Subject:
|
Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:06:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
497 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> > Just because the man should be dead or the world is better off with him dead
> > doesn't mean Isreal was justified in killing him. In fact I would postulate
> > that this will lead to much more killing that it will prevent. This is why a
> > open policy of assassination meerly furthers the cycle of violence.
>
> I agree with the above. However I think that it raises a number of questions.
> Remember that I don't believe in the initiation of the use of force... but I
> have questions nonetheless.
I'll try to answer the best I can, please let me know if anything does not
satisfy you entirely; these are purely my *current* answers.
> 1) When exactly is a country in a "state of war" with an organization or entity?
> It's clearly not legitimate to preemptively go after every organization or
> entity that's inimical to you merely because they have different views, but if
> an entity or organization declares that it wants your country completely
> obliterated, has that organization "declared war" on you? Do they have to act
> first? How much do they need to do? Can you be at war with an organization that
> doesn't in and of itself control territory? If the answers to the above are yes,
> what does that mean, exactly? (1)
I am of the opinion one can not fight a war against a non-territorial entity,
but I will admit this can be resumed to a matter of semantics. "War" is used
because it's universally understood, so ultimately it may be a good metaphor.
The begining of said war does not necesarily have to be declared (in the 19th
century sense), but there must be a situation where the area in conflict is no
longer under the rule of law, "de facto". War begins when the law ends, to be
short.
> 2) What constitutes assassination versus carrying out the operations of war? In
> a conventional war (against a country) is targeting the command and control
> center of that country off limits because the leader might be there? If you hit
> that center and the leader was killed, is that in and of itself assassination?
Assassination would presume a deliberate intention to kill one particular
individual (or group, if all members are specified). If non-specified people die
in the event, those would be victims of a particularly bad assassination
achievement.
War is (under conventional meaning) fought between nations/factions, not
individuals. So an act of war would be shooting against the soldier across the
sight, whilst not really caring for his identity.
> 3) Is there ever a situation in which assassination is justified? If you're
> already at war with a country, is it a military action to assassinate the leader
> of that country? There were people during the run up to the recent Iraq war
> calling for us to assassinate Saddam rather than start a big war. Were they
> correct? If your answer is no, what if the only other alternative was the war?
I think assassination is sometimes a justified possibility, yes. But it need two
pre-requisites fulfilled:
#1 - the war in question must be susceptible of resolution if the leader is
changed, that is, the said war is being fought largely due to the leader's
charisma or well orchestrated manipulation;
#2 - the assassin must be able to withstand the backlash of his actions. Taking
the recent case of Israel & Yassin as an example, the israeli government should
be able to "hold steady" even after the more than likely bus bombs that will
ensue (of course, if the bombings are kept for a long period of time, then the
assassination was innefective in its declared goals...)
Naturally, I'm assuming the responsability for the order to assassinate is
issued by a collective of politicians, hopefully elected or otherwise
accountable. If one man alone decided to kill another man, that would be murder,
pure and simple.
> I ask because I think these are hard questions worthy of thought, not because I
> think these admit of easy or pat answers. The answers do have some bearing here,
> no matter what you think of the relative legitimacy of the claims of Israel to
> exist and so forth.
Good questions, IMO. I must say some of them had been crossing my mind lately,
especially since I stated earlier that I would have no problem in having Saddam
shot last year.
The doubts I have in the particular case of Sheik Yassin don't have to do with
the declared motive for the killing (him being a source of inspiration for
terrorists), rather with the process that led to his assassination. After all,
the man had been released from prison by his future executioners!
> 1 - I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we (the US in particular) are
> fighting a "war on drugs". What does that mean? Who are we at war with? Did they
> declare war on us? Ditto for the "war on terror"...
Maybe I'd use the word "embargo" on drugs (it's a tradable good, isn't it? Why
not choose a word that comes from the customs' context?) and use the word
"policing" towards terrorism. To do this I will draw a distinction between
political assassination and terrorism, in which the first is aimed at one
identified target with political importance and the second is indiscriminate
(thus aimed at causing fear among the general public). Terrorism should as such
be treated the same way as murder (read: as a police matter)
The one thing that makes my above distinction so "great" is that one can apply
it to states as well: state assassination would therefore not be the same as
state terrorism. Exemples for both could be found in the French Revolution if
one cares to know more.
Anyway, those were my €.02
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| "Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message news:Hv2BF5.vt0@lugnet.com... (...) entity? (...) or (...) but if (...) to act (...) organization that (...) are yes, (...) entity, (...) used (...) metaphor. (...) 19th (...) is no (...) be (...) (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) I agree with the above. However I think that it raises a number of questions. Remember that I don't believe in the initiation of the use of force... but I have questions nonetheless. 1) When exactly is a country in a "state of war" with an (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
