Fighting evil or evil fighting? : a constructive analysis of the Bush administrations "war on terror"

The 9/11 attacks became the starting point to the Bush administrations "war on terror". This thesis confronts the measures and consequences of this war with a legal framework. There is clear evidence that in order to fight terror the Bush administration has become "outlaws" and has in this process also contributed in the distortion of the practice of international law. Preventive interventions and the use of torture are once again argued as justifiable measures when dealing with terrorist or "savages". Could there not be an alternative? Is the US forced to become criminals themselves in order to fight criminals? This may be tempting to assume but I differ from this conviction. This thesis will provide some constructive recommendations that suggest that it is possible to stay within the legal framework and still be effective in combating terrorism. I will further argue that it should be in the interest of the US to maintain international law thus the alternative is legal anarchy