Posted on 02/21/2010 5:12:44 PM PST by ricks_place
The international law on assassination is clear enough; assassination is murder and can be an act of aggression. The Dubai authorities are entitled to arrest and try the assassins of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh if they can catch them. They would be entitled to try to sentence them under Dubai law, though they would have a duty to provide a fair trial.
That is the ruling in law, but there is a separate issue of morality. Many Israelis undoubtedly feel that Mr Mabhouh was a dangerous terrorist and that Mossad—if it was responsible—was acting legitimately in self-defence. Yet there are interesting differences between different religions and different branches of Christian belief. The Catholic teaching looks for authority; the Protestant looks for justification.
The ethical question over the morality of killing terrorists seems to be the same as that raised in killing tyrants. Traditional Catholic teaching is to be found in the writings of the great medieval theologian St Thomas Aquinas. He considered it legitimate to kill a usurper, but only under a mandate from a legitimate authority. Murder requires an express mandate before a private person can lawfully kill even a tyrant. Otherwise killing a tyrant or a terrorist would be contrary to natural law.
This seems to be the ruling of the Council of Constance in 1415. Life, even of a terrorist, has an absolute value, and should be protected. The Protestant view is more utilitarian.
In the Reformation period, most of the leading Protestants were surprisingly strongly in favour of killing tyrants. The Scottish reformer, John Knox, affirmed that it was the duty of “the nobility, judges, rulers and people of England” to condemn Mary Queen of Scots to death.One leading German reformer, the “mild Melanchthon”, argued that the killing of a tyrant is the most agreeable offering a man can make to God.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
You capture when feasible, but you don’t endanger your people to do so. Anyone missing Zarkawi after he got turned into tomato bisque? I’m sure he had plenty of intel.
kill. next question.
Wrong context, “assassination” is for political leadership, output of War is for killing enemies.
It’s almost a circular question. The only reason one would keep a terrorist alive is to get more info out of him (or her) to get the chance to kill a bigger terrorist. But the ultimate objective is killing terrorists, big and small. I have no problem with capturing terrorists, using “disagreeable” methods to get info out of them, then uh “dispatching” them.
I vote for kill: Is this a trick question?
BUMP!
Western civilization needs to pre-empt any and all by unleashing asymmetric warriors/warfare.
Terrorize the terrorists, their enablers, their wannabees.
KILL..that was easy..
If civil war comes to America those of us on and in the right will be labeled terrorists and Obama and the other left nuts who bemoan the death of every muslim would have no problem giving the order to kill us.
Is that a serious question? I don’t think so. A terrorist by definition is someone who has given up their humanity. They are bugs. Would you spare that cockroach? Why? That black widow spider? Why? They are vermin. Exterminate them. Period.
Aw come on. Make it a game. Odds or evens....
Odds, cap him from the front while he watches.
Evens, cap him from the back and make him sweat it out before you do it.
See, make it fun.
I’d go with kill too. Removing that person as a threat to your Country is job #1. Capture and interrogate for intel if possible as a close #2. Of course, that is only if you believe the current administration would actually perform a meaningful and fruitful interrogation, and wouldn’t release an enemy combatant.
The largest deep pocketed group opposed to surgical removal with extreme prejudice is the Defense Industry. Ironic Huh ? :)
It could also be argued that killing a terrorist is a defensive act, as dead terrorists cease being threats.
It could also be argued that this person was not assassinated but rather executed.
Right after the 9/11 attacks, I remember listening to some lawmakers who were standing on the steps of the Capitol remarking on that terrible day. I recall then-Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia saying something to the effect that “these people (the terrorists) want to eradicate us. We need to eradicate them FIRST!”
That’s about all that needs saying, in my book. Kill them before they kill us.
IMHO this argument has run round Robin’s barn. An individual can lawfully kill another person for two reasons. One you may kill in self defense. Two you may kill a person to prevent that person from killing another innocent person.
A terrorist is trying to kill whoever gets in his or her way. Therefore the terrorist has just put a bullseye right between hils or her eyes. Any person is authorized to shoot to kill because of their stated intention.
They may be captured for intelligence purposes prior to an execution.
If fact, I think bounties should be paid on terrorists by all legit governments.
Our very survival requires that we kill n møøselimbs. Where n is a number between 0 and 1.3 billion. It is defined as the number necessary to kill for the remainder, 1,300,000,000-n to forswear violence as a means of religious debate.
WE don't set the value of n.
THEY set the value of n...
Brilliant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.