March 23, 2004
Is Killing a Terrorist Wrong?
Imagine if tomorrow Osama Bin Laden was killed by a targeted attacked in the hills of Afghanistan. Could you imagine that the following would be the world’s reaction:
“What happened was more brutal than anyone can imagine and it doesn’t make sense. We condemn this aggression…” (Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president)
“I do condemn the targeted assassination… Such actions are not only contrary to international law, they do not do anything to help search for a peaceful solution. I appeal to all in the region to remain calm and avoid escalation in tensions.” (Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary general)
"The position of the European Union has been consistently a condemnation of ... killings. In this particular case, I think a condemnation ought to be stronger. These types of actions do not contribute at all to create the conditions of peace, the conditions of dialogue, which are necessary at this moment." (Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief)
“It's been the long-standing position of the British government that such targeted killings, assassinations, are out with international law."” (Jack Straw, British foreign secretary)
"This is not about fearing something. The situation is as such that all must be done to prevent a further escalation. All sides are called upon to do their part in this effort.” (Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister)
"At a time when it is important to mobilize for the relaunch of the peace process, such acts can only fuel the cycle of violence." (Dominique de Villepin, French foreign minister)
"We condemn this crime and we find a real obstacle against all political will and efforts to have a sustainable, comprehensive and just peace for all the people of the region." (Asma Khader, Jordanian government spokesman.)
Obviously this kind of reaction would be extremely inappropriate and I think almost every American (even real anti-bush types) would say that killing a man who planned a horrible attack on our nation and whose sworn goal to do it again is not out of line in any way. Yet this was exactly the world reaction to the assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. In case you were wondering, these are some of the highlights of Hamas’ reason for existence (source of Hamas goals):
1. 'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'
2. '[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.'
3. 'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'
This man founded this organization, and I see absolutely no argument why Israel has less of a right to take out this man than we have to take out Osama or any nation has the right to take out a terrorist whose sworn goal is that nation’s destruction. Somehow I think the world reaction would be a bit different if Osama was similary killed.
Source for quotes: (see java link to “International reaction")
Posted by Misha Tseytlin at March 23, 2004 03:12 AMMisha said, “Obviously this kind of reaction would be extremely inappropriate and I think almost every American (even real anti-bush types) would say that killing a man who planned a horrible attack on our nation and whose sworn goal to do it again is not out of line in any way.”
Sorry, Misha but you would be wrong about this anti-Bush type. The underlying question is was the killing necessary? If our troops come upon bin Laden and gang and they are shooting at our troops, and we respond with air support blowing the group up and killing bin Laden, then our killing of him is justified in the name of self-defense and not a single person you quoted from Europe said anything that would indicate they would not support killing in self-defense.
Hussein was not shooting back at our troops when he was discovered. He was taken into custody by our troops and Administration. This was a commendable act. Hussein now needs to stand trial and face due process for his crimes.
On the other hand, had we found him in his hole, not resisting, and we killed him where he lay, we would rightly have incurred the intense criticism of millions of Americans and billions of people around the world. For to have shot him in his hole, would have constituted an act Hussein himself had demonstrated capability of. History has been kind to the U.S. historically speaking in its involvement in foreign wars up to Viet Nam. The reason was we held ourselves to a higher standard of behavior than the despots we overcame. At least we appeared to, and often did.
If a criminal, whether they be a war criminal or petty criminal, is due humane and legally sanctioned due process if at the time of their discovery, they pose no threat to the apprehenders. This concept is a cornerstone of what makes western civilization in modern times, uniquely a head above almost all others ethically; its adherence to the rule of law when it comes to depriving another individual of their life. This cornerstone makes us different and better than Hussein’s, bin Laden’s and other monsters in history.
Posted by: David R Remer at March 23, 2004 04:04 AMOk, let me make more specific: how about if a targeted attack on Osama’s cave? say it was not in self-defense, but capturing him was not a realistic option. As I see it, there were two options here, as in my hypothetical: (1) kill the terrorist; (2) allow the terrorist to remain free.
The situation analogous to this one was our attack and killing of Sadam’s sons, not Sadam himself. obviously if you can capture someone like Sadam, Osama, or Yassin, that is preferable to just killing him (assuming you can bring him to justice- which is unlikely in this situation because hamas would escilate attakcs on Isreal until they release Yassin or would take hostage of their own, as they are known to do). In any case, this situation is very similar to how we took out Sadam’s sons (we knew where they were, we attacked there and killed them)- and the world rightfully did not complain about that killing nor should it complain about this one.
Would you object if we bombed a cave where we knew Osama would be hiding and could not get to him any other way?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 23, 2004 04:17 AMp.s. we did that several times in Afghanistan (bomb caves where we thought Osama might be). We also bombed several buildings where we thought Saddam might be during the war. At least in the case of Osama, I did not hear any objections from world leaders.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 23, 2004 04:24 AMWe killed a number of innocent children with these same tactics as recently as December. Every effort should be taken to correctly identify the target, and apprehend the target alive if undue risk to the apprehenders can be avoided. These efforts must be made before justification for killing can be made. It is really that simple, and the Europeans you quote are making their case on this point.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 23, 2004 04:29 AMI agree with you that all attempts must be taken to minimize the taking of innocent life in any military operation. I do not have any problem with people objecting to tactics that do not conform to those standards. I do have a major problem that these leaders saying it is not legitimate for Isreal to use “targeted assassination” techniques, especially when most people would say we could use them for Osama (if we could not capture him)- see quotes by Jack Straw and Kofi Annan. Do you disagree?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 23, 2004 04:34 AMAnnan and Straw are quite correct. Even in this country we legislated against the Executive Branch using the covert operations to assassinate foreign leaders as a means of toppling regimes, and that was domestically passed law.
International law agrees with this concept that targeted assassinations preempt due process and exercising all available means of bringing the individual to justice alive, as opposed to just murdering them outright from in close, or afar, without legitimizing efforts to apprehend them alive within the constraints of due process.
Posted by: David R Remer at March 23, 2004 04:42 AMI think UN Secretary Kofi Annan explains it the best:
“I do condemn the targeted assassination… Such actions are not only contrary to international law, they do not do anything to help search for a peaceful solution. I appeal to all in the region to remain calm and avoid escalation in tensions.” (Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary general)
Targetted assassinations ARE against international law. Bush’s “Wanted: Dead or Alive” call way back in 2001 was a throwback to the Wild West and is an outdated concept or at least should be in the 21st century.
Of course, that’s not to say that if OBL happens to be killed, most people will object. But assassinating someone is illegal and people have every right to complain about it. Especially when a guy gets a rocket launched into his face, like what happened this time around. Bad person, bad way to take care of the situation.
Posted by: Anthony at March 23, 2004 05:57 AMGood article Misha!
David’s got the right idea. Let me see if I can effectively contribute.
We were at war with Iraq, and so Saddam was treated as a combatant. He surrendered, so he was captured.
If we knew where he was, but judged that capturing him would have presented an unacceptable risk to our troops, we would have been within our rights to take him out with an airstrike or some other long-range, low-risk strike.
Do the rules of war apply to bin Laden? I’m not sure. I think the world in general would agree that we could treat bin Laden as a military combatant, and so the same rules we used with Saddam would apply to bin Laden.
However, it’s a gray area in international law. Congress has not ‘declared war’ on al Qaeda. Since al Qaeda is an international organization, I’m not sure the rules of war would apply (though, like I said, I don’t think anyone would complain).
This is an issue where it would be beneficial to work with the international community to hammer out some laws to cover international terrorism.
Right now, nations are able to act in whatever manner they deem necessary to combat terrorism; the US is holding 650 people in a gulag in Cuba because we don’t know how to deal with them legally, Israel is assassinating Palestinian leaders, the Pakistanis are cracking down on Taliban villages, etc.
I think this is the aspect that is making a lot of people around the world and in the United States, uneasy. There are no internationally recognized rules for dealing with international terrorists.
What exactly is an appropriate response for something like 9/11?
- Capture the perpetrators? They’re already dead.
- Deal with their leaders as per the rules of war?
- Can you declare war against an international organization, rather than a country?
- Who has jurisdiction when terrorists are operating from a soverign nation that is making an effort to eradicate them, but is ineffective? Can we step in and help uninvited?
- Is it legal to assassinate a terrorist leader?
- What kind of evidence would we need to supply to prove it was a legal assassination?
- Would assassination be applicable to anyone in the organization, or just the leaders?
- What happens if US operatives catch terrorists in the Sudan? Who has jurisdiction?
- What are the guidelines for ‘hot persuit across international borders
And a big boatload of other questions.
There is a real need to discuss these questions in an international forum. the United States can’t just invade Spain if it has knowledge of terrorist activity that Spain can’t or won’t act upon, just like England’s SAS would not be welcome in the United States in a similar situation.
Let’s see… Which US presidential candidate would be more likely to be effective in taking the lead to answer these very real and urgent questions?
Had Bush continued Clinton’s efforts to shape the International Criminal Court into an organization that supported the United States’ anti-terrorism goals around the world, just like the UN and NATO were formed by the United States to support its goals in the Cold War, we would have been half-way there.
I do not understand this “Rule.” Who exactly should the Israelis be attacking? Some poor sap drinking his morning coffee? Why are “leaders” immune from attack? Lets put this in historical perspective: Another one of these “Rules” is that you should try to limit the amount of civilian casualties. However during past wars commanders have explicitly made arrangements that would destroy military targets and at the same time hit as many civilians as possible. An example of this is during the Cold War our missiles were aimed so that we would get the surrounding communities as well as the factory or military base. My point is that Israel has had years of suicide bombings, they are afraid to leave their homes and go the to corner store. They are in dire straights and in these situations the rules have to be bent to achieve their ends. The question is better asked does the targeted assassination get them closer to being free of terror. I don’t know, but I do know that the status quo is completely unacceptable. This “Cleric” was not your local out-spoken priest, he was a vile psychopath who was using his position to promote terrorism and brain wash children and for the down trodden to go to their deaths to up hold their “name” in society.
Posted by: Miguel at March 23, 2004 08:19 AMMisha—
Finally we agree on something! Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, was a terrorist plain and simple and no amount of high minded moralizing will change that fact. Hamas is a terrorist organization and should be treated as such by the UN, the European Union and those governments that claim to love freedom. The sooner the world acknowledges that these are terrorist organizations and treat them as such, the sooner they will wiped from the face of the earth!
I respect International Law, but those who would openly and continually flaunt it on should a large scale should not enjoy the umbrella of its protection.
“I do condemn the targeted assassination… Such actions are not only contrary to international law, they do not do anything to help search for a peaceful solution. I appeal to all in the region to remain calm and avoid escalation in tensions.” (Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary general)
In all deference to Mr. Annan, the continued terrorist attack carried out by Hamas and other terrorist organizations are contrary to international law and subvert the interested of peace. And yet I have noticed no statement from Mr. Annan condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist acts of these organizations at each occurrence. Nor has the UN as a body roundly condemned these organizations—at least to my knowledge—and confined them to outlaw status.
Unless and until something radical is changed in the Middle East and all the states affected by this morass are included in the process; i.e. Israel, the U.S., Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, there will be no lasting peace. I am all for a Palestinian state, but I support Israel’s right to exist. Under my Plan—The Martin Plan for Mid-East Peace—both goals can be accomplished, but not without all parties conversing, and not without compromise. Righteous indignation will not get it done. The Road Map for Peace was flawed from its inception, and I applaud Israel’s stance in the face this continuous Islamic fundamentalist surge within its boarders. The Islamic terrorists know not peace, only war and bloodshed; give it to them, exterminate them with extreme prejudice, until they sue for peace.
Posted by: V Edward Martin at March 23, 2004 09:12 AMA couple of points.
First, President Clinton authorized assassination operations targeting Osama bin Laden. This course of action was justified by the fact that bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist organization, not a nation.
Yassin was the founder and leader of a terrorist organization, not a nation (if Palestine can be considered such, then that distiction belongs to Arafat, and killing him will open a whole new can of worms). Killing Yassin strikes at the head and heart of Hamas.
Whether Yassin’s death leads to an escalation of attacks against Israel or even the U.S. is open to debate. But I don’t think Israel should be condemned for doing the same thing the U.S. planned to do to bin Laden and possibly Hussein.
I always thought the Bushies were being very hypocritical when they told Israel to show restraint against Hamas, while the U.S. was on a seek and destroy mission in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 12:26 PMI, too am amazed to finally be in agreement with Misha!
I think Israel has every right to use pretty much any means to destroy the power structure of a terrorist organization killing hundreds of innocent civilians.
I can’t really see any reason why legitimate attacks against terrorist organizations by the U.S. is supported by the world (Afghanistan) yet when Israel does the same thing, it is condemned.
However, comparing the situation to bin Laden isn’t entirely appropriate because of the scope of attacks and international presence of bin Laden’s al Qaeda network.
I haven’t researched this comparison, so I’m throwing it out there for others who might know. How have countries like Spain and England dealt with internal seperatist terrorist groups like the ETA and IRA? Have they assassinated leaders? How has the international community reacted?
Posted by: blipsman at March 23, 2004 12:45 PMmisha…good article!
my one comment….no one wins when dealing with extremists. if one side or the other is so set in it’s ways that it thinks it is so absolutely right without question…then you have a dangerous enemy.
life has to be fluid….sorry to get new age on you, but it’s true…you must have flexibility in your thoughts and ideas in order to learn and to grow….
people like bin Laden think they are justified in what they did, and moreso, that in the afterlife they will be rewarded for it.
death is death….in my own opinion…killing those who killed in 9/11 is a dangerous one-uppance….it’s a matter of time before they attack again.
i prefer justice than outright obliteration of my enemies. find bin Laden, and try him in a court of law…
yes, he’s an evil man who deserves to pay for his crimes, but we shouldn’t stoop to his level and kill indiscriminantly.
Posted by: rob at March 23, 2004 01:19 PMInteresting points, but how about a little thought experiment (Einstein really loved these).
Let us pretend that Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was a U.S. citizen by birth and he was also the person behind the Okalahoma city bomber. Would we send an attack helicopter or would we arrest him and put him on trial.
Remember this is just an experiment. Don’t get all bent out of shape about it.
Most likely he’d be arrested and tried, though Ruby Ridge and Waco comes to mind about what could happen.
I’m not sure but are Palestinians considered Israeli citizens? If so then this argument may apply. If not…
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 02:48 PMSo far as I know targetted killing of state leaders might be against international law, but that has nothing to do with this case. I am not aware of any tenet of international law which applies here.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at March 23, 2004 03:07 PMI quite intentionally designed the previous experiment to avoid the questions of who is really in control of the Gaza strip. That question would fill an entire web site.
Here is another little experiment:
A bunch of colonists show up at a location. They set up their own government then progressively drive the current residents on to “reservations”. They make no secret that they consider it their manifest destiny to rule this land. Nor do they hide their contempt for the current residents as they are driven from their homes.
Is going “renegade” and killing civilian colonist a legitimate response to these events? Or are the “renegades” just terrorists.
A more appropriate experiment:
A man sells his car and and goes into a casino with the proceeds, hoping to win more money to buy a better car like his neighbor has. He plays some blackjack and loses all his money. Now he has no money and no car. When the buyer of his car refuses to return it to him so at least he has his original car back, he randomly blows up other people’s cars.
Hummmm!
So you are saying that when the “American Indians” lost their land and freedom to the colonist it was their fault because they choose to fight and lose?
David R. Remer said
Annan and Straw are quite correct. Even in this country we legislated against the Executive Branch using the covert operations to assassinate foreign leaders as a means of toppling regimes, and that was domestically passed law.
I don’t believe there has ever been legislation regarding the assassination of foreign leaders. I know that an executive order was issued (by Nixon I believe) prohibiting government agencies (CIA, NSA, etc.) from carrying out assassinations against foreign leaders.
Of course the definition of foreign leader is the key here. As it applies to the executive order, foreign leaders are heads of state. Neither Yassin nor bin Laden qualify as heads of state.
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 03:51 PMBob, how about this one. We declared war on ALL terrorists though only al-Queda was responsible for 9/11. So, is assasinating President Bush fair game for a terrorist group in the Phillipines which has not ties to al-Queda, since, we declared war on them for no apparent reason concerning us?
In the absence of the rule of law, isn’t assasination of a president fair game for anyone in the opposition party when they see the president failing the people and his duty?
See, this issue really does boil down to rule of law - without it anarchy and chaos results and even the wanna be goodguys become bad guys real fast.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 23, 2004 03:53 PMRule of law is a wonderful thing.
Until it become apparent that your side is losing!
After that point any country, terrorist, or freedom fighter will take off the kid glove and swing with everything they have.
Bob, if that’s true, civilization and society could not be as orderly and relatively well conformed to non-violent conflict resolution as it is. There are of course individual exceptions, some of note, but compared to law abiding population, they still constitute a very, very small minority.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 23, 2004 06:02 PMMichael, I did some research on the legislation but did not come up with too much. Carter had issued and excecutive order according to one site, and I could find no evidence of Congressional legislation banning US covert assasinations, therefore, I yield to you on that point and thank you for the clarification.
I may be recalling a bill proposed in the 1970’s which never passed. Thanks again.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 23, 2004 06:32 PMDavid:
I think we are using two different definitions of “losing”.
I not talking about losing the battle for a “speeding fine”, or your political party losing an election.
When I say “losing” I am talking about the Hitler’s Germany as the Russian army is closing in on Berlin. Or the Japanese after they have been driven back to their home islands during WWII.
When your side is about to be crushed then they “swing with everything they have”.
You can debate who is right or wrong. But people like al-Queda (Al Qaeda?), the Taliban and Hamas feel like they are “losing”.
Lets be clear! I am not supporting or defending these groups. But nothing happens in a vacuum.
When law is paired with international it is an inexact fit. Is Koffi going to show up and slap the cuffs on somebody?
There is only force and the willingness to use it. Every agreement between sovereign nations is based on self interest. By agreeing not to kill their leaders they agree not to kill yours. If at some point the economy is such that the benefit in doing something you agreed not to do outwieghs the harm caused by reneging on the treaty, you should do it. Isn’t that why we elect leaders?
I have no doubt that Abu Sayyaf or UBL, or Ansar Al Islam would kill Bush and every other American if they could. And they would dance in the streets once the deed was done - just like the Palestinians did after 9-11.
England was pretty harsh with the IRA. They targeted and killed members and tossed them in jail without trial. And by and large these were British citizens. But Britain has no Constitution or hard wired process requirements for their citizens. What parliament can do, they can legally do (although I am not sure how EU integration impacts this area). At least in the USA we can argue whether Padilla or foreigners are entitled to process according to the Constitution. The English never reach that argument. Although the groups are different in that the IRA fights over political things whereas jihadists want to kill everyone not like them.
For non-state actors we can issue letters of mark and reprisal. Like we did (I think) with the Barbary Coast pirates and with privateers.
So Todd, can you tell me why Bush has placed Cuba on his radar of evil regimes to take out, but is buddying up to Musharraf, now a dictator denying his people elections, an exporter of nuclear technology, a regime which pardons those responsible for arming our potential enemies?
When a nation like ours, or another, acts with such inherent contradiction and lack of adherence to the standards which it blames other regimes for, should we not be subject to world condemnation as we condemn those who do as we do?
Bush and his administration did the right thing in arresting Hussein as opposed to killing him outright in light of his not putting up resistance. I commend Bush for this, and getting commendation out of me for Bush is saying something. If Bush can impress me with such principled behavior, he surely can impress those of other nations as well.
If Bush were to order bin Laden’s death upon apprehension regardless of resistance or not, Bush would be just as lawless, unprincipled, and outlaw as bin Laden himself. I see little difference in how we approach a killer of one, or a killer of 3000. We do not kill unless necessary and that makes we Americans far more laudable and credible than someone like bin Laden or Hussein.
The issue of becomming so upset with Israel over their targeting of a TERRORIST leader is somehow ignorant. If Israel were to do exactly what the terrorist do, they would just indiscriminantly lob missiles and bombs into palestine and try to kill as many as possible. Would the world be angry then? The world wants Israel to make peace with the terrorist in Palestine and that is as rediculous as telling the US to make peace with Al Qaeda. Would we listen? NO, I think not. Therefore we should not only stand behind Israel 100%, but we should join them and target Hammas as well as all the other terrorists organizations around the world. The only thing they respect is power, not peace.
Posted by: William Pritzker at March 24, 2004 09:30 AMDavid, the answer to your question is obvious. The benefits of helping Musharraf are more than the benefits of helping Castro. It would be nice to live in a world where people aren’t mean, but that isn’t this one. Given the choice between a despot and someone who wants to kill me, I choose the despot. They have a name for people who hold blindly to their beliefs in the face of greater danger - corpses. And yes that sucks, but wishing the world isn’t the way it is will not change the fact that there are people out there that want to kill you and cannot be reasoned with. And if you follow your reasoning against inherent contradictions we could not make common cause with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis.
Posted by: Todd Flanagan at March 24, 2004 08:26 PMI think the real argument with regards to this issue should be more along the lines of ‘what did Israel achieve by attacking in this manner?’
As per my general policy of non military interference in matters in other parts of the world, I think Israel can do whatever the hell it wants, and reap the cost.
But Todd, Castro poses no threat to us at all.
Looks like posturing to me in lieu of doing the really difficult work like N. Korea, Syria, and bin Laden’s group. Not to mention making us safer here at home. Even Rumsfeld testified day before yesterday that another 9/11 could happen tomorrow.
Seems like we need a President who can set priorities that favor the security and general welfare of the majority of Americans, instead of an elite group of corporations like Haliburton, aero industry, and the oil industry.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2004 05:19 AM
