Ethics and Homeland Security - Coursework Example

 Ethics and Homeland Security What ethical theories studied in this course could justify the United Nations as an ethical organization? Do you believe that the U.N. is ethical in theory and in practice (or neither)? Qualify your argument. The ethical theories that justify the existence of the United Nations as an ethical organization are the theory of deontology and the theory of utilitarianism. According to deontology, entities should observe their duties and obligations when deciding on an action on an ethical dilemma. That is, to ensure that their duties and obligations to other entities are upheld because it is the ethical thing to do. It stipulates that the entities belonging to one unit or body such as the United Nations organization ought to act in such a manner as to ensure that their duties and obligations to the other entities within the organization are adhered to. According to the Utilitarianism theory, entities should select the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most number of entities. Under this theory, it is logical that states came up with the United Nations because it was an organization that bore the greatest benefit to the most number of nations as they would collaborate in security matters, economic development and so on. The decision making process within the organisation is also based on the same principle as it is based on majority vote. However, the United Nations is only ethical in theory. In practice, the organisation is not ethical as most of its decisions are not meant to benefit the most number of members but to maintain the status quo. For example, the UNEP remains a mandate of the UN rather than an independent agency of the UN making it a toothless dog when it comes to dealing with environmental matters. The developed countries thwarted a bid to make it a fully fledged agency during the Rio +20 talks. Briefly analyze Just War Theory and its application to humanitarian intervention. Was the U.S. use of force in Somalia in 1993 justified morally? Why or why not? The just war theory indicates that war should only be embarked on when a moral cause is present. An example of a just reason for war to be used is if a state is aggrieved. In such a situation, war can be used to subdue the aggressor. But even then it should be the last resort because the cost of war is great and it is easy for justice to be violated during its course. But war is allowed when there exists right intention as in the case of humanitarian intervention when it is necessary to wage war in order to save a state’s people from oppression. The use of force by the United States in Somalia in 1993 was justified because its intention was to stabilize the country to enable humanitarian assistance to enter the country. According to Admoral Howe, who served in the war, the United States went to Somalia to “save the situation” in order to bring food aid to the starving population and to provide an environment for relief to flow. But above all, the intention was to transfer the mission to the United Nations as soon as possible. Simply by the virtue that the mission was meant for humanitarian aid, the mission was morally justified. The United States being a most endowed state had the moral duty and obligation as stipulated by the deontology school of thought to come to the aid of the poor and politically unstable state of Somalia. Not for its own sake but for the sake of its people who were members of the greater human population and who were at the time facing starvation due to political upheaval. U.S. policy states that “the use of torture is illegal.” There is a known terrorist mastermind in U.S. custody who is unwilling to divulge his wealth of information. Top CIA official’s support the clandestine use of water boarding to elicit his information that is judged could help thwart an imminent terrorist attack. Give an ethical argument for and against the use of water boarding on this subject. Water boarding has been in the headline for all the wrong reasons it has been criticized as an interrogation method used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA ) to get information from persons deemed to have helpful information on terror attacks in the United States. This was a method that was popularized by the Bush administration following the 9/11 bomb attacks. Water boarding is a form of torture, as the subject is restrained and has water poured on his cloth coered face giving him the feeling of drowning. One can say that the state has the moral obligation according to the Utilitarian school of thought to act in such a manner as to protect the interests of the majority. Here such detainees are deemed to be the minority and to be a threat to the majority who are the citizens of the United States. Therefore, the United States government is morally justified to use whatever means necessary including the infamous water boarding torture mechanism, to retrieve information that it thinks will help protect its citizens. However, water boarding is not ethical as it goes against the ethical principle of least harm. This is because water boarding can and does lead to adverse physical damage like lung and brain damage. It also leads to psychological trauma to the victim. Further, the rights school of thought stipulates that the rights of a people as set by the society should be held paramount. The United States Bill of Rights clearly declares a non torture policy within the United States. Is terrorism simply “the poor man’s” use of force? If nations can justify war, can non-state actors? Using Just War Theory, give a justification for and against the use of terrorism through the lens of Hezbollah. Terrorism can indeed be viewed as a poor man’s use of force. This is because terrorisms typically cannot afford the elaborate weapons and techniques that states can afford when waging war. They are typically small groups of likeminded individuals with very limited resource which they often have to get through fraudulent deals such as piracy in the Indian Ocean that the Al shabaab used to fund their activities. They therefore usually resort to cost effective tactics that require the least manpower but have the potential to get the highest casualties such as bombs. States can justify war when they are aggrieved. However, in as much as one can be tempted to say that non state actors can also justify war. But this is not true as non state actors have no right to act against a state as only states have jurisdiction to act against other states. According to the just war theory, states can engage in war when they are aggrieved, but only when other means have failed. In the same vein, Hezbollah could be justified in its actions against Israel as dialogue has not bore any fruits as Israel continues to attack and invade Arabic states such as Lebanon and Syria. However, the Just war theory states that war should be avoided as its cost is far greater that its benefits and that it should only be used where the intention is right. Hezbollah’s agenda is motivated by religion and most casualties of its activities are innocent civilians as was the case in the Burgas bus bomb in Bulgaria. Understanding the USA PATRIOT Act and its implications on civil liberties at home, do you believe that the costs to our liberties are worth the security measures that the Act provides? Does the principle of U.S. liberties trump the practical realities of homeland security? The government is mandated to ensure the security of its citizens. This might include the violation of the rights of a few people but it is for the greater good of all. The PATRIOT ACT is one such measure that was signed into law by the Bush administration to curb terrorism. Utilitarian ethics stipulate that a state should act to protect the interests of the majority. So, if the interests of the majority are protected by violating the rights of a few then they are justified. The cost of having phone calls, emails and financial records of individuals deemed as threats to security is too small compared to the cost of another terrorist attack like the 9/11 attacks that led to many deaths. The United States’ principle of liberties does not trump the practical realities of homeland security. In order to guarantee homeland security, the United States intelligence agencies have to retrieve information that is rarely given freely. This is where the use of covert means such as telephone and email surveillance is required. But this is only used where the monitored individual is suspected to be a threat. So the vast majority of United States citizens are not monitored. Email and telephone correspondence can give insights into planned attacks and financial records can help identify individuals being funded to carry out acts of terror. So, in as much as liberties should be protected, the reality is that to protect the rights of the majority to security the rights of a few will be sacrificed. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Understanding the powers given to the federal government to search, seize, and survey under the USA PATRIOT Act, do you feel that the 4th Amendment is being violated? Make a coherent argument for or against the USA PATRIOT Act vis-à-vis the 4th Amendment. (You are not expected to have in-depth knowledge of the 4th Amendment) The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights under the American constitution. The Fourth Amendment does indeed protect the citizens of the United States from arbitrary search and seizure which also includes arrests. It requires that a warrant that has been sanctioned by the judiciary be produced in the event that the law enforcement agencies want to either search or seize property of an individual or to arrest the individual himself. But under the PATRIOT ACT these rights are undermined and law enforcement agencies now work under lower legal restrictions when collecting intelligence within the borders of the United States. However, one has to look at the bigger picture. If the intelligence agencies had had the mandate to search and seize personal property before the 9/11 incident, perhaps information on the planned attacks would have been found before hand and helped in preventing it from happening. A lot of information has been gained from searches mandated under the PATRIOT ACT. This information has been used to identify people deemed to be risks to national security and thwarted many terrorist attempts. For example in September 2009, Naji-bullah Zazi and four other people were arrested for allegedly buying explosive chemical materials to allegedly make a bomb which they intended to detonate in the New York Subway system. Therefore, the violation of these rights is important in order to protect the security of the people which is more important as rights can only thrive in an orderly environment and not in chaos. References Fox 19. (2011). Reality Check: Has the Patriot Act thwarted 42 terror attacks? Retrieved April 26, 2013, from Read More