Professors discuss retribution

As the United States continues to search for retribution after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., Law and religious studies professors examined the legal options available to the United States.\nDavid Fidler and Kevin Jaques spoke to law students last week about potential U.S. legal reactions in an event organized by the International Law Society.\nInternational Law, U.S. Law, and Islamic Law are different -- and those differences could have major implications on the future of international law and the fight against terrorism.\nFidler made clear the attacks are as haenous to Islamic beliefs as they are to American ideals.\n"Students came away with a better understanding of the complex legal and political issues involving the World Trade Center attacks," Fidler said. "And how those acts are condemned from an Islamic perspective."\nFidler, a specialist in International Law, spoke on the major factors the United States must face in classifying and retaliating to the terrorist attacks. One of the many important points first discussed was the classification of the attack. It must be determined if the attacks were sanctioned by a country's government -- an act of war -- or if the attacks are to be considered a criminal act, Fidler said.\nThis distinction is important because the legality of a retaliation by the United States could be in question. If the acts were an act of war, the United States would have the right to use force in return, Fiddler said. If the act was a demonstration of terrorism but supported by a government, the United States would be pressured to rely on freezing the assets of those suspected, along with placing economic and political sanctions on the country harboring the terrorists.\nThe interpretations on these laws could be loose or rigid, Fiddler said, and that would also affect the possible retaliation of the United States. A loose interpretation of the law could mean the United States could determine the terrorist attacks as an act of war, meaning the country harboring the terrorists could be subject to war with the United States. \nThe very large scale of the terrorist event could be used as a reason to use a loose interpretation of the law, and make governments more responsible for the groups they harbor within their borders.\nJaques discussed the influence of Islamic religious law on the possible outcomes of the terrorist situation. Islam has no central basis of legal interpretation. \nInstead, there are four main institutions of Islamic law, and there are numerous minor organizations that hold influence in many areas -- these may range from groups with Western styles to very conservative Muslim followers, such as those found in Afghanistan's Taliban government, and other revivalist Muslim nations, such as Saudi Arabia.\nContrary to many ideas presented in the Western nations, a Muslim jihad, or holy war, does not have to involve violence. Jihad actually means struggle, Jaques said, and is a word to describe the daily spiritual and religious practices of devout Muslims. \nJaques' talk helped clarify the Muslim position, law students said. Both professors stressed that retaliation against Arabs and Muslims in the United States is wrong and should not be tolerated.\n"I thought Jaques was helpful," said law student Michael Larner. "There are so many different views floating around out there."\nThe Sept. 11 attacks have evoked a show of support for the United States from many Arab and Muslim countries. \nBefore the attacks, only three countries recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E). In response to the events, these three countries have withdrawn their recognition of the Taliban.\n"Islam looked at the act as most of the West did," Fidler said.\nAs far as the legality of the attacks under Islam, it may depend on the circumstances of those involved. According to Islamic law, if the perpetrators of the attacks were rebelling against the imam (the Muslim leadership community), they could be considered criminals. In that case, it would be legally acceptable under Islamic law for the United States to prosecute those involved in the attacks, Jaques said. \nBut, if their actions were not against the wishes of the imam, then the United States under Islamic law could not attempt to punish the perpetrators themselves. That would have to be left to the Muslim government. The United States could still aid the Muslim government with counter-terrorist intelligence and the freezing of terrorist assets.\nEven if the acts of the perpetrators were not against the Iman's wishes, it is still against Islamic law to kill women and children, regardless of if a violent jihad is called for, Jaques said. \nAnother way for the United States to retaliate against the terrorists under Islamic law would be close to a lawsuit Jaques said; the United States could claim the terrorists' assets as damages, and the assets of anyone involved with the scheme.