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 ...
First posted 11/2/07...
Never take a terrorist alive.
We have to think about this?
With respect to Lord Rees-Mog, he misses the point. Muslim terrorists recognize no law outside sharia, and that includes so-called international law and the laws of any other nation. They have, by their own choice, placed themselves outside of our laws.
The correct characterization of terrorists is found in old English common law. They are OUTLAWS, and as such can be killed on sight, wherever and whenever they may be found. This designation is both appropriate and logical. We should adopt this classification and treat them accordingly.
...after shoving a pineapple up their butt.
The only real difference between Israel hitting al-Mabhouh in Dubai and our hitting al Queda in Pakistan is the method used to kill them.
Kill them before they kill us.
Kill em twice, why ask
And then shove an ice pick into the backs of the slimey heads.
wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!you shove a scissors into the back of their heads, insert a hose and suck out their brains.......we already know that really doesn’t kill a human being and that if it’s convenient for you......what the heck, go for it !!!!!
Kill em wherever you find em.
If the UAE wants to go to war with Israel, good luck with that.
Cold, brilliant numeric analysis of the situation.
You know, Scott Roeder’s defense was that Dr. Tiller was the equivalent of a terrorist. Dr Tiller was unashamedly the killer of hundreds, if not thousands, of babies. Scott felt justified for he had waited for the law to handle this terrorist, but the law was in Tiller’s pocket. Scott reasoned, If the law refuses to do its job then the people must take the law into their own hands. I think we must be careful in granting that it is OK to kill all terrorists; for who is the judge of who qualifies for that designation.
1.)Capture and extract info
2.)Give them a sex change operation with a 44D cup size
3.)Put them in a pair of Daisy Duke shorts and a cutoff belly shirt with the caption "Girlz Rule" 4.)Drop them off in Taliban territory and let their buddies take care of the killing part.
In the case of the Dubai elimination, this is a no brainer. The person that was killed was directly responsible for the death of Israeli citizens and was waging war against Israel.
He was a legitimate target for Israeli government action.
Israel should stand up proudly and say, “yes, we killed him. Furthermore, the only thing we regret is that we did not kill him sooner.
“And furthermore, we intend to continue to kill people who engage in war against Israel whenever and wherever we can. Don’t like it? Suck on it.”
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.