Perhaps, perhaps not. I do think that attempting to decimate the leadership of a terrorist organization is a legitimate strategy, and anyone who plans bombings of pizza parlors and weddings and busses needs to be killed good and dead.
So how is it “counter productive”?
Who said I did think that? I’m just saying they’ve been plenty galvanized for a long time, and I don’t see that going away if Israel decides to stop killing terrorists.
My problem with condoning assassination is that there isn’t any sort of standard to demonstrate where we should draw the line. As other posters pointed out, to some Middle Eastern citizens, GWB is just as odious as the Hamas leaders, for exactly the same reasons. But obviously, no one here would approve of that. Where do we draw the line? How bad does someone have to be before we shrug and say “eh, he deserved it”? What do we do when someone else’s line is different than ours? And should we or should we not care about collateral damage (as at the very least the first Hamas assassination definitely had)?
I really, really care about what those retards think 
Yes, just look at all those suicide attacks after Yassin’s death. Wait, scratch that.
You’re implying that it wouldn’t?
…
Thank christ you’re in the minority and you don’t have a position of authority in the government. (Presumably. Even Bush isn’t so incompetent as to appoint you.)
All of these questions are of high importance, and I may think about them deeply on the toilet. Meanwhile, Israelis are being murdered by suicide bombers, and breaking up this suicide bombers’ organization is fairly important.
Well, consider this: The United States has tried to bomb Osama Bin Laden. That, by your logic, is unlawful because it is an attempt to assassinate a person without “due process”.
Iceburn. Tears are rolling down my cheeks, but I dance to make them evaporate 
Alright Eyer8, here’s a little game. You have just been appointed Prime Minister of Israel. Your citizens are being murdered by an organization that has declared war on your country. Obviously, you want to break up this organization. You find the location of the leader. You have two options:
Send in troops to try to arrest him. However, these troops will definitely die. And the leader will escape. But you don’t want to violate international law~!! You have to personally apologize to the soldiers’ families for forcing their suicide, btw.
Shoot the fucker without losing the troops.
Which option do you take?
Come on guys, here’s two choices of achieving a desired outcome:
Which do you choose? It sure is a toughie.
I pointed out that he has been arrested twice before by Israel; you can find cites for that in any one of the dozens of Yassin biographies floating around. Here’s his Wikipedia entry, for example.
That said, articles covering the actual conditions of his arrests are hard to come by. I’m checking back issues of Foreign Policy right now.
You’re missing the point though. Israel hasn’t even attempted to claim that arresting him would be impractical- you have, but the fact that there are enough Israeli troops in the West Bank to annex Jordan makes this a highly dubious assertion.
I’ve got two aches over this. One is in my head, the other in my belly.
First, the headache. Why in God’s name are these eliminations being called assassinations? Extrajudicial executions, yes. But assassinations? That would be like calling the shooting of a LA gang leader by a police officer an assassination. These people are the leaders of groups of thugs who show no respect for law, order, human rights, and civilizaiton in general. Saying that they are no different from gang members is, however, unfair to the gangbangers in that gang members (at least in the US) refrain from the mass murder of civilians. Other gang members, yea, but that’s the scum cleaning itself off the pond. No big loss.
The bellyache comes from the idea that somehow the government of Israel is in the wrong for doing what is the most sensable (and, if you recognize the fact that Israel is a democracy (the ONLY democracy in the region,) the people of Israel support this stuff. If they don’t, Sharon et al will be voted out of office.) Sharon was, and in a sense, still is an officer of the IDF. He’s lead troops into battle, and was trained in the American mindset to kill that which will most effectively cripple or destroy the enemies ability to continue fighting. For Americans, in wartime, that’s always been the command, control, and communication abilities of the enemy. Note that first word. How do you destroy the ability of an enemy to make a command level decision? Kill the commander. Eventually, if you kill enough of these motherfuckers, the chain of command will be broken and the enemy will cease to exist as a cohesive unit. It holds true in Israel too. If they kill enough of Hamas’ higher leadership, eventually they’ll run out of leaders. The Israelis have been pretty good about limiting civilian casualties. That, the killing of its leaders, and the suicidal nature of their members, could and should bring about the end of fighting. Either that, or the Palistenians can take a page from our own Civil Rights marches. Do you think that people of color would have the same rights they do if they’d started randomly blowing the shit out of busses and deli’s instead of nonviolently protesting by overcrowding them?
Thank you, fushj00mang. Well said.
Apart from the Gibraltar 3, of course.
sorry for the hijack.
and the whole “Shoot to Kill” thing
And Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Francisco Notarantonio … I really think somebody needs to do a bit more research on how the UK managed to fight paramilitarism.
In fairness, I wouldn’t say the British Government themselves gave the order for those three, rather FRU acting extra judiciously.
insert hyphen if appropriate.
I don’t for a moment believe the British Government didn’t know what the FRU was getting up to, though.
agd: That URL doesn’t work.
Sorry, is this better? If not, it’s at
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew121.php
Were Uday and Qusay’s killings also illegal?
By the standards of international law cited in the article, yes. As I said, you may disapprove of the interpretation that extrajudicial killings (even of enemy leaders in war) are illegal, and you may condemn some European governments for hypocrisy if they have actually used assassination (as Asteroide suggests) while officially repudiating it. But you haven’t shown that EU condemnation of assassination actually constitutes a double standard applied to Israel, which is what your rant’s supposedly about.
agd replied to Eyer8: *“Would assassination be lawful for the government then? Or is it only lawful if the target is not a citizen or resident of the country in question? (As an aside, what citizenship did Rantisi have and what government is the sovereign power there? What would happen if the US started assassinating Iraqi Clerics that were calling for the Iraqi people to oppose the US occupation? Would this be legal? Would this be good idea?)”
All of these questions are of high importance, and I may think about them deeply on the toilet.*
Um, shouldn’t you think deeply about highly important questions concerning the legitimacy of assassination before you make up your mind that it’s okay?
fush: Sharon was, and in a sense, still is an officer of the IDF. He’s lead troops into battle, and was trained in the American mindset to kill that which will most effectively cripple or destroy the enemies ability to continue fighting. […]
Either that, or the Palistenians can take a page from our own Civil Rights marches. Do you think that people of color would have the same rights they do if they’d started randomly blowing the shit out of busses and deli’s instead of nonviolently protesting by overcrowding them?
I totally oppose suicide bombings and all other forms of terrorism, but this is a very weird combination of ideas. You seem to be saying that nonviolent resistance is a good thing, but only for Palestinians.
Ogre: After they arranged and condoned suicide bombings, their deaths can not possibly come soon enough.
Very natural response. The trouble is, I don’t think it’s a good enough criterion to determine who is allowed to kill whom and how and why. “They’re bad guys and they killed people”, true though it may be, doesn’t automatically justify the conclusion “so we can off them whenever and however we want”.
For one thing, who gets to decide who’s a bad guy? I could easily see some enraged Iraqis saying “After Bush deliberately chose to make an unprovoked attack on our country and kill thousands of innocent people, his death can not possibly come soon enough.” But I don’t want them thinking that therefore they have some kind of moral right to fly a plane into the White House in order to take him out.
IIRC, police officers aren’t allowed to use deadly force unless their own life or the life of others is immediately in danger. If a cop shoots someone by surprise who doesn’t present an immediate threat, (even if they’re a serial mass murderer and baby-raper), it could, in fact, be suitably termed an assassination.
Depends on how you define “the region” of course.
FYI: A link with more international reaction
Are these statements hypocritical? I would say some of them are. The French, British and Russians would have little issue with taking people out if it was someone who they wanted gone.
It still doesn’t change the fact that these type of assassination are illegal.
Maybe countries should just come out and say that they want to change the law and make assassination legal again.
Using the arguments a lot of people are putting forward for the pro-assassination camp I agree with Kimstu in that it could be used to justify the assassination of Bush by a aggrieved Iraqi. My guess would be that pro-people would then be calling that an act of terrorism and not a good kill.
As a European I condemn this “European” condemnation of Israel.
I also seem to remember some Spanish liquidations of ETA members, and the Germans playing hard ball (fingered suicide) with poor Ulrikke of Baader-Meinhofs fame, not to mention France’s less than stellar record in the Algerian war. On the other hand if the difference lies in doing one thing and saying another vers. actually saying what you’re doing – I’m sorry, but I don’t really see the morally superior thing.
Anyway what’s the big deal? No longer that a week gone Rantisi expressed his pious desire to die as a martyr rather than suffer cardiac attack or some such silly thing. So everybody is happy; Israel is happy to get rid of a bastard whom masturbated to pictures of dead Israeli children. Rantisi is happy in heaven buggering his 72 virgins. Don’t worry. Be happy.
well, well, well, Rune Once again I agree with you. [we got to stop meeting like this]
European here, too. I puke on the sanctimoniuos attitude of above mentioned leaders.
Only you said it funnier, Rune
You “remember” wrong and, if you like you can dig up details and we can discuss it. What happened was that a few people in the government decided to use illegal means to fight ETA and when they were exposed they were tried and sentenced to jail and the Socialist Party lost the following elections. It seems pretty clear that the Spanish people do not accept the use of illegal means to fight criminals and I concurr.