Bridget asked:

The WTC Attack in the US has shocked the world. I have a question: should US solve the problem by
law OR by war ? How can Professor HLA Hart's system of rules and concept of punishment be
analyzed in the WTC attack incident?

============

I don't know what Hart had to say, if anything, about war. Hart's principles that punishment should be
a deterrent and rehabilitating are violated by the war response. Such a response may act as a
deterrent, but it could be a provocation. Also, war doesn't have the aim of rehabilitating even if this is
now going to be attempted. There is also the principle that punishment should only affect the
offender, but in war the innocent get killed.

The attack can be treated as a crime if the US has laws against terrorism which have been violated.
As a deterrent, punishment should discourage the offenders and others from repetition of the crime
and need not be proportional to the offence, so killing terrorists may be acceptable. For sure, this will
stop the offenders from repeating their offence. However, once again it is not rehabilitating.

Hart's principles don't support the way terrorists are treated.

Rachel Browne