DR. LISA CAHILL: One of the traditional criteria [for a just war] is "right intention." The intention has to be to restore the common good and restore peace in some fairly immediate, discernible way, not just a long-range hypothesis that some future action may be taken. Clear evidence would need to be provided that offenders are in fact offenders. The notion of a nation harboring terrorists is not very well defined.

DR. FARID ESACK: The truth is that much of the rhetoric of retaliation in the United States has regrettably been framed in terms of [war against Islam]. People have spoken about a crusade. The whole campaign has been called "Infinite Justice," which really is a blasphemy. Indeed, in some ways, whether it is framed like that or not, it does seem to be an attack on the world of Islam. The President of the United States has been at pains to point out that that is indeed not the case. But given how the Muslim governments that the United States is trying to rope into its campaign are in complete discord with civil society, with religious societies in the Middle East, if the United States thinks that it can go into an alliance with some Muslim governments completely ignoring civil society and the fragility of civil society in those areas, then it will be seen in that light.

DR. CAHILL: There has to be an identifiable adversary. I think the connection with the crimes has to be clear. I think that mentioning broad networks of supporters or all the citizens or the government of a nation that's associated with those accused is casting the net far too broadly. As a Christian, I would very much second what Professor Esack has said about the use of religious symbolism in an ideological way for militaristic purposes. It's very offensive, the crusade imagery. The name "Infinite Justice" is indeed a blasphemy.