This essay critiques the moral grounds of the Iraq war and the implications of the Patriot Act on civil liberties.
This essay questions whether the American War on Terror was justifiable. It begins by arguing that the initiation of the war on Iraq was immoral due to the illegitimate use of force that unnecessarily generated substantial mass casualties. This use of force was also granted based on an uncertain assumption drawn by the Bush administration that Iraq had violated its United Nations (UN) agreement, which is a highly devastating claim to make for the consequential purpose of waging a war. Unlawful torturous techniques were also employed in black sites, which are clandestine jails used to hold prisoners who are not charged with a crime for the purpose of interrogation. However, these black sites were held in order to perform extraordinary rendition on alleged Al-Qaeda members, attempting to extract information about terrorist groups’ plans under the discriminate assumption that these prisoners were in fact associated to these groups based upon their religious identity. The final part of the essay offers a critical dissection of the validity of the Patriot Act, which disregarded numerous civil liberties as well as the U.S. Constitution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diana El-Baraqouni (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: