Some philosophers follow the principle of noncombatant innocence, and categorically reject terrorism as such. Coady, for example, writes, “I … object to the technique of terrorism as immoral wherever and whenever it is used or proposed.” This author does not hold any such unambiguous position, although recognizing the moral force of the deontological insistence on strict noncombatant immunity. According to this position the only permitted intentional targets are combatants, broadly understood, for it is only they who have in some sense forfeited the universal human right of security, by seeking to endanger others. Unless there are overwhelming countervailing reasons, the strict constraint on the intentional targeting of noncombatants should be followed. However such reasons may occasionally exist, in extreme situations.
