GOV 312L 1st Edition Lecture 15 Outline of Current Lecture I. Are terrorist groups strategic?II. Discussion: Ignatieff vs Mueller & Stewart-What is the extent of the terrorist threat?III. The trade-off between security and libertyIV. Discussion: Mayerfeld vs Krauthammer-the debate over tortureCurrent Lecture- Terrorist strategies should be seen as costly signals to influence behavior- 5 goals to change terrorismo Attrition: attacking the adversary; war of willso Provocation: terrorist group tries to get adversary to interveneo Intimidation: terrorist is trying to overthrow or severely undermined the government through a reign of terroro Spoiling: a peace negotiation by the use of violence; terrorist will sabotage a peace treaty to end negotiation with chaoso Outbidding: internal audience; there is a competition between groups, even terrorist groups where they are looking for supporters Violence can attract supporters because it shows dedication to the cause- Rationality: goal-oriented behavior; does not include moral judgment about the content of those goalso Hitler can be conceptualized as rational if his policies try to achieve a goalo Terrorists aren’t rational according to this definition; striving for an unending terrorist conflict so no real goal- Ignatieff: terrorist threat is real and serious because it can undermine social systems of any state that the terrorists attacko Unlike Mueller and Stewart, he thinks US is vulnerable to a terrorist attacko Terrorizing population through suicide attacks can work in a democracyo He does not see terrorist organizations as incompetent or defeated but as threatening for future attackso Ability of terrorist groups to get a nuclear weapon is a real possibility A nuclear attack would be a big deal, changing American society by increasing their fear along with more destructionThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.o Those who suggest terrorism is not a major threat are completely missing the point. The # of deaths by terrorists are not the reason why its so destructive; it’s the psychological effect of terrorism makes it a threat, causing fear- Mueller and Stewart argue massive overreaction in the US to events of 9/11o Limited risk to American citizenso Alternate explanation: Al Qaeda extremely lucky on 9/11o Policy implications: cut counter-terrorism spending, out of Afghanistan and Iraq, reorient American grand strategy- Rely heavily on the 50 cases of potential domestic terrorismo Suggest this small number with limited damageo Many of these cases even manufactured by law enforcemento Conclusion: most potential terrorists are inept, which implies overstating threat posed by Al-Qaeda- Overspending by estimating “value” of counterterror spending- Assumptionsevidencesrelevant caseswhat’s left out- The tradeoff between security and liberty (Ignateiff)o How do we avoid another attack? Trade off between need and increased security measureso Could be seen as a trade-off between the good of the community (security) and the good of the individual (liberty)- Torture: infliction of extreme physical pain and/or sufferingo It must be intentional and the participant must have no weapon of defenseo Meant to break the victim’s will and give up informationo Should torture ever be allowed or not? Utilitarian approach: torture may be morally defensible; ticking time bomb scenario- You may be doing a terrible thing but the harm done is to one person but in that you can get information that saves the live of very many; harm done is offset by good that prevents harm to many more people- Moral liability: terrorist who gets captured/tortured might be bringing that torture upon himself because of actions they’ve already taken by setting up attacks; harm done to them is acceptable/less prohibited because of position they put themselves Rights based approach- Torture is never morally justified because it violates human rights- Moral liability: presumes guilt of the captured, could produce innocent victims Ticking time-bomb scenario- Known terrorist has to be captured- Terrorist attack that will kill multitudes is imminent- Captured terrorist has vital information that can prevent attack (they would know where the time bomb is)- Moral dilemma: do you use torture to extract info that may prevent a future attack Mayerfeld: Torture is always wrong and never justified- TTB scenario is unrealistic and never happens in real life- TTB scenario requires that guilt of captured terrorist is certain (which is impossible). Due to uncertainty, many innocents are tortured- TTB scenario requires that we’re certain torture will work. Torture produces bad info because victims will say anything to make the pain stop- Torture can’t be restricted to TTB scenario. If you provide an exception, the use of torture will expand past that scenario- Torture is counterproductive. It alienates target populations, like Muslims, and does irreparable harm to intelligence and military personnel tasked with carrying out torture. Krauthammer: The case for exceptions to a ban on torture- TTB scenario is realistic and has occurredo He holds it to a much lower threshold of certaintyo TTB have real life examples, such as Israel, capturing terrorists with info on imminent attacks and prevented death of innocent victims from the attack- Utilitarian moral calculus: torture as “moral duty” to save