He gave private information on corporations to the public for free, and he was arrested. This does tell a lot about the legal system. Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? And a law can be easily gamed with a good lawyer. The laws underlying slavery are obvious examples of extremely unjust laws. Nazi Germany had an awful lot of anti-Jew laws.
There is no reason to believe that just because a law passes, it is for the best or that it is right or moral. Unjust and tyrannical laws are not just part of the past; recently French president Emmanuel Macron vowed to criminalize criticizing Zionism, more than intellectuals signed an open letter to protest.
But is it always right to break the law and follow your personal beliefs? The New Zealand shooter broke the law and killed 50 Muslims in Christchurch because he thought he was doing it for the greater good, he thought it was needed to be done.
He even wrote a manifesto to explain why he broke the law and ended the lives of many. But he was a traitor. Gods would be needed to give men laws. Religions are controversial. Many countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran have Islamic laws. Such Theocratic countries exploit the right of non believers and minorities.
Individual freedom is almost nonexistent. For instance a woman not wearing the Hijab in Iran can be lashed or jailed.
Child marriage is lawful in such countries because their prophet did promote it. And he is the example they have to follow. Terrorists who have a literal translation of the Koran feel obligated to kill Kufar Non Muslims. The west separated religion and state for a reason. Where to draw the line?
He says targeted killing as response to threats and to prevent potential terrorist attacks is justified. The final portion of the book analyzes consequentialism within the scope of normative ethics and deontological ethics. University of Illinois law and philosophy professor Michael Moore says in "Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices" that targeted killing can be seen as justified through both deontological and consequentialist models.
University of Pennsylvania School of Law professor Leo Katz writes in "Targeted Killing and the Strategic Use of Self-Defense" that there is a danger of a state government artificially generating instances in which it asserts it must use targeted killing in self-defense. He warns against situations in which governments find it easier to kill terrorists than to put them through due process of law.
Katz concludes that current regulations support targeted killing because existing law does not consider his argument and justifies the tactical elimination of terrorists. Nevertheless, the book reflects the entire spectrum of diverging views on the matter, and adds an important impetus to move the current debate forward.
Week 1: What is law?: Law or morality - OpenLearn - Open University - WXM_3
Cohen wrote in an article for the International Journal of Legal Information , "Within the context of moral and legal principles, and military strategy, the subject of targeted killings is analyzed in great detail. These essays are interdisciplinary in their approach, and give various sides of arguments on this rich subject. References, tables of cases and legal instruments are included making this an excellent reference for further research. It has useful tables of cases, instruments, legislation, and abbreviations, as well as an index. On the other hand, this collection of essays provides several original and useful treatments of various aspects of the subject.
The collection also received a review from University of Geneva postdoctoral research fellow in the faculty of law, Steven J.
Edited by Seth Lazar and Helen Frowe
Barela, in the Journal of International Criminal Justice. Ratner of the University of Michigan Law School reviewed the book for the American Journal of International Law , writing, "In light of the complexity of the legal and moral issues, Targeted Killings is a welcome addition to the academic literature. It aims to combine in one volume perspectives from legal experts, moral philosophers, and military planners.
Barnidge, Jr. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the book.
Log in to Wiley Online Library
For the concept, see Targeted killing. Roland Otto. Targeted Killings and International Law. William H. European Journal of International Law. Retrieved 30 September March Journal of International Criminal Justice. Archived from the original on 27 May January American Journal of International Law. Winter International Journal of Legal Information. International Association of Law Libraries. In effect, the reader is given a series of paintings, where in each individual painting America may have struggled to adhere to any one of the three major elements of the Just War Tradition, but when the paintings are experienced together, the overarching trajectory is of a nation that consistently seeks justice and peace when it wages war.
In other words, it is an admission of intellectual and moral defeat, born of the view that, in effect, war is so depraved and humans so incapable of making hard moral choices, that war can never be considered moral. But this is a disordered view of the Just War Tradition since it deprives us of moral agency, and surely as just war is possible, there is also unjust peace.
To give a jurisprudence analogy: there is peace in a police state, but it is not a just peace. Like Hall and Charles, I do not agree with all of the conclusions contained within, but in each case I found the analysis to be helpful in clarifying my own thoughts about each particular conflict and the Just War Tradition in general. Too often, especially with the Balkanization inherent in cable news and social media, we are not necessarily exposed to good arguments by those with whom we differ in opinion; so like the editors, I appreciate being challenged in beliefs about which of the conflicts can correctly be considered just.
Relatedly, as it rightly should, America and the Just War Tradition is correctly focused on the topic expressed in its title. Just as Maximilien Robespierre and Pol Pot wanted to erase all previous history and culture that did not fit their tyranny, so do contemporary Leftists. The Church of Wokeness, with its ritual sacrifices upon the altar of identity politics, does not offer forgiveness, penance, or redemption as even the worst excesses of the Spanish Inquisition did, but only judgement and punishment.
When Law and Morality contradict each other
Thus, reading a book where each author works through the struggles of having both an objective morality and a subjective understanding of historical context is a welcome antidote to woke fanaticism. Perhaps another reason that this heuristic of adjudicating the past with an objective morality coupled with subjective context is not done as often as it should is simply because it is hard work. As such, the effort put into moral analysis and historical research that the contributors to this book put into their articles is quite evident. I doubt that anyone other than the most serious of students of American history will not learn a number of fascinating and timely facts regarding the twelve conflicts under consideration in this book.
Thus, not only is this a work on the tradition of Just War Theory, but it is also unapologetically within the Western intellectual tradition. The formulation of the three Just War Theory criteria do not inherently inform what one is to do after the moral analysis. Thus, while we should hold in respect the Just War Tradition qua Tradition, we must do so with a Burkean prudence.
In other words, ius ad bellum determines whether there is justice of the war, but it is not a deontological requirement. Prudence must dictate whether a leader of a country will lead his nation to war, even if the cause is just. For example, supposing that one argues that the Second Gulf War was a just war, in the sense it was morally right for George W.
Victor Tadros (University of Warwick, School of Law): "Law and Morality of War"
Bush to order the invasion of Iraq with the support of the US Congress by meeting the three criteria of ius ad bellum , it does not necessarily follow that Bush had to do so. In other words, does the determination of a just war morally require waging the war? While I believe the answer is no, a discussion of this would have been more than worthwhile.