1

TERRORISM:
A Challenge to Christian Morality
Victor R. Aguilan DLSU 2nd term SY 2004-2005 December 16,2004 I. Context of the Issue Terrorism has become an everyday word. Nearly everyone has some ideas about it, and the images of its results are indelibly etched in our individual memories. Yet there is much about it that is confusing. It is a term that is often overused, applied and misapplied to any abhorrent act of violence in society whether committed by a psychotic individual, a religious fanatic, or a political dissident or group of them. Any discussion on terrorism presupposes a violent context or situation. The use of force and violence has always been justified in terms of consequences and duty of the legitimate authority. In traditional ethics legitimate use of violence belongs solely to the legitimate authority, e.g. the State. The State has the legitimacy to use force and violence in order to safeguard peace, protect the innocent and execute justice by deterring lawlessness and criminals. Thus any agent employing violence other than the State has no legitimacy. Theologians have considered rebellion against authority, since Augustine, as morally wrong. Augustine holds the view that because of sin God has ordained the State to have power (sword) to deter evil in the world. The use of force and violence (sword) belongs to the State.1 The leader Augustine had in mind was one whom God had entrusted with the responsibility of governance. In his time, this was the emperor. Later, it would be kings and princes. Under modern democracy, it is the elected leadership. No private citizen is answerable to God for the welfare of their states in a way that these leaders are answerable to God. However wars between two States (legitimate authority), traditional ethics had to develop a theory to justify which State is justified in waging war. Rightness or wrongness of violence is not the issue. The issue is the war itself and its conduct. In modern context, the legitimacy of the use of violence by the State is being questioned. Can the State loose its legitimacy to use violence? And when the State looses it legitimacy to use violence (unjust violence) can the citizens appropriate the use of violence as an act of self-defense and justice? The answers to these questions have been influence by a modern understanding of society. From the modern perspective, violence may be defined as the attempt of an individual or group to impose its will on others through any nonverbal, verbal or physical means that inflict
1

Wilfrid Parsons, S.J., "The Influence of Romans XIII on Christian Political Thought--Part One, Prior to Augustine, Part Two, Augustine to Hincmar," Theological Studies, Vol I (1940) p. 337-364 and Vol. II (1941) p. 325-346, at p. 325. cf. Luther shared the same view with Augustine, (see Martin Luther, Selected Writings [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], p. 215.)

psychological or physical injury2 While human violence is rooted in the patterns of aggression among primates, humans transform aggression through reflective selfconsciousness which uses symbols to justify violence. Human violence is not an instinct but an intentional act. It is an act of the will. But what are the causes of violent conflict. Violence involves not only the actions of individuals; it can also be embedded in social, political, and economic structures that systematically subjugate some persons to others. Modern understanding of violence is more structural. War, crimes and lawless are violent actions. But there are structures or systems that generate violence that dehumanizes, alienates and causes injuries to the majority of people in society. Racism, slavery and impoverishment are forms of structural violence. However the current research on causes of violent conflict so far has not produced a consistent theory acceptable to most scholars working in the field. However, there is one consensus: that conflict cannot be reduced to a single cause, or a single explanation. There are different categories of explanations: genetic and evolutionary/biologist theories (aggression as a genetic function, maximisation of survival chances), behaviourist theories (war as learned behaviour), cost-benefit theories (maximisation of benefit), ecological (war for scarce resources), social/cultural theories (ethnicity and/or religion as conflict causes), and cognitive (attitudes) explanations. Agreement seems to exist on these three important factors for the development of war or armed conflict:3 Bad economic conditions seem to be a main cause for internal conflicts. Repressive political systems, especially if they are in a state of transition, are war-prone Degradation of renewable resources (erosion, deforestation, scarcity of water) may contribute to the possibility of armed conflict. It appears that the primary cause of conflict is injustice. Because of the structural or systemic nature of violence, some scholars have proposed that there is spiral escalation of violence in society and history. Helder Cmara in his Spiral of Violence argues that violence breed violence in an unending spiral. 4 Structural violence triggers protest from people. The States response to peoples protest or opposition is repression. People are compelled to resort to counteropposition to the intensifying state violence through peoples armed resistance.5
2

Craig L. Nessan, Sex, Aggression, and Pain: Sociobiological Implications for Theological Anthropology, Zygon 33 (1998): 451. 3 Smith, Dan (2000): Trends and Causes of Armed Conflicts. In Norbert Ropers et al, (eds), The Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Berlin: Berghof Foundation. http://www.b.shuttle.de/berghof/handbook.html 14 pp. 4 Don Helder Camara, Spiral of Violence (Dimension Books, 1971) 5 Fr. Carlos Ronquillo, Ethics of Social Violence (unpublished paper 2004)

Others have shown that sometimes people have resorted to unarmed or nonviolent resistance to State repression.6 In contemporary ethics, the use of force or violence by national liberation movements have be recognized as proper and justified as acts of peoples self-defense or in the exercise of people's right of self-determination against colonial domination, alien occupation, illegitimate or racist regimes.7 The moral question facing national liberation movement is what is its conduct in the use of violence. Should it be guided by a moral principle? Or violence use by national liberation movement is justified on pragmatic or consequentialist ground (end justify the means)? The fundamental question is Should tactics in armed conflict be regulated by a moral principle? What tactics should be considered immoral regardless of the political objectives, strategical goals and the status of the agent (State or nonstate)? Specifically are acts of terrorism morally wrong? To begin our analysis let us define terrorism. II. A Question of Definition Without a definition of terrorism and basic understanding of it, condemning or outlawing it is futile. There can be not genuine condemnation or prohibition without definition. This is a logical first step, much as a physician has to diagnose a patient before prescribing the appropriate treatment. American professors Anthony Clark Arend and Robert J. Beck, in their book International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm (1993), note that a 1983 study by Dutch political scientist Alex Schmid found that 109 definitions of terrorism have been advanced between 1936 and 1981. More have appeared since then, including at least six from the US government. For the sake of discussion the following are some definitions of terrorism 1. An organized pattern of violent behavior designed to influence government policy or intimidate the population for the purpose of influencing government policy (Lodge, 1981)

Helder Cmara argues that the nonviolent way of Jesus and Gandhi is the only path to end the spiral of violence and genuine human solidarity of the future. (Ibid) cf. Walter Wink, Violence and Nonviolence in South Africa (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1987) Armed response from oppressed people is not the only option. Oppressed people could consider a nonviolent or unarmed response such as strikes, work stoppage, civil disobedience, marches, occupation of public spaces (EDSA), non-cooperation and other unarmed tactics. 7 Fr. Daniel Kroger, OFM, JUSTIFIED REVOLUTION--A THEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW, (unpublished paper: n.d.)

2. Terror: violence committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands (Webster, 1983) 3. Terror is symbolic action designed to influence political behavior by extranormal means entailing the use or threat of violence (Thorton, 1964) 4. Terrorism may be define as violent, criminal behavior designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or a substantial segment of it, for political purposes (National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1976) 5. Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (US Federal Bureau of Investigation) 6. Terrorism is the unlawful use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. (US Department of Defense) 7. The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (noncombatant is interpreted to include civilians and military personnel unarmed at the time of the incident) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The term terrorist groups means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. (United States Department of State. Patterns of Global Terrorism 1993 April 1994 p IV) Regardless of the specific way in which one defines terrorism, we must come to realize that the term terrorism becomes a tag of defamation, a means of excluding those so labeled from human standing. When the term terrorism is used to describe the actions of a rebel (freedom fighter), it tends to shape the opinions and reactions of others. The manner in which terrorism is defined depends on who acts and who defines. Common definitions of terrorism tend to be one-sided. They focus attention on aspects of terrorism that define powerful nations as legitimate entities and actors while defining the same acts undertaken by powerless nations and groups as illegitimate. Some political observers have argued that terrorism is a label created by the powerful nations (USA, UK). The powerful define terrorism in a way that excludes their own behavior, and the behavior of their allies, from scrutiny. It is not hardly surprising that the group identified, as terrorist by the US are overwhelmingly those groups that opposed U.S. foreign policy.

A working definition: A Proposal To resolve this problem of definition, fortunately, some insightful thoughts in recent years might help us in this quandary. Arend and Beck themselves proposed "a working definition, one which characterizes both the terrorist act and the terrorist actor" rather than terrorism. They said a terrorist act is distinguished by at least three specific qualities: (1) terrorism entails the use of violence or force, (2) the violence is utilized in pursuit of political goals, and (3) the violence is intended to generate fear in the intended audience. Hence, Arend and Beck define an "act of terrorism" as "the threat or use of violence with the intent of causing fear in a target group, in order to achieve political objectives." A more sophisticated version of this definition is "the threat or actual use of violence to create extreme fear or anxiety in a target group in order to coerce it to meet certain political or quasi-political objectives." Yet these apparently simple elements of a definition are not without contention. Since all definitions of terrorism involves violence or threat of violence, yet it is important to remember that while terrorism is violence, not every form of violence is terrorism (Laqueur, 1999:8). So what makes a violent act into an act of terrorism? For the sake of discussion, I have borrowed these five cases of political violence, drawn from real historical events, without regard to the nature of the "political end" bring sought. Is it terrorism? Case 1: Band of Marxist rebels, aiming to overthrow a government they claim is oppressive, assassinate the head of state. Do you consider this case to be terrorism? ____Yes ____No Case 2: A loosely knit group of activists band together to vandalize corporate goods in an effort to protest tax policy. Do you consider this case to be terrorism? ____Yes ____No Case 3: A group fighting a "war of liberation" against a government it deems oppressive bombs a hotel used as a military installation. The group calls ahead, warning of the attack, but the blast still claims scores of victims, some civilians. Do you consider this case to be terrorism? ____Yes ____No Case 4: Religious Inspired group takes foreign embassy hostage, demanding release of political prisoners. No hostages are harmed. Do you consider this case to be terrorism? ____Yes ____No Case 5:

A State-sponsored troop launched an all-out-war to hasten the end of armed conflict. To spare and minimize noncombatant casualties they forced the evacuation of civilians. So when the soldiers entered the rebel territory they destroyed (bombed and burn) properties and detained all able-bodied men they found still inside the no-mans land. Soldiers shot men who run-away. Do you consider this case to be terrorism? ____Yes ____No III. Issue(s) identification

Focus on the acts, not just the perpetrators What is terrorism? Consensus has been elusive. But since many governments including our own is officially at war with terrorism led by the US, definition is crucial. The term has been applied promiscuously to all forms of violence. But to get beyond propaganda, terrorism must be defined according to the quality of the act itself, not the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of their cause. An act is not terrorism simply because one opposes the cause, or because someone labeled "terrorist" carries it out. Nor is an act not terrorism because a cause is deemed noble. Ends do not justify means. What are the qualities of terrorism? Hans Peter Gasser, the long-time editor of the International Review of the Red Cross, as early as 1985 in a paper entitled Prohibition of terrorist acts in international humanitarian law, argued that the idea that the international humanitarian law (IHL)8 "can provide guidance to the legal approach to terrorism in peacetime"(emphasis added). Suggestion was also made by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his addresses to the General Assembly on 01 October 2001 and to the Security Council on 12 November 2001, while acknowledging the definition of terrorism as one of the most difficult issues before the UN, nevertheless referred to IHL according to which "even in situations of armed conflict, the targeting of innocent civilians is illegal."
8

IHL (International Humanitarian Law) Instruments Signed & Ratified by the Philippines a. 1949 Geneva Conventions (GC) I-IV b. 1977 Additional Protocol (AP) II relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts c. 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity d. 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (BWC) e. 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) and its 1980 Protocols I-III, 1995 Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons and 1996 Amended Protocol II on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices f. 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction g. 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel h. 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of AntiPersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Treaty)

In the 1977 Additional Protocol I Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Article 51, paragraph 2 and the identical Article 13, paragraph 2 of Protocol II contain the following provisions for both international and non-international armed conflicts read as follows: "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." From this provision for situations of armed conflict, one can draw some elements why it is immoral a. making civilians the object of attack (deliberately targeting civilians) b. primary purpose of spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population. The elements of targeting civilians as well as spreading terror are what are missing in the Arend and Beck definition of terrorism.Of course, we should add two elements from the Arend and Beck concept of terrorist act: c. political or even quasi-political objective (to distinguish it from criminal madness) d. intended audience (not necessarily the target civilians). But the most important element is still the civilian or noncombatant target. There is a need to shift the defining element to the target rather than the source of the violence. Stated otherwise, it is seeing terror from the victim's point of view. Thus, terrorism can be understood as intentionally targeting noncombatants with lethal or severe violence for political purposes.9 In ethical terms, this formulation seems to capture the salient feature of the practice, the intentional targeting of noncombatants (and not in the context of crime or the like). These is the Principle of Noncombatant Immunity (PNI): it is never permissible to aim to kill (or severely harm) noncombatants; PNI forbids terrorist as well as counter-terrorist activities aimed at killing (or severely harming) noncombatants. The principle of Noncombatant Immunity recognizes that the only appropriate objects of force in a conflict are combatantsthose who are engaged in fighting and are therefore either individually or collectively offering harm to the putative agent of force or to another. All others are to be regarded as noncombatants and excluded from attack. Similarly, soldiers who are wounded, sick, or have surrendered (hors de combat) are noncombatant in the relevant sense, and attacks against them may be morally terroristic.

C. A. J. Coady, Terrorism, in Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, 2d ed. (New York: Routledge, 2001), p. 1697.

On the other hand, a Nation-State has always the legitimacy to use force (violence) in defense of its sovereignty. However the use of force (war) by a State must conform to the international/national laws and moral principle of the just war. Thus when a government violates the principles of JW and international treaties in the use of force it could be held accountable for engaging in terrorism and unjust war (example, a policy of reprisal aerial bombing or artillery/tank shelling targeting the civilian mass base of the enemy). It is important to note that terrorism is not defined by the precise nature of one's social or political goals. Terrorists can have awful goals: ethnic cleansing, preservation of a dictatorship against the will of the people, preservation of oppressive regimes. They can also have noble goals, including the ending of oppression against people who really are being oppressed. Terrorism is a tactic that can be used by states, including big powers, as well as insurgent groups. IV. Descriptive analysis Based on the preceding discussion on the definition of terrorism or acts of terrorism, we can now identify the two types of terrorism (Martin:2003)10 V. Dissident Terrorism or Terrorism from Below Acts of terrorism committed by nonstate movements and groups against governments, ethno-national groups, religious groups, and other perceived enemies. It is a bottom up terrorism perpetrated by individuals, groups or movements in opposition to an existing political or social order. Those who lack political, military and economic resources have always resorted to what is now known as asymmetric conflict. (This is where small and dedicated groups of people, social and political movements challenging larger dedicated powerful nations and peoples). The tactics that these groups employ to secure recognition of their social and political needs always rely on surprise, cunning, and probing for vulnerability in the powerful. These dissident terrorist groups may have secular (Marxist or nationalist) or religious (Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Islamic) ideology. In the country, there two major dissident terrorist groups considered by both the Philippine and of the United States, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and New People Army (NPA). Below is a brief description of each group according to the US State Department. Patterns of Global Terrorism -2003 Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism April 29, 2004 Appendix B from the Web site is managed by the Bureau of Public Affairs,
10

Gus Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues (London: SAGE Publications, 2003) pp 81-134.

U.S.

Department

of

State.

Abu Sayyaf Group Description (ASG) The ASG is a small, brutally violent Muslim separatist group operating in the southern Philippines. Some ASG leaders allegedly fought in Afghanistan during the Soviet war and are students and proponents of radical Islamic teachings. The group split from the much larger Moro National Liberation Front in the early 1990s under the leadership of Abdurajak Abubakar Janjalani, who was killed in a clash with Philippine police on 18 December 1998. His younger brother, Khadaffy Janjalani, has replaced him as the nominal leader of the group, which is composed of several semiautonomous factions. First designated in October 1997. Activities Engages in kidnappings for ransom, bombings, beheadings, assassinations, and extortion. Although from time to time it claims that its motivation is to promote an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelagoareas in the southern Philippines heavily populated by Muslimsthe ASG has primarily used terror for financial profit. Recent bombings may herald a return to a more radical, politicized agenda, at least among the factions. The groups first large-scale action was a raid on the town of Ipil in Mindanao in April 1995. In April of 2000, an ASG faction kidnapped 21 persons including 10 Western touristsfrom a resort in Malaysia. Separately in 2000, the group briefly abducted several foreign journalists, three Malaysians, and a US citizen. On 27 May 2001, the ASG kidnapped three US citizens and 17 Filipinos from a tourist resort in Palawan, Philippines. Several of the hostages, including one US citizen, were murdered. During a Philippine military hostage rescue operation on 7 June 2002, US hostage Gracia Burnham was wounded but rescued, and her husband Martin Burnham and Filipina Deborah Yap were killed during the operation. Philippine authorities say that the ASG had a role in the bombing near a Philippine military base in Zamboanga on 2 October that killed three Filipinos and one US serviceman and wounded 20 others. It is unclear what role ASG has played in subsequent bombing attacks in Mindanao. Strength Estimated to have 200 to 500 members. Location/Area of Operation The ASG was founded in Basilan Province and operates there and in the neighboring provinces of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi in the Sulu Archipelago. It also operates in the Zamboanga peninsula, and members occasionally travel to Manila. In mid-2003, the group started

10

operating in the major city of Cotobato and on the coast of Sultan Kudarat on Mindanao. The group expanded its operational reach to Malaysia in 2000 when it abducted foreigners from a tourist resort. External Aid Largely self-financing through ransom and extortion; may receive support from Islamic extremists in the Middle East and South Asia. Libya publicly paid millions of dollars for the release of the foreign hostages seized from Malaysia in 2000. Communist Party Description of Philippines/New The military wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), Peoples Army the NPA is a Maoist group formed in March 1969 with the aim of (CPP/NPA) overthrowing the government through protracted guerrilla warfare. The chairman of the CPPs Central Committee and the NPAs founder, Jose Maria Sison, reportedly directs CPP and NPA activity from the Netherlands, where he lives in self-imposed exile. Fellow Central Committee member and director of the CPPs overt political wing, the National Democratic Front (NDF), Luis Jalandoni also lives in the Netherlands and has become a Dutch citizen. Although primarily a rural-based guerrilla group, the NPA has an active urban infrastructure to conduct terrorism and uses city-based assassination squads. Derives most of its funding from contributions of supporters in the Philippines, Europe, and elsewhere and from so-called revolutionary taxes extorted from local businesses and politicians. First designated in August 2002. Designations by the United States and the European Union may have had an impact on funding. Activities The NPA primarily targets Philippine security forces, politicians, judges, government informers, former rebels who wish to leave the NPA, rival splinter groups, and alleged criminals. Opposes any US military presence in the Philippines and attacked US military interests, killing several US service personnel, before the US base closures in 1992. Press reports in 1999 and in late 2001 indicated that the NPA is again targeting US troops participating in joint military exercises as well as US Embassy personnel. The NPA claimed responsibility for the assassination of two congressmen from Quezon in May 2001 and Cagayan in June 2001 and many other killings. In January 2002, the NPA publicly expressed its intent to target US personnel if discovered in NPA operating areas. Strength: Slowly growing; estimated at more than 10,000. This number is significantly lower than its peak strength of around 25,000

11

in the 1980s. Location/Area of Operations Operates in rural Luzon, Visayas, and parts of Mindanao. Has cells in Manila and other metropolitan centers. External Unknown. Aid

Many agree that Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) is an Muslim extremist group engaged in acts of terrorism (kidnapping and murder). While some disagree on putting the label on the CPP-NPA-NDF as a terrorist organization.11 But there are non-government organizations, which have accused the CPP-NPA-NDF of engaging in acts of terrorism such as assassinations of noncombatant (government personnel, civilians, and former colleagues),12 extortions from political parties during election (permit to campaign)13, destroying vital utilities (buses, tractors and cellular phone towers),14 and recruitment of children (child-rebels/soldiers).15 Basically the CPP-NPA rebels were accused of violating the provisions of international humanitarian law (IHL) which they have publicly recognized when they signed the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) in 1998.16
11

BISHOPS URGE WITHDRAWAL OF DUTCH AND U.S. LISTING OF CPP/NPA AND PROF. SISON AS TERRORISTS http://www.philippinerevolution.org/def_jms/021007.nne.shtml; NCCP to President: Drop terror tag on Reds, Sison, http://www.inq7.net/reg/2003/jul/13/reg_5-1.htm 12 PDI Editorial, Terrorism, Oct 01, 2004 Inquirer News Service; AKBAYAN, Fascist Left on the Rise, October 12, 2004 and Amnesty International, Report on the Philippines - Covering events from January - December 2003. (http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/phl-summary-eng: accessed November 20,2004) 13 BISHOPS SCORE NPA 'TAXATION' SCHEME ON CANDIDATES, http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl100230.htm 14 NPA rebels go on a rampage with simultaneous attacks, Inquirer News Service, (http://www.inq7.net/reg/2004/jan/11/reg_1-1.htm); 15 Bayoran, Gilbert, NPA still recruiting minors, The Visayan Daily Star (electronic version), 29 March 2003, http://www.visayandailystar.com/2003/March/29/topstory5.htm; Mallari, Jr., Delfin T., NPA assailed on child warriors, Inquirer News Service, 4 January, 2003. An NPA spokesperson rebutted this allegation, saying that [t]he military is again peddling lies. What we follow is a strong and clearcut policy that prohibits any NPA unit to recruit combatants that are below 18 years old. He said that in cases where minors do wish to join the NPA, they are not given guns and are not assigned tasks that directly involve combat operations. According to the spokesperson [m]ost of them perform menial assignments, running errands, courier jobs and the likes. 16 GRP-NDFP Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), Part II, Article 4: It is understood that the universally applicable principles and standards of human rights and of international humanitarian law contemplated in this agreement include those embodied in the instruments signed by the Philippines and deemed to be mutually applicable to and acceptable by both parties. (italics supplied) cf. See also the official documents of the CPP-NPA the Basic Rules of the New Peoples Army (29 March 1969), Principle IV, Point 3. The document can be accessed from the National Democratic Front (NDF) website (www.geocities.com/~cpp-ndf).

12

But a word of caution, it must be observed that no national liberation movement or rebel group should be a priori condemned or exempted of culpability for terrorism by mere reason of its status as national liberation movement or rebel group. Each and every act in question of the organization must be examined on a case-to-case basis whether it qualifies as a terrorist act. As an exception, only if there is a clear and consistent pattern and policy of terrorist acts or methods by the organization would it be justified to designate it as a "terrorist organization." One terrorist act does not necessarily make a terrorist organization, unless the act is based on a policy of employing terrorist acts (for example, a policy of suicide-bombing targeting innocent civilians) 1. State Terrorism or Terrorism from Above Acts of terrorism committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived enemies. State terrorism can be directed against adversaries in the international domain or internally against domestic enemies. There are evidences that state terrorism is far greater than non-state terrorism, but state terrorism, except in the case of US-government-defined 'rogue states,' receives little attention (Campbell and Brenner, 2000; Herman, 1982; Stohl and Lopez, 1984). Many methods of warfare, such as bombing of civilians or use of anti-personnel weapons, are terroristic. Indeed, strategic bombing has similarities with genocide (Markusen and Kopf, 1995). It is well documented that the US and other western governments have repeatedly used, sponsored, supported or tolerated terrorism and regimes that use it (Blum, 2000; Chomsky and Herman, 1979). For example, US bombing in the Southeast Asian war killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The US and many other governments supported Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq during the 1980s despite its use of torture and chemical warfare. Via Pakistan's intelligence service, the CIA supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan from the 1980s onwards. This included support for bin Laden's network (Johnson, 2000). In the US government's attack on Afghanistan after 11 September, it has forged alliances with governments and forces known for serious human rights abuses, including Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. In the Philippine context, the GRP has been accused of engaging in acts of state terrorism it is total war policy against the rebels and its support to the US led war on terror. Human rights groups have reported of government soldiers committing human rights abuses, bombing and burning of civilian houses, religious buildings and other civilian infrastructures. The GRP has used paramilitary units (CAFGU), civilian volunteer organizations (CVOs) and armed vigilantes17. Furthermore the US is perceived as the main sponsor of the GRP policy of state terrorism. The US provides intelligence, logistical and training to the AFP personnel.
17

Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, COUNTER INSURGENCY, STATE REPRESSION AND ASSAULTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, BRIEFING PAPER SERIES 1999

13

VI.

International Terrorism There is another emerging type of contemporary terrorism. It is becoming global. International terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The world community today is being subjected to the terrorism of the inclusive Middle East; to African terrorism in Angola, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia; to Asian terrorism in Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. What many had hoped would be the end of European terrorism is now marked by terrorist activities in Eastern Europe, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the lands of the former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Finally, Central and South American terrorism is waged in Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, and Nicaragua. The world community today is being subjected to the terrorism of the inclusive Middle East; to African terrorism in Angola, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia; to Asian terrorism in Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. What many had hoped would be the end of European terrorism is now marked by terrorist activities in Eastern Europe, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the lands of the former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Finally, Central and South American terrorism is waged in Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, and Nicaragua. Thus, the decline of animosity among traditional enemies, or the decline of traditional/conventional war as described by Van Creveld in his book, The Transformation of War, does not mean the end of organized violence or a decline in terrorist activity.18

VII.

Ethics of Terrorism19

Are acts of terrorism inherently evil? Perhaps so, because terrorism commonly evokes images of maximum violence carried in the name of a higher cause. However, is terrorist violence always such an immoral act? Are not some causes worth fighting for? Killing for? Dying for? Is not terrorism simply a matter of ones point of view? Most would agree that basic values such as freedom are indeed worth fighting for. If so, perhaps, where you stand depends on where you sit. Thus, if the bombs are falling on you head, is it not an act of terrorism? If the bombs are falling on an enemys head in the name of your freedom and security, how can it possibly be terrorism. The following quotations help to address these difficult moral question: 1. todays terrorist is tomorrows freedom fighter. 2. One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. There are those who assert that acts of terrorism are justifiable on the following perspectives

18 19

Van Creveld, Martin. The Transformation of War, The Free Press, New York 1991, p 225. David C. Rapoport and Yonah Alexander, (editors), The Morality of Terrorism: Religious and Secular Justification, (US, Pergamon Press: 1982)

14

VIII. Dualism Those engage in acts of terrorism justify their actions on the belief that this present world is divided into two camps, good versus evil, light versus darkness, satanic forces versus Gods warriors, counter-revolutionaries versus revolutionaries. It is an ethic of dualism, black and white. No neutrality or innocent bystander. Either you are on the enemy side or on our side. Terrorists believe that they are not killing the innocent. These victims aren't entirely innocent. They are the beneficiaries of a satanic or evil regime. They enjoy its tainted fruits. No one is really innocent. Terrorist can target anybody that benefit from this evil or oppressive system. 2. For a Higher Cause (Accountable only to God, to the Party or Nation) A terrorist believes that his/her mission is a special, secret mission. He/she is accountable only to his/her superior who represent the Supreme Cause. Any action becomes permissible. He/she can use deception, concealment, manipulations, lies and violence to attain his goal (s). He/she can even use his/her friends unwittingly to be part of his/her terror plan. For a terrorist, the end justifies any and all means. His/her actions may not get the approval of men and women who are ignorant of the justness of their cause. These people remained blind. He/she is the chosen one, the select few to carry out this dangerous but necessary mission (from God, or the Party). 3. Necessity of Violence Violence is not a question of choice or option. It is a necessity. Violence is necessary in a world ravage by violent evil men. To a terrorist it is counter-violence, i.e., to counter the violence inflicted by the long time oppressor. Since the oppressed has no choice is in the use of violence, the rebel believes that he/she is morally excuse or exempted. It is an act of resistance against the oppressor. Some even believe it justifies the violation of the principle of noncombatant immunity (PNI). It is a last resort. The image is of oppressed and embittered people who have run out of options. They have tried every legitimate form of political action, exhausted every possibility, and failed everywhere, until no alternative remains but the violence of terrorism. They must be terrorists or do nothing at all. IX. Counter-Terrorism/War on Terror: Response from the Government

Any discussion on terrorism would not be complete without a discussion on the government response to terrorism which is the war on terrorism or commonly known as counterterrorism. The Philippine government has declared that it would support the US led war on terrorism. Pres. Arroyo said, "My commitment and the commitment of the Philippines does not waver in the face of terrorism at home and abroad. I fully support the world community and our ally, the United States, in our coordinated fight." 20 The main criticism of the
20

MANILA, July 24, 2004 (STAR) By Marichu Villanueva (http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl100732.htm

15

Philippine Government response to terrorism and armed conflict is that its subservience to the United States government. It is a response that would likely advance US interest and not national (Philippine) interest.21 Another criticism regarding this approach is the increasing haste with which the military option is utilized in the armed conflict (internal or external). Political scientist and ethicist have observed that counter-terrorism tends to mirror the same tactics and morality of the terrorist. Government officials tend to behave and conduct the operation similar to the way the terrorist groups operate. 1. Ethics of Dualism Counter-terrorism takes a dualist perspective. Government officials demonize their enemies. Soldiers are good. Terrorists are bad. Soldiers fear God. Communist terrorists are atheist thus they do not fear God. It is a war between democracy and tyranny of extremism. It is a battle between the forces of good versus the forces of evil. 2. Fighting for a Noble Cause The soldiers are taught to believe that they are fighting for justice, peace and security of the people. They are defending the ordinary civilians from the evils of communism and extremism. Their cause is a righteous and noble cause. God is on their side. They are defending freedom, democracy and our way of life. 3. Military Necessity Ethical dualism tends to be accompanied by an alarming simplistic solution to the problem of terrorism. Eliminate terrorism by eliminating terrorists. End evil by killing evil people. Though government keep saying that it adheres to the just war theory or in accordance with the international humanitarian law (IHL). However in actual operation, counter-terrorism takes the form of state terrorism (bombing of houses, illegal mass arrest or zoning, torture, forced evacuation, food blockade, indiscriminate firing, and salvaging.)22 They justify these operations in the name of military necessity. These are unintended consequences of counter-terrorism operations. But if the objective of the war on terrorism is to protect the innocent civilians from the acts of terrorism perpetrated by the rebels it is irrational to terrorize the innocent civilians to attain this objective. The argument seems to go like this: We have to destroy the village in order to save it from the communist terrorists.23 They would be quite ready to forgo the unfortunate
21

Maria S. Diokno, Globalization and War on Terror-- Challenging Human Rights, (unpublished paper, presented to the EIGHTH (8TH) NATIONAL CONGRESS PHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES, November 22-23, 2003) 22 An interview with a former NPA Commander in Negros, Brig. Gen. Raymundo Jarque launched Operation Thunderbolt, which declared the entire southern Chicks area of Negros Occidental a noman's land and forcibly displace 35,000 civilians. HR groups have filed numerous HR violations cases against Gen. Jarque. But when he defected to the NDF-NPA, his crimes against the people were forgiven for propaganda gain. Nagagamit kasi! Kalulu-oy ang katawhan (Pity the masses). October 8,2004, Dumaguete City. 23 An interview with an officer of a Scout Ranger Unit of the AFP, October 20, 2004

16

killing of noncombatants, if the rebels would only stop hiding or blending into their noncombatant environment and come out in the open. The military sees it as necessity overriding morality. We are doing wrong because we must, but if necessity somehow legitimates our act then it seems we are right to do wrong. X. Analysis

What make terrorism morally wrong? I think what makes terrorism or acts of terrorism morally reprehensible is that it deliberately targets civilians or non-combatant. In time of war or peace, the innocent should not be harmed. To do violence on a person is to inflict harm on him/her. To inflict harm on the person is to dehumanize his/her humanity, to treat him/her less human. We find support in the teachings of Christianity, Islam and Jewish tradition24 Terrorism violates the sanctity of life especially the vulnerable and defenseless. It violates the principle of justice and fairness specifically the notion of proportionality. In the just-war tradition the violence of war is restraint between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards (jus in bello) for the conduct of armed conflict:

Noncombatant Immunity: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians; Proportionality: in the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property; Right Intention: even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden.

These principles are all violated by terrorists, whether perpetrated by the State or non-State actors. Terrorism of all types does not subscribe to the just war theory. Thus we can say that terrorism is a crime against humanity. It is wrong to intentionally kill noncombatant (innocent) if the agents telos (reason for being) for fighting the war is to achieve justice, peace and to end oppression. The means of pursuing war cannot contradict that end. This establishes an immediate connection between the moral ends of war and its moral conduct. State and non-state armies must adhere to this principle to justify their use of violence in conflict especially if the use of violence is to establish justice, i.e., the righting of wrongs, where no other redress is possible, necessarily includes the requirement that those who are not guilty of wrongdoing (innocent) are not to be punished by the conduct of the war. To do otherwise is to violate the principle of justice and agape.
24

David L. Perry, Ph.D. The Problem of Total War in Jewish, Christian and Muslim Traditions, JOURNAL OF LUTHERAN ETHICS Copyright 2001-2002 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. November 25, 2002 Vol. 2, No. 11, www.elca.org/jle

17

The primary reason why noncombatants are immune from attack is their status as nonthreatening. In armed conflict or in war we can distinguish between combatants who are individuals engaged in activities directly related to and inseparable from war-fighting and who may be directly targeted, and non-combatants, who are not engaged in such activities and may not be. Noncombatants do not participate in any fighting and their right to life, which is inalienable, remains stringent. While the combatants have the right to kill their foe (enemy combatant-in-action), their foes concurrently have the right to kill them (when-inaction). Thus, these two rights are mutually dependent. Given this difference, the noncombatant is not subject to direct attack, being targeted or intentionally harmed by combatants.25 Another reason is the moral damage it caused on the agent. These acts of violence against noncombatants would leave a deep and traumatic imprint on the psycho-social health of the agent (soldier or rebel). More so it would distort his/her self-understanding as a human person. He/she will feel or see him/her self as a murderer. The victors may have won the war but at cost of damaging the humanity of their soldiers (rebels). As Telford Taylor puts it, Unless troops are trained and required to draw the distinction between military and nonmilitary killing, and to retain such respect for the value of life that unnecessary death and destruction will continue to repel them, they may lose the sense for that distinction for the rest of their lives. The consequence would be that many returning soldiers would be potential murders.26 Mitigating Circumstances Although terrorism is morally indefensible, we need to be ethically sensitive to the circumstances or factors that contribute to such phenomenon. People who engaged in acts of terrorism are victims of mitigating circumstances (oppression, discrimination, marginalization) caused by an exploitative system that divides, excludes and marginalizes peoples and nations. It is a system that is built on violence and domination. Furthermore, terrorism is basically a tactic in armed conflict. Thus some have argued that there are other tactics that could be used other than terrorism or armed response. The response which seems to be emphasized by most researchers on social conflicts is armed or violent response when government uses terrorism against its on citizens. These researchers do not recognize the possibility of a non-violent or unarmed response. In fact, this aspect is missing in almost all studies on conflict and conflict resolution except for a few which deal specifically with non-violent resistance and/or non-violent action.27
25

See Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, (Basic Books, 1977), p. 146, for a discussion of this point. 26 Telford Taylor, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970), as reprinted in Wakin, War, Morality, and the Military Profession (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1979), p. 429. 27 See John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995)

18

If we only condemn the acts of terrorism of the rebels, our condemnation becomes merely an instrument for the preservation of existing power relationships. Before we can be persuasive in our condemnation of terrorism, therefore, we need to equally condemn the same type of violence when undertaken by the legitimate authority. (Logically it follows that if we are going to permit the justification of killing or seriously harming non-combatant by the Army (US or AFP) we must admit the possibility that similar violence undertaken by the Abu Sayaf or the NPA may be equally justified. But ethically both State and rebel agents actions remain morally wrong according to the PNI.) XI. A Christian Reflection for Today: Not a Conclusion but a Challenge!

Even when the response of the State is justifiable anger it must take care not to become like the enemy it fights. Just cause ought not to be attained unjustly. Acts of terrorism even for a just cause is never right. Pope John Paul II succinctly has expressed it, [We may not] close our eyes to another painful wound in today's world: the phenomenon of terrorism, understood as the intention to kill people and destroy property indiscriminately, and to create a climate of terror and insecurity, often including the taking of hostages. Even when some ideology or the desire to create a better society is adduced as the motivation for this inhuman behavior; acts of terrorism are never justified. Even less so when, as happens today, such decisions and such actions, which at times lead to real massacres, and to the abduction of innocent people who have nothing to do with the conflicts, claim to have a propaganda purpose for furthering a cause. It is still worse when they are an end in themselves, so that murder is committed merely for the sake of killing. (John Paul II, Solicitudo Rei Socialis, no. 24). To justify terrorism in the name of just cause is in fact an attempt to legitimize the view that might make right. Terrorism or acts of terrorism should be condemned as unjust and a crime against humanity. Christians can never condone or approve such violence against noncombatants. Resist evil. Christians are commanded by God to take the side of the poor, the oppressed, and the weak and vulnerable (defenseless). Christ has entrusted to the Church the peace-making ministry.28 To condone acts of terrorism even in the pursuit of justice is to violate the divine imperative of solidarity with the poor and Christs peace-making ministry. As Christians, we believe that God has established government(s) on earth in order to promote justice, to protect the innocent and defenseless and to deter oppression, evil, and injustice. If the State fails to deter acts of terrorism and protect the innocent, society is disordered. There is no social order. It disrupts the common good of society. 29 Hence,
28

SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT! A Statement of the Officers of the National Council of Church in the Philippines (NCCP) October 13, 1989; cf Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines JOINT PASTORAL LETTER ON THE CHURCH'S MISSION OF PEACE, 1982; RECONCILIATION TODAY, November 27, 1983; THE FRUIT OF JUSTICE IS PEACE, January 26, 1987; SOLIDARITY FOR PEACE, July 12, 1988; "SEEK PEACE, PURSUE IT",31 January 1990, , 29 Fr. Carlos Ronquillo, Cssr The Common Good (unpublished paper: 2004)

19

Churches must remind the government of its mandate to safeguard the rights and well-being of its citizens from lawless elements. It is a historical institution established by God for this very purpose. The State is primarily created to help human beings in the pursuit of justice and in the prevention of lawlessness and evils in this world. The State can even remain secular and oblivious to its transcendent source of existence as long as it performs its function of preserving justice and deterring evils. Earthly political justice becomes the primary task of political authorities. The State does not exist for its own sake. It exists for the sake of human well-being and in the pursuit of justice.30 But we should not forget that the State can and is corrupted by sin. It is neither divine nor perfect. Nonetheless God uses this creaturely institution to fulfill Gods providential plan in history. For Gods grace cannot be thwarted by sin. Therefore, the State can and ought to be a significant instrument in the struggle for justice in a sinful world. The State is not to be rejected but rather to be restored to its real purpose. The power to govern society has been entrusted to the State; and Church is never to usurp this power. Nonetheless the Church is called to remind the State of its distinct tasks in society.31 As the State exercises it legitimate power, the Church is also tasked to exercise vigilance on the possible abuse of power by those entrusted with it. Churches can provide the critical dimension which is necessary for the preservation of the State as God's instrument of earthly justice in the Philippines. In other words, the Church should exercise is prophetic office. Christians could and should exercise critical judgment on government policies especially on its war on terrorism and foreign relations. The Church, therefore, has the mandate to call into question the policies and programs of the State when it violates justice, its laws and human rights. To be specific and concrete here are the following suggestions how the Church can fulfill its peace-making ministry and being in solidarity with the poor. 1) Reject a purely military (violent) response to terrorism and insurgency related conflict. 2) Support peace overtures or peace talks with armed groups 3) Expose and denounce human rights violations of all contending parties (for example, the Church must oppose the formation of paramilitary units (CVOs) and rebel recruitment of children and minor)
30

Deuteronomy 19: 19 You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality; and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. 20 Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land which the LORD your God gives you." Deuteronomy 16, "You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. 19 You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality; and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. 20 Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land which the LORD your God gives you. cf. Psalms 72, "Give the king thy justice, O God, and thy righteousness to the royal son! 2 May he judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with justice! 3 Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness! 4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor! 31 Victor Aguilan, Political Authority and the Church: The Challenge of the Reformed Political Tradition. SILLIMAN JOURNAL Vol 41. No. 1 January-June 2000

20

4) Demand the re-channeling of military budget and foreign assistance to socially necessary development program (farm-to-market road, irrigation, education and health, credit facility). Refuse military aids especially weapons and replace it with development aids. Campaign against the sell of weapons to poor and debt-ridden nations. 5) End corruption in government offices (civilian and military offices) 6) Support community dialogue and peoples participation in governance 7) Encourage an independent foreign policy and the Church can launch global dialogue and multicultural understanding initiative. What we need today is the transformation of violent conflict. The Church should witness to the world that together, humanity can establish a culture of peace as an alternative to the predominant culture of violence, making violence seems natural/normal. The Church must criticize this culture of violence. We must take courage not to succumb to the temptation of violence is right. We must overcome violence. 32 We know that humanity is capable of war. But humanity is also capable of peace. We are capable of both destructive and constructive responses to our differences. Conflict is created by human beings and thus can be controlled by human beings. The answer to the assertion that War is human nature is, Yes and so is peace. The challenge to the Churches is whether we are preparing and working for peace while the powers and principalities of this world prepare for war and domination. Jesus proclaimed a message of peace based on justice. Jesus method was nonviolent. That much is clear, not just from the Sermon on the Mount, but his entire life and teaching and, above all, the way he faced his death. His was not merely a tactical or pragmatic nonviolence seized upon because nothing else would have worked against the Roman empire's near monopoly on violence. Rather, he saw nonviolence as a direct corollary of the nature of God and of the new reality emerging in the world from God. In a verse quoted more than any other from the New Testament during the church's first four centuries, Jesus taught that God loves everyone, and values all, even those who make themselves God's enemies. We are therefore to do likewise (Matt. 5:45; cf. Luke 6:35).

32

Margot Kassmann, Overcoming Violence: The Challenge to the Churches in all Places, (WCC Publications: Geneva, 1998)

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books, Journals and Unpublished Papers 1. Aguilan, Victor, Political Authority and the Church: The Challenge of the Reformed Political Tradition. SILLIMAN JOURNAL Vol 41. No. 1 January-June 2000 2. AKBAYAN, Fascist Left on the Rise, October 12, 2004 3. Anthony Clark Arend and Robert J. Beck, International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm (London ; New York : Routledge, 1993) 4. Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines JOINT PASTORAL LETTER ON THE CHURCH'S MISSION OF PEACE, 1982; RECONCILIATION TODAY, November 27, 1983; THE FRUIT OF JUSTICE IS PEACE, January 26, 1987; SOLIDARITY FOR PEACE, July 12, 1988; "SEEK PEACE, PURSUE IT",31 January 1990 5. Camara, Don Helder, Spiral of Violence (Dimension Books, 1971) 6. Coady, C. A. J., Terrorism, in Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, 2d ed. (New York: Routledge, 2001), p. 1697. 7. Diokno, Maria S., Globalization and War on Terror--Challenging Human Rights, (unpublished paper, presented to the EIGHTH (8TH) NATIONAL CONGRESS PHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES, November 22-23, 2003) 8. GRP-NDFP Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), 1998 9. John Paul II, Solicitudo Rei Socialis, no. 24). 10. Kassmann, Margot, Overcoming Violence: The Challenge to the Churches in all Places, (WCC Publications: Geneva, 1998) 11. Kroger, Daniel, OFM, JUSTIFIED REVOLUTION: A THEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW, (unpublished paper) 12. Laqueur, Walter, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.) 13. Lederach, John Paul, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995) 14. Luther, Martin, Selected Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 15. Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues (London: SAGE Publications, 2003) pp 81-134. 16. National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT! A Statement of the Officers of the National Council of Church in the Philippines (NCCP) October 13, 1989; 17. Nessan, Craig L., Sex, Aggression, and Pain: Sociobiological Implications for Theological Anthropology, Zygon 33 (1998) 18. New Revised Standard Version, BIBLE. 19. Parson, Wilfrid, S.J., "The Influence of Romans XIII on Christian Political Thought-Part One, Prior to Augustine, Part Two, Augustine to Hincmar," Theological Studies, Vol I (1940) p. 337-364 and Vol. II (1941)

22

20. Perry, David L., Ph.D. The Problem of Total War in Jewish, Christian and Muslim Traditions, JOURNAL OF LUTHERAN ETHICS Copyright 2001-2002 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. November 25, 2002 Vol. 2, No. 11, 21. Hans Peter Gasser, "Prohibition of terrorist acts in international humanitarian law." (Photocopy, 1985) 22. Rapoport, David C. and Alexander, Yonah, (editors), The Morality of Terrorism: Religious and Secular Justification, (US, Pergamon Press: 1982) 23. Ronquillo, Carlos, Cssr The Common Good (unpublished paper: 2004) 24. ----------------, Ethics of Social Violence (unpublished paper 2004) 25. Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, COUNTER INSURGENCY, STATE REPRESSION AND ASSAULTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, BRIEFING PAPER SERIES 1999 26. Taylor, Telford, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970), as reprinted in Wakin, War, Morality, and the Military Profession (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1979), 27. Van Creveld, Martin. The Transformation of War, (The Free Press, New York 1991) 28. Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars, (Basic Books, 1977) 29. Walter Wink, Violence and Nonviolence in South Africa (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1987) Newspaper, Internet and Interviews 1. Amnesty International, Report on the Philippines - Covering events from January December 2003. (http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/phl-summary-eng, accessed November 20,2004) 2. http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl100230.htm 3. http://www.philippinerevolution.org/def_jms/021007.nne.shtml; 4. http://www.inq7.net/reg/2003/jul/13/reg_5-1.htm 5. http://www.inq7.net/reg/2004/jan/11/reg 1-1.htm. 6. http://www.visayandailystar.com/2003/March/29/topstory5.htm 7. http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl100732.htm 8. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Editorial, Terrorism, Oct 01, 2004 9. Smith, Dan (2000): Trends and Causes of Armed Conflicts. In Norbert Ropers et al, (eds), The Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Berlin: Berghof Foundation. http://www.b.shuttle.de/berghof/handbook.html) 14 pp. 10. U.S. Department of State. Patterns of Global Terrorism-2003, April 29, 2004 Appendix B. 11. Interview with a former NPA Commander in Negros, October 8,2004, Dumaguete City. 12. Interview with an officer of a Scout Ranger Unit of the AFP, October 20, 2004, Manila.