 2003 and found strong opposition in some nations to the U.S. involvement in Iraq. In particular, Greeks and Spaniards viewed the U.S. as the greatest threat to peace–more threatening than Iran and North Korea.

The Group on International Perspectives on Government Aggression and Peace (GIPGAP) administered the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS) to ordinary people from the U.S., Greece, and Spain in 2005. We found that Americans rated a governmental right to undertake an invasion much more highly than Greeks and Spaniards.

In regard to specific arguments made by the participants in support of their ratings concerning the acceptability of invasion:

  • Significantly more Greeks and Spaniards than Americans said war is outdated or there are better ways to solve conflicts.
  • Significantly more Americans than Spaniards referred to “defense” in their explanations, including references to preemptive action in response to a threat.

What do you make of the findings of this study? Is war outdated? Are there better ways of solving conflicts?

Why might Americans seem to be more worried about defending themselves than Spaniards and Greeks? Why might there be national differences in views concerning preemptive strikes?

Do you think that if a new sample of Americans, Greeks, and Spaniards were to be asked today about the US involvement in Iraq, their opinions would have changed?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

[Note: This post was adapted from an article by Maria Daskalopoulos, Tanvi Zaveri and Kathie Malley-Morrison, in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Winter, 2006.]

Healing in the aftermath of 9/11

Posted on by kathiemm
Ground Zero memorial
Ground Zero (Photo by Niesy74; Permission is granted to use this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2. From WikiMedia Commons)

As we reflect back on the events and aftermath of September 11, 2001, it is useful to consider the question of healing.

Let’s look at an example from the last century. The U.S. and several of its allies learned, at least temporarily, a lesson after World War I.

They learned that a rabid preoccupation with revenge and punishment can keep hatred and a desire for retaliation alive and lead to further violence. Thus, the outcome of World War I led to World War II.

The aftermath to World War II was handled differently and with wisdom, as the allies helped the Axis powers rebuild. Today Germany and Japan are major allies of the United States.

Furthermore, the U.S. government has apologized to the innocent Japanese Americans who were corralled into concentration camps in the U.S. for no reason other than their Japanese ancestry.

Today in New York City we see a reprise of the kinds of hatred and distrust being leveled at innocent Americans because of their ancestry–in this case because they are Muslims.

The efforts to stop the building of an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero are fueled not just by prejudice and ethnocentrism but by the political agenda of power-seekers.

Those power-seekers know that one way to get people to follow you and build your power is to foment fear while also making them believe that you have the answers. But are they the right answers?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology