LAW opposes Terrorism

Defensive political violence is not terrorism because it is based on the laws of necessity and self-defence. These laws can never justify attacks on innocents. Why not?

First of all, if you put an innocent person’s life in great danger while you try to use violence to stop an attack on another person, then that innocent man or woman has the right to use violence in self-defence against you. It’s that simple. So-called “collateral damage” is against the inherent logic of self-defence because the victims of this damage also have the right to defend their lives.

It can be objected that, legally speaking, self-defence is only allowed against attacks that are illegal. Some may argue that if a law says that collateral damage is justified in some grave emergency situations, like war for instance, then the innocent victims of such damage will not have a legal right to use violence in self-defence against the persons who are about to sacrifice them. It could be said that the victims will in such a case have an ethical right to act in self-defence, but not a legal right.

But situations like these are very rare. Killing innocents during military intervention, for instance, is not universally legal because the laws of the country being intervened in will not allow that its own innocent citizens are being sacrificed as collateral damage by foreign forces.

One can, however, imagine a situation where it is necessary for the police to sacrifice ten innocent persons during an attack against a terrorist with a nuclear bomb. But if some of these innocent people use violence against the attacking police forces in order to save their own lives, then they will probably not be punished in a court of law, because you can’t punish innocent persons who resist being sacrificed. Both the police and these innocent individuals have justice on their side.

The above-mentioned situation is paradoxical. It presents us with an awful dilemma that makes the mind spin. On the one hand, the law of necessity can, at a first glance at least, justify the sacrificing of a few innocent persons if that is the only way to rescue thousands of people. On the other hand, innocent people have the right to protect their lives if they are in danger of becoming victims of collateral damage. Collateral damage infringes on the law of self-defence.

But can’t it be argued that necessity can justify the breaking of all laws, including the law of self-defence? Well, what does necessity mean in situations like these? Human beings probably have a free will, so the way we speak of necessity here can’t be compared to the concept of necessity often associated with physics and natural science. A Buddhist will say that violence is never necessary. And you can choose passivity by not choosing between the justification of “necessity” and the right to self-defence. But the conclusion is probably that there may be some very rare situations where many will feel that they are forced to do something that, principally speaking, is not justifiable at all.

At least it is clear that necessity can’t justify terrorism, because terrorism is never necessary. There are always other options. In addition, the concept of necessity presupposes that one’s actions can be justified by more or less common ethical standards that a majority of all human beings can agree upon regardless of ideology, religion and politics. Almost everyone will agree that it can be necessary to sacrifice some innocent individuals if that is the only way to save thousands of people during an emergency. But only a very small minority will claim that the religious or political reasons given by terrorists justify random killings of innocents. Terrorism can’t be justified.