Banks makes the seminal argument that the American War on Terror has occupied a murky middle group where no rules apply. People in Washington, it seems, are increasingly unwilling to use the word “war” because it has become a political liability. Still, there is an understanding that the War on Terror is not within the realm of criminal policing. What this means is that the rules of war do not seem to apply, and the constitutional rules governing policing certainly do not apply. As Banks argues, this presents a number of different problems. Not only is this a major problem for the War on Terror itself, which can levy injustices against people of other countries, but as Banks notes, it can create a slippery slope, where even American citizens are denied their civil rights. Banks’s arguments are on-point, as demonstrated by some of the antics that have taken place during the course of this military campaign.
The term “moral vacuum” may seem incendiary to some, but it is probably the proper term to use in this situation. In the section of her book on ethics and the natural law, Banks argues, “The idea of natural law is that underneath the diversity of human cultures and beliefs about what is right and wrong, we can identify some factors that are common to our human nature” (Banks). This, though, is not what takes place with the American military’s current campaign. It seems that more and more, the American military bases its actions on a specific set of rules, just as the police in America operate on a basic set of rules. There is a sense among Americans and in the country at large that the American way – American policies on military action and the American constitution – are an indication of the natural law. Where the War on Terror runs into trouble is that it is neither dictated by our military codes nor our constitution, which leaves it in a murky middle ground where people who would generally just apply rules are now being given little guidance on what is right or wrong. There is a very limited ability of the people in charge to figure out where the natural ethics of war exist when the rules do not specifically apply.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"War on Terror".
One of the ways in which this has taken place is with the waterboarding and other types of torture that have taken place in the CIA’s camps across Europe and the rest of the Middle East. Torture, of course, is illegal under the Geneva Convention. It would certainly be a violation of the civil rights of an individual if that individual were covered under the constitution. Because neither of these documents seem to apply in the minds of the American military brass, there seems to be an anything-goes attitude that permeates. Likewise, one can look to the existence of Guantanamo Bay to see that this situation operates in the murky middle ground. If it were war, these men would be prisoners of war, and they would need to be released when the war was over. The War on Terror never ends, though, so these men can be detained indefinitely. Likewise, the detainment of men without pressing charges would certainly be illegal under the constitution, so the situation is not being treated like a typical criminal investigation.
As the author notes, this sort of erosion of principles can quickly lead to justifications for doing the same to American citizens. When leaders refuse to recognize any ethical code in an attempt to do what they want to do anyway, it brings up the distinct possibility that the same mindsets could be used against citizens in the United States.
- Banks, C. C. L. (2012). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
- Johns, F. (2005). Guantanamo Bay and the Annihilation of the Exception.European Journal of International Law, 16(4), 613-635.
- Mazzetti, M., & Shane, S. (2009). Interrogation memos detail harsh tactics by the CIA. New York Times, 16, A1.
