The act of war is remarkably complex when viewed from an ethical and moral point of view. War includes many acts such as murder, espionage, kidnapping, torture and other violent behaviors that would be considered crimes in normal society in traditional civilian life. Such crimes would be subject to the harshest punishments, including the death penalty in states where it is active, as waterboarding, torture and execution of a non-combatant would constitute first-degree murder with a host of other charges. . In the context of intelligence-seeking warfare, such behaviors are not only accepted, but sometimes common. In this context, the designation between combatant and non-combatant will be explored in relation to the concept of ethically just war. According to Margalit and Walzer (2009) “Conduct your war in the presence of non-combatants on the other side with as much care as if your citizens were the non-combatants.” This is an important precept and should be followed in the context of warfare, the reasons for which will be explored fully here. The unethical character of war Walzer's just war theory is characterized by the proposition that the only justification for going to war is the defense of two fundamental human rights. rights, those of the right to life and the right to freedom. War must be based on one of these two concepts to be ethically justifiable. In the context of war there are two problems, those of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, respectively the justification for going to war and the justification for specific actions in the context of war. These two concepts are advanced as separate although related (Dubik, 1992). The… middle of the paper… the division between combatants and non-combatants within the confines of war is essential to limit the collateral damage that occurs there. The killing of civilians is something absolutely unacceptable and must be seen in a bilateral sense. If America were to engage in the killing of another nation's citizens through the collateral damage of war, then similar activities on behalf of the enemy who killed American citizens would indeed be justified. This duality of effects must be considered when waging war, even in legitimate military actions. The concept of double effect highlights the common harm that can be accomplished through war and the sometimes unavoidable nature of collateral damage. The potential for collateral damage highlights the importance of carefully protecting non-combatants, as by doing so the harm they may suffer is minimized.