Pros And Cons Of The Hybrid War-Law Model

592 Words3 Pages
“If we destroy human rights and rule of law in response to terrorism, they have won.” - Joichi Ito September 11th 2001, 2,977 americans lost their life in the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. The events that transpired that day ultimately set in motion the biggest war of our decade, the war on terror. Since 9/11 the U.S. has been criticized over the use of the hybrid war-law model related to the “War on Terrorism”. Many questioned if this model was morally acceptable and if it was potentially harmful to U.S. International relations. To determine the morality of the model you have to break down the issue. Why are we setting this model in place? What is terrorism? what is the desired effect that we should achieve? Is the result of the model or the intentions behind it the most important thing? George W. Bush recognized that freedom and hope was the best defense against extremist ideology, to prevent the spread of this extreme ideology we must fight it straight on. He declared we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.…show more content…
The hybrid war-law model in my oppionion incompassses the best of both worlds. The reading points out key advantages and disadvantages in this model that would either lean you in the direction to conclude that the model is either moral or immoral. Lubans’ talks about how terrorist walk the line of being soldiers when they must and mass murderers when they can. Terrorist often intend to inflict the most casualties to innocent people with total disregard to their own safety, many times taking their own life. Due to the nature of the beast is there a punishment that acts as a strong deterrent to persuade the extremist to act otherwise? History shows there is not, therefore it should grant for terrorist to receive fewer rights than normally

    More about Pros And Cons Of The Hybrid War-Law Model

      Open Document