Subject:
|
Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:35:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
584 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
>
> "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?
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 legal forms to settle disputes not covered by
generalist, universal laws. A diplomatic treaty would under this interpretation
be considered as equivalent to a law that can settle a dispute between the
signataries.
> 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.
Military laws aren't the same as civilian laws (by definition), and are not
universally apliable during a war; since they are side-specific, such laws have
little meaning.
> Also, whose rule of law
> counts?
Precisely. Prior to the conflict that question is unnecessary.
> > > 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?
Technically, yes.
> Must all such operations be initiated by politicians?
It's ultimately a matter of ethics; I would expect this to be the case under a
representative form of government, hopefully preventing abuses.
> Can a
> soldier who happens to have a shot at an enemy leader take that shot?
It depends on his orders, I guess. If he has been given the power to take the
iniciative, he can; otherwise, it's up to him to weight his options (risking
court martial, perhaps?).
At this point I feel a need to argue it would be tremendously weird for such
situation to take place without specific orders to shoot... I mean, infitration
to that level is usually backed by very clear orders.
> 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.
Why?
> > 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?
No.
> Certainly if an individual is released and they commit new crimes or
> acts of war, they lose any immunity.
Certainly.
> 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).
I'm inclined to agree.
In the particular case of Sheik Yassin though, since he was NOT released on
parole nor he ever advocated anything other than violent action against Israel,
I see no reason for his release. Why release him then? Please note that I did
not say he was not a legitimate target "per se": I am only baffled as to why he
was released and later blown to smithereens. Was he too costly in jail? Did his
prison lack wheelchair ramps? What?
> > > 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.
I agree with the second sentence, but regarding the first I checked a very old
dictionary I have and came up with a pretty short definition for terrorism: "act
to rule thru fear and violent action".
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| "Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message news:Hv3IF7.BuF@lugnet.com... (...) old (...) terrorism: "act (...) Hmm, by that definition, almost all acts of war are acts of terrorism. It is not practical in a military action to eliminate all (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
