Tag: terrorists

Morally disengaging from drone warfare

Posted on by kathiemm

The headline of a Sunday New York Times article by national security reporter Scott Shane declares “The Moral Case for Drones.” A more appropriate title might well be “A Case Study in Moral Disengagement.”

The arguments in the article illustrate many of the principles of moral disengagement  previously discussed in this blog, including:

Drone launched off Navy ship
Drone launched off U.S. Navy ship. Image in public domain.

Shane begins by noting that critics of President Obama’s drone program focus on issues such as “collateral damage” (a favorite euphemism for killing children and other innocent civilians). He then comments that people may be surprised to learn that “some moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare.”

As an example of a moral philosopher, he cites Bradley Strawser, a former officer in the Air Force and assistant professor of philosophy in the Naval Postgraduate School who told him that using drones “to go after terrorists” was “not only ethically permissible but also might be ethically obligatory.”

Why? Drones are advantageous for “identifying targets and striking with precision.”  In making such a statement, Strawser is using euphemisms for murder (“striking targets”) while framing it in pseudo-moral language (“ethically obligatory”).

Strawser identifies “targets” as “terrorists” and “extremists who are indeed plotting violence against innocents” (demonization). He says drones are better than any other weapon in avoiding collateral damage (advantageous comparison), and suggests that drone operators can time their strikes so that innocents will not be nearby and can even divert a missile if a child happens to wander into the target area (misrepresentation of consequences).

Most historians seem to agree that one of the major causes of World War I was not the killing of an archduke, but the eagerness of weapons specialists in different countries to try out their great new weapons and prove how invincible they were.

One can argue that World War II ended up with the U.S. trying out its great new atomic weapon to prove how invincible it is—and thereby initiating an arms race that continues to threaten life on earth.

Might we make better moral choices than unleashing the favored weapon of the hour?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

“Kill or be killed”

Posted on by kathiemm

Book Review Terror in the Name of God; Why Religious Militants Kill, by Jessica Stern
by Judith Prueitt-Prentice

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we are happy to publish a book review by Judith Prueitt-Prentice, who has a Masters in Family Studies,  a special interest in social justice issues, and took my course in the Psychology of War and Peace in the summer of 2011.]

A divinity student turned me on to this book by Jessica Stern, Terror in the Name of God; Why Religious Militants Kill. It documents  her interviews with some of the world’s most violent terrorists. Through thoughtful questioning, she inquires into the minds of terrorists both foreign and domestic drawing clear lines of distinction around their decisions to choose the path of violence in their search for God.  She tells the reader, terrorism exists, and the beliefs and aspirations of terrorists around the world share commonalities.

Stern is the foremost U.S. expert on terrorism, a lecturer at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and a faculty affiliate of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Along with many other accolades she is a concise writer and researcher.

The opening page of the book gives the reader a clear understanding of the inner workings of the mind of a terrorist.  “It is about purifying the world.  The way forward is clear: kill or be killed.  Kill and be rewarded in heaven.  Kill and the Messiah will come.”  (Stern, 2003)
But we knew that about those Middle Eastern terrorists!  They are the bad guys aren’t they?  Stern proves that our own domestic terrorists share remarkably similar views, values, and religious perspectives on their paths to perdition.  It is a desire to rid the world of “those people” with thoughts and ideas through idealized or actual violence.  How can that happen?  Aren’t most people basically the same?  Yes, and that leads us to look at moral disengagement.

We can discuss Albert Bandura’s theory on moral disengagement here in a clinical way.  Moral disengagement is a process of rectifying one’s cognitive dissonance, or mutually opposing ideals that play out in winning the inner battle between one’s moral standards and ones’ actual behaviors.  This allows people to behave immorally or tolerate immorality by others, even when these behaviors violate their own moral standards (Malley-Morrison, Young Oh, & Zaveri, 2009, p. 152).  More simply put they objectify their perceived enemy and in the case of terrorism.  In the mind of a terrorist, it’s okay to hurt them, God wants you to hurt them, it’s a good thing.

Stern goes on to point out that a homegrown bible thumping militia extremists like David Koresh of the Waco Texas compound and conspiracy aficionados like Timothy McVey who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  Both, were just as driven by moral disengagement as Abu Musab Al  Zarqawi, suspected of being the number two man in Al Qaida the terrorist organization blamed for the 9/11 attacks on New York’s, World Trade Center.

Although, the book wavers from clinical observation to sometimes sounding like a travel log with more than a bit of interesting back-story about Al Qadia and other militant terrorist organizations in the Middle East and worldwide.  It is her interviews with our own homegrown hate mongers that shocked me the most.  Domestic terrorists like Neal Horsley who’s website promotes surveillance, violence and murder against anyone who opposes his view on right to life.  (Horsley).

Looking at his website today. It seems Horsley has taken down the Unwanted page or  “Kill list” described by Jessica Stern as a webpage. A list that publicly displays the names, family members, phone numbers, and addresses along with other private information of abortionists, crossing off the doctors who have been assassinated for their crimes of murder via providing abortions.  It was through one of these unwanted posters featuring an obstetrician and abortionist, Dr. John Britton, including his photo, home address, and details about his vehicle used by Horsley acquaintance Paul Hill to carry out Britton’s assassination (SPLC, 2002).

He is still asking his followers to donate money to support the cause and to continue to provide personal information on doctors, nurses, police officers who may have protected women entering abortion clinics along with judges and other lawmakers or supporters of a woman’s right to have a legal abortion.   He encourages his followers to act as lone wolf avengers, a term used by terror experts for vigilantes who commit acts of vandalism and terror on their own without connection to a larger organization.

Stern’s opening paragraph sums up the nature of terrorism up in a few simple words.  “It is about finding a clear purpose in a confusing world with too many choices.  (Stern, 2003)” It is a remarkable book for students of psychology, divinity, and history.  I personally recommend it to any book club or individual as just good summer reading.

References
Horsley, N. (2011). Nuremberg Files. Retrieved from http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/
Malley-Morrison, K., Young Oh, D., & Zaveri, T. (2009). Beliefs and Values [Peace and conflict: Moral Disengagement and Engagement]. Beliefs and Values, Volume 1(2), 151- 168.
Southern Poverty Law center, SPLC. [Intelligence Report, Spring 2002, Issue Number:  105]. (2002). Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2002/spring/the-propagandist?page=0,2
Stern, J. (2003). Terror in the name of God, why religious militants kill :  [Kindle].

Can compassion replace humiliation?

Posted on by kathiemm

Humiliation is clearly a means for showing disregard and contempt, and is perhaps particularly insidious because it can be done without any direct physical contact.

Countless experts on the Middle East have made note of centuries of humiliation by Christian invaders. Those invaders took land and resources by force, divided peoples up into arbitrarily created countries to weaken political and military resistance, and denigrated the most popular religion of the area.

Because of wide recognition of the destructive aftermath of humiliation, the Preamble of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins by stressing the importance of recognizing that:

“…the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” and that “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind….”

Acting ethically to promote human rights, peace, and reconciliation becomes particularly challenging in the face of inhumane acts perpetuated by other human beings.  Certainly, the retaliation of Muslim militants against innocent people in a U.N. Mission in Afghanistan is horrifying, just as is the desecration of the Qu’ran by Terry Jones.

By now we should understand  how violence begets violence in a constantly escalating spiral. We have not yet solved the threat of Star Wars or other forms of mass destruction that can wipe the human race from the planet.

We must develop new ways of dealing with insults to our beliefs and our rights–alternatives that don’t promote the spiral of retaliations.  One such approach is the Compassionate Listening Project (see video below).

An outgrowth of years of reconciliation efforts with Israel and Palestine, the initiative is designed to teach peacemaking skills at every level of human interaction from the personal family to the global family. Members of this project are ready to talk to anyone, including terrorists, to promote peace.

Can we even imagine a world where compassion and listening replace humiliation and retaliation?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology