International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (1):107-126 (2006)
This paper examines the tensions at play in three important documents involved in the ‘war on terror’: the “Application of Treaties” White House Legal Counsel Memo of 2001, the “National Security Strategy” document of 2002, and the 2004 Supreme Court decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Reading these documents, it becomes clear that there is an overarching misunderstanding and confusion of the traditionally separate concepts of ‘criminal’ and ‘enemy’ in the struggle against globalized terrorism
|Keywords||Applied Philosophy General Interest|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Review Essay/Defeating Terrorism Without Fighting a War.John M. Burkoff - 2005 - Criminal Justice Ethics 24 (1):47-51.
Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs: Philosophy for the White House.Jeremy Waldron - 2010 - Oxford University Press.
Terror, Terrorism, States, and Societies: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective.Samir Kumar Das & Rada Iveković (eds.) - 2010 - Women Unlimited.
Terrorism and Collective Responsibility.Seumas Miller - 2004 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (2):263-281.
The Curious Element of Motive in Definitions of Terrorism: Essential Ingredient - or Criminalising Thought?Ben Saul - unknown
Philosophy 9/11: Thinking About the War on Terrorism.Timothy Shanahan (ed.) - 2005 - Open Court.
Terror and Ethnocentrism: Foundations of American Support for the War on Terrorism.Cindy D. Kam & Donald R. Kinder - manuscript
Terrorism, Security, and Nationality: An Introductory Study in Applied Political Philosophy.Paul Gilbert - 1994 - Routledge.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads38 ( #135,486 of 2,168,628 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #187,166 of 2,168,628 )
How can I increase my downloads?