USA against targeted assassinations?

Great Debates
1

So the US condemned Israel for attempting to take out a known Hamas terrorist, as “the US is against all targeted assassinations.” What happened between our targeted cruise missile assassination attempt on Saddam which kicked off Gulf War II and yesterday that made us change our mind? Shouldn’t there be some sort of assassinatory estoppel in a situation such as this in order to protect countries, such as Israel, who rely on American actions when <i>they</i> decide to assassinate terrorists? To protect their world-image from erratic and whimsical US changes in “targeted assassination” policy.

I am all for targeted assassinations of terrorists. We did the right thing with Saddam, and Israel did the right thing with the Hamas leader. Israel also did the right thing today. They assassinated a member of Hamas. Any member of Hamas is open game. And frankly, all these people yelling in the streets of Gaza should be open game, too. Surely John Ashcroft and the PATRIOT Act would come to the same conclusion. If we (usa) had al Queda supporters and known members screaming and rioting in the streets after we attacked Afghanistan … I don’t think we’d be full of “restraint.” Nor should we be, nor should Israel be. Again, Israel should be allowed to follow our example and lock up any Muslim it wants to, indefinitely, and without due process. I see no reason we shouldn’t share Guantanimo with Israel, as those who comprise Israel’s terrorist problem are the same people who comprise ours.

This isn’t even a hypocrisy/principal issue. When we do something, it impliedly lets the world know that such an action is okay, and they can do it to without us condemning it. When we do condemn it, it makes that country look bad and gives support to its enemies. It’s bad for that country and I think it’s bad for us, as it can only cause animosity with our allies and can’t possibly help a given situation.

How can we possibly criticize any country, let alone one of our allies, for attempting to assassinate a terrorist (a terrorist who would just love to blow up something in America, I might add)? Would our allies be wise to get formal “position statements” from the US government on certain actions and rules of engagement? Should there be some sort of estoppel here (with the US having to retract the condemnation and pay a set amount of liquidated damages to the wrongfully-condemned country)?

2

Kalt, you’re not serious, are you? I mean, you’re not just being sarcastic or playing devil’s advocate or anything, are you? I just want to check before I reply, as I hate getting whooshed…

3

Damned if I know whate 'e means. I think he just hates the US.

The basic difference, Kalt, is that Saddam was also the Supreme Commander of Iraq’s forces, and hence a valid military target. Don’t get us wrong, either - the only reason we warned Israel about their Hamas strike was because we have an interest in quieting down the whole situation. Also, remember words are words, and Bush may merely be playing politics.

The real problem is that the damned “international rules of war” simply don’t cover guerrilla and terrorist campaigns, for obvious reasons. But it also doesn’t cover what happens when its a semi-covert campaign against a more orderly nation. The rules look like they apply, but a close reading of the language doesn’t make any sense. Hence the problem with the Guantanamo detainees - they simply have no legal status at all, and no state wants anything to do with them.

On the other hand, this whole scenario was inevitable and aboslutely required to start any actual peace process. That doesn’t mean it will work, but it has to be done. The reason is simple: if, at this point, both Israel and Palesitne still go forward, it means peace can be reached and the radical elements squeezed out.

4

Seriously, Kalt, I want to hear you say that you genuinely meant every word of the OP, and that you’re not just taking the piss.

5

Sure I mean it.

I love this country and don’t see how anything I said could be interpreted as “hating the US.” I fail to see how we can partake in a targeted assassination on March 19th and then criticize another country–an allie–for doing the same thing. It undermines our allie’s objective, which is the same as ours… ridding the world of terrorists.

*The basic difference, Kalt, is that Saddam was also the Supreme Commander of Iraq’s forces, and hence a valid military target. *

So, you’re saying that if we knew exactly where Osama bin Laden were at this very moment it would be wrong for us to launch a missile at him because he’s not a valid military target? No way. Bin Laden and his al Queda are to America as Hamas and its leaders are to Israel. Absolutely no difference. If one says israel shouldn’t go after Hamas (and islamic jihad, etc.) then one necessarily has to say the US should not go after bin laden and al queda. I find that to be untenable. If we knew Osama were in a parked car outside a cave in Afghanistan, we would have a DUTY to blow that car up (and we would surely do so). And that, of course, would be a targeted assassination.

6

It is, in fact, an issue of do as I say, not as I do.

7

Ahh. Our policy on “targeted killings” is only in regards to the israeli-palestinian conflict. I see now. I didn’t know that. It sounded like we were against all targeted assassination attempts.

8

And you claim to be AGAINST those who committed the 9/11 atrocity?

Not that I am equating the politics of the victims of September 11th with those demonstrating against the gunship attacks in Gaza, but it seems to me that Kalt is saying that the right to demonstrate makes you fair game for missile attack.

9

I agree with Israel’s targetted attempts usually, but in this case I think a more targetted message should have been sent. Hamas attacked soldiers, not civilians in their initial recent strike. I believe Israel’s response to an attack on soldiers with no civilian casualties should be different than an attack on civilians. Perhaps a lockdown on wherever the targetted militants retreat to, with the stipulation that the lockdown will be lifted when the target surrenders or is turned over, along with a public message that this is an attempt to spare Palestinian civilians since Israeli civilians were not attacked. Making that distinction clear is important to the peace process, IMO.

10

Kalt, if you don’t mind…

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190330

…and if you do mind, I really don’t care any way.

11

I agree. Hamas is a paramilitary terrorist organization and must be destroyed by neglect (on the part of its supporters) or violence. However, for the sake of appearances, Bush MUST speak out against the attack.

What? No one ever said politics was logical.

12

Yeah, he means it.

And he considers himself a “patriotic American.”

Now that’s scary. :eek:

13

Kalt, did you really just state that any person demonstrating in the streets for a cause that you do not agree with should be killed on the spot? Is this a post made in a fit of anger, or are you serious about this? Please think about what you just posted, the implications are terrifying.

14

But what does targetting their spokesman acheive? especially right at the start of the peace process. I rember when the leader of an extremist and racist Israeli politcal party was assasinated Israel went absolutely ballistic.

The reason given for his targetting by an Israeli minister was that he opposed the peace process, yet this missle attack sets back the peace process.

15

zwaldd: a bus was blown up and 16 people were killed. I have heard nothing about that being a military bus occupied by soldiers only.

Lockdowns have, in the past, caused more violence than tit-for-tat explosions. Also keep in mind the militant typically blows himself up, and doesn’t retreat to anywhere. 15 minutes later Hamas says “we did it, we’re proud of it, and we’ll keep doing it no matter what.” All you can do is blow those people up. Force is the only way to peace.

16

Ah good, glad we know where you stand then.

In short I agree that the US was hypocritical in condemning Israel for it’s targetted assassination. While the attempt on Saddam was made at a time of war (and therefore legitimate in my opinion), the US also killed an alleged Al-Qaida member in Yemen by firing a missile at his car from a drone. The US is therefore condemning the very actions that they themselves are guilty of.

However, hypocrisy or not, they were still right to condemn Israel’s attack because Israel’s attack deserves the utmost condemnation.

Firstly, I believe that the use of assassination as a political tool is immoral, and that it should rightly be repudiated by any nation that claims to be civilised. Capture and arrest your target, by all means. Put him on trial for his crimes in an open court and let everyone see that justice is being done and due process adhered to. If found guilty of a capital crime, then by all means execute him. And in reference to your example, if the US did find OBL, yes it would be wrong to assassinate him. You capture him and then put him on trial in front of the world for crimes against humanity or mass-murder, then you execute him.

But assassination is murder, no matter how expedient it may be, and by resorting to this form of state-sanctioned murder, you relinquish any claim to moral superiority or respect. Not only does assassination destroy legitimacy, it also opens the door for your enemies do behave in the same manner, thereby endangering the lives of your own leaders and citizens, and doing away with the very national security you hope to achieve.

Secondly, even if we put aside our priciples for the sake of argument and say that assassination is a valid political tool, then Israel’s attack was still utterly indefensible. If they wanted this guy out of the way, they could have used a sniper, or a myriad other ways that did not endanger innocent lives. But Nooo, what do they do? They fire air-to-ground missiles at his car from a fucking Apache attack helicopter while he’s in the middle of a busy street! It absolutely beggars belief.

When innocent civilians are inevitably caught in the blast and maimed and killed, Israel still has the nerve, the sheer audacity to pretend that their actions were legitimate means to acheive peace, rather than a murderous bloodbath that failed to even acheive its stated goal. I don’t even think that Israel expressed any remorse to the innocent victims or their families - I certainly didn’t hear any statements to that effect.

And remember, if you will, that this attack would have been approved by senior members of the government. They approved the target, they approved the location, and above all, they approved the method. So it was a deliberate act by Government officials of a so-called Democratic nation, not a mistake, not a rogue pilot acting on his own.

So that’s where I stand with regards to the OP - Assassination is wrong no matter who does it, and even if it was right, Israel’s methods showed absolute contempt for innocent life.

But I’m not quite done yet. I have a serious issue with these two statements of yours:

and…

As far as I’m concerned, these two statements put you beyond the pale. This isn’t the pit, so I’ll try to stay civil, but if you mean it (and you’ve categorically stated that you do), then you are saying you have no problem with Israel gunning down civilians in the street. Furthermore, you are saying that all Muslims are legitimate terrorist suspects, and that they should be locked up without recourse to the very laws you claim to hold so dear.

If this was the Pit, I’d call you what you are to your face, but I’m not going to bother. I’m doing my utmost to bite my tongue here, but I dare you - I dare you to try and justify those statements. Because if you can’t, you had better bloody retract them now.

17

I was referring to the first attack after Hamas broke off talks with Abbas. They attacked a military outpost and killed some soldiers. Israel responded by targetting the Hamas spokesperson with a missile strike, which also killed some civilians and allegedly prompted the bus attack. This is the normal Israeli response, but in this situation I think they should’ve publicly recognized the distinction between an attack on soldiers and an attack on civilians by responding differently. And when I spoke of the “targetted” militant’s retreat, I was talking about the militant targetted in Israel’s retaliation strike, not the militant who blew himself up. If the lockdown leads to a Palestinian attack on civilians, then risk collateral casualties with a targetted attack. This is how I think they should react at least while a peace process is still on the table.

18

Bibliovore: Yeah, what I said was a bit harsh, I admit. I was watching them dancing around on TV as I was typing that. A few hours later, after cooling off, I do concede that I was out of line.

I don’t consider the rioting in the streets and cursing of all the civilized world to be an exercise in freedom of expression. It’s a terrorist gathering. Do you really think that you have the right to go downtown and start rioting, screaming about… say… how you’re going to kill every black person in the entire country, and will not stop until every last one is either dead or driven back to africa? Do you really think freedom of speech protects that? Get real.

Here’s the way I see it… Say you are sleeping on your hammock in your backyard and … OUCH! – a fireant bites your foot. You didn’t do anything to it, the ant just doesn’t like the idea of you “occupying” what it wrongly thinks is its territory. You squish it and kill it. It was a suicide biter.

Sure enough, you get up and notice a huge anthill settlement next to the foot of the tree your hammock is attached to. You worked really hard setting up that nice, expensive hammock, and then these fireants come and build their pile-of-sand settlement next to your tree. That spot was your chosen spot - the perfect place in your yard for a hammock. You have two choices. You can take a hose and spray water on the anthill until it’s completely destroyed, or you can put standard Home Depot ant poison on it. [I’m sure there are other options such as dousing it with gasoline and burning it, but these are the two least-violent, most civilized methods of getting rid of an anthill I can think of]

If you put ant poison on it, the entire colony dies. All those “innocent” ants that didn’t sting you, and their completely innocent larvae, all die. It’s a crime against insect-dom, complete genocide. Totally wrong, and after all, the “vast majority” of fireants have never bitten a single person. Sure, you can make the argument that you only meant to kill the queen ant, as that is how ant poison works (the worker ants carry the bait to the queen, which eats it and dies)… and surely the queen is a valid political target, right? The rest of the ant colony was just collateral damage (yes, even the poor, innocent, helpless, precious larvae).

Or, if you blast it with the hose, the anthill will usually be destroyed, but for the meantime you’ll have tens of thousands of fireants running around, scattered all over the vicinity of the former anthill. Those ants are not exercising free speech to protest your destruction of their anthill, they’re looking to attack. Not a single one of those fireants woudln’t bite you, given the chance (and that’s without the ants consciously being aware of the fact that it was YOU who sprayed the water). You’ll have to stay out of your hammock for at least a couple of days, as the fireants are “protesting” all over it.

Either way, eventually the ants will come back. Maybe a few days later, maybe a few months later. Using the poison will keep them away longest, but you’ll inevitably have another fire ant settlement next to your hammock-tree, because those ignorant, backwards ants think they are entitled to the land there. It’s YOUR yard. You have legal title to it. You promptly and properly recorded your deed. No matter, the ants just keep coming.

Is it possible to live peacefully together? You can use your hammock and they can use the land next to the tree, and nobody bothers the other? You don’t destroy their sand-hive and they stay off your hammock and don’t bite you. Wouldn’t that just be wonderful? Everyone could be happy! A seemingly perfectly rational compromise. You’re willing to let them stay there as long as they don’t bite you. You make the offer of this roadmap for peace. But next time you get on your hammock, guess what happens. Another suicide-biter strikes again.

What’s the bottom line? As long as there are fire ants, you won’t be able to have peace on your hammock.

See any parallels here?

19

Christ almighty, are we back to “nits make lice” again? :mad:

20

Posioning ants, eh? You really are sick. :frowning: