What do you mean by “put a stop to that”? If the bad guys survive the war and are captured, they can end up in the dock just like Milošević.
No, Hezbollah is a non-state actor, and essentially any offensive action they take is essentially a crime within the framework of international laws of conflict. Israel specifically targeting members of Hezbollah (or Hamas) for assassination is extrajudical killing but given the roles of these organizations in terroristic attacks a credible legal argument can be made that such assassinations are permissible as the targets represent an imminent threat. But facilitating the distribution of explosives-laden pagers and detonating them without verifying the person holding them is a target is the very definition of “indiscriminate killing”, even if it is believed that the majority of the items were distributed to leaders within a terrorist organization.
This might seem pedantic because nations go to war all the time and engage in conduct that results in the deaths of many non-combatants (often more than the number of combatants actually killed or captured), but there is a long history (discussion of which is beyond the scope of this thread) that goes into targeted killing and the use of booby traps to establish a legitimate-ish legal framework that is intended to minimize unintended casualties and prevent escalation of these methods to a general population. The point of this is not to “protect” terrorist organizations or offending rogue nations like Russia and North Korea, but to prevent normalizing such actions as just a standard part of “total warfare” in which everybody of any age, affiliation, or alignment is fair game for any form of horror just because they can be struck at.
And while the use of bombs and drone strikes often results in what is euphemistically referred to as “collateral damage”, there is actually a decision chain for the proportionality of such strikes and required objective evidence that is supposed to be satisfied before such methods are used, which is intended to maintain some air of legitimacy for the nation using them even if their opponent does not. When nations start ignoring these conventions and processes out of expedience or in the desire for vengeance (and political approval by their populations looking for the same), we end up in massive, often unending conflicts that kill even more non-combatants even after the original objectives were satisfied or overcome by events.
I’m going to bow out of further discussion here because it is evident that the overarching sentiment is that it is okay for Israel to do whatever they want, even if is in clear violation of conventions they have ratified or harms a disproportionate amount of non-combatants for questionable objectives, and I’m not really interested in the endless tit-for-tat of that kind of rhetoric, but while I think Israel has a right to defend itself and protect its citizens against terrorists and preemptively strike at the leadership of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, that shouldn’t translate to a blank check to do commit war crimes with impunity.
Stranger
This cartoon character has the tree from the Lebanese flag on his hat! Coincidence? I think not!
I was thinking along those lines. I don’t have any particular insight into these components but it seemed like the initiator alone must be in that weight range. Maybe it could cause some damage if pressed right against the body, but you’d really want a larger charge than that.
I mean, is the International Police gonna come in and arrest Hezbollah, stopping the thousands of rockets; or do we need to take care of it ourselves?
That’s what I thought.
Only if oil is at stake.
I don’t think you understand my point.
If you have 1 eight year old killed for 5000 enemy soldiers that is the fortunes of war, even if a tragedy.
If you have 5000 eight year olds killed for 1 enemy soldier that is disproportionate. And an extreme example.
It’s currently an open question just how much collateral damage occurred during this attack utilizing exploding pagers and walkie-talkies. Until we have a better idea of who was actually harmed we won’t be able to determine if the number of bystanders maimed or killed was reasonable in context or disproportionate.
So it’s Schrodinger’s War Crime, then.
Not sure if you’re unclear on international law, or quantum physics.
The “benefit” certainly included targeting a sizable number of enemy operatives (whether they are “off the field” by way of death or injury … and very odd the argument that losing an eye or even becoming blind, is worse than death), but that is not the exclusive or even biggest “benefit”.
Hizbullah already had their operatives toss their cell phones out. Encrypted pagers were their alternative. That communication system is now mostly degraded. Walkie talkie capabilities … degraded. Their ability to communicate and plan or execute any operations are impaired drastically for some significant period of time, at a time they were regularly throwing bombs and had been announcing more.
They have no ability to have confidence that the back up to their back up communication options is not compromised.
Very likely a variety of associated operatives are now identified.
This operation achieved much more than a dozen missile attacks or other “standard” tools aimed at Hizbullah various operations centers would have and missle attacks have much greater chance of killing bystanders, including children. If only Hamas had pagers like this and Israel did this instead of killing tens of thousands who are not Hamas to get at them there.
I set up a decoder a while back and while investigating some of the concerns I had about patient data, I uncovered the following fun facts….)
The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) says it’s illegal in the United States to capture cell phones or pagers under federal law.
FCC Title 47, part 15 has language against intentional eavesdropping, and there are stiff penalties (roughly a year in prison).
I’m just doing, uh, security research. Yeah. Or wait, I’m hunting terrorists. Even better!
(For the record, I don’t store any info and wouldn’t retransmit it. Basically none of it is actionable unless you already knew who was in which room, etc. already)
Place explosives in ink-jet cartridges. Place explosives in USB sticks, set to go off when they’re inserted into a computer. Or place explosives into headsets that go kaboom when they’re plugged in. Hack into automotive firmware, meddle with the automatic transmission.
Those risks are all cited. I purposely did not engage in speculation about how to break the law, as that brushes up against this board’s TOS.
You are correct that international law doesn’t protect nation states from terrorists. But it does protect them against other nation states, as long as all those nation states have confidence that the others will also abide.
Israel has shown that they don’t abide by this law, which could open them up to threats beyond terrorist organizations.
The fact that Israel’s neighbors gave up trying to invade and conquer them half a century ago suggests that they’ve already learned their lesson.
This is not a new idea…
We’ve discussed it here at the Dope in many threads about self-driving cars
“What if somebody hacks the software and causes 10 thousand cars to crash at once?”
Rather silly since you can do it without self-driving equipment. Your (modern) car is already capable of locking up the driver-side wheels, for instance. And sufficiently bad software can (and has) been used to allow hackers in via the cell connection and mess with the brakes.
There are a million easier ways to kill people and yet those aren’t done either. Mostly people aren’t killers. There is a tight circle of overlap between groups with the capability and groups with the will… and that’s pretty much a handful of intelligence agencies. Who aren’t going to spend their hard-earned hacks on some civilians.
Unless nation states operate through non-state bodies, like Iran operates through Hezbollah and the Houthis. That gives them all of the benefits of international law and none of the obligations.
Or trains. I’ve recently watched two fictional accounts of terrorist-hacked trains causing mayhem and death; Nightsleeper and Starcops (S1:3).
It seems likely that in the relatively near future all potentially dangerous devices (cars, trains, aircraft, communications devices, computers - the list goes on) will need to be certified by security consultants first. We already have to pass through intensive security to get on a plane - will this be the norm for everything in the future? We may be entering a new arms race - involving ingenious hi-tech assassination technologies.
In lots of ways this wave of targeted assassinations is admirable, especially since it involved aspects of social engineering as well, and killed relatively few people. But it may normalise hi-tech, targeted warfare, and I’m sure that some non-state actors are going to be much less careful in their techniques. Every time you kill a terrorist you create ten more, unfortunately.
More news on the origins of the pagers: