Subject:
|
Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:37:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
690 times
|
| |
|
|
"Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message
news:Hv2BF5.vt0@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > 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.
Hmm, do any historical wars meet this "no longer under the rule of law"
condition? I'm under the impression that most militaries have a rule of law
within themselves, so I'm not even sure that the theater of operation
technically is no longer under the rule of law. Also, whose rule of law
counts?
> > 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.
Hmm, so is any military targetting of identified persons of leadership an
assasination? Must all such operations be initiated by politicians? Can a
soldier who happens to have a shot at an enemy leader take that shot?
I personally would define assasination as an attempt to kill a person in a
position of leadership from power outside the normal bounds of war.
> 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!
Hmm, does releasing someone from prison grant them immunity from future
action? Certainly if an individual is released and they commit new crimes or
acts of war, they lose any immunity. I'm also inclined to think that once
released one is mostly immune from prosecution for the crimes or acts of war
that resulted in the imprisonment, though it is reasonable in some cases to
release someone with conditions, which can include parole (where we let
someone out early because we think they have shaped up their life).
> > 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)
Terrorism is a very hard thing to define. It's all to easy to lump all
participants in a war as terrorists, which simply brushes aside any rational
discussion of the merits or lack thereof of any violent action.
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) I don't think terrorism is hard to define-- it's just that people use the term incorrectly or indiscriminately and therefore its definition is muddied. Terrorism is the targeted killing of innocent civilians by a person or group in order to (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) All? It's just a wild guess. Of course both sides of a war will present arguments saying they're right, so they won't be of much help. Wars usually begin once conflicting interests can no longer be settled thru diplomatic channels, which are (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) 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. (...) I am of the opinion one can not fight a war against a non-territorial entity, but I will admit this (...) (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
|
|
|
|
