License to Kill ??

wexie · 17-03-2012 9:37pm #1

interesting article on the BBC news site :

The legal justification for "targeted killings" has been provided by broadening the notion of self-defence. It is now taken to mean protecting yourself from imminent attack and, more controversially, targeting any group which is planning an attack, even if you don't know when that might be.

That seems to be pretty vague justification no? Doesn't sound far remove from : but he needed killing?

If America can legitimately kill its citizens in Yemen, why can't Russia do the same in London? A few wonder if it already has, pointing to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko

"It wasn't a regime, it was one person, irrational, out of control. What do you do? I would never call it a moral act," says Lord Owen. "A lesser of two evils, yes."

Not altogether sure there are current day examples of this (Mugabe?) but let's say there is a dictator somewhere, completely off his rocks, committing all kinds of atrocities, do you think assassination would be / could be justified? Let's say Idi Amin, or even that guy Joseph Kony. If we could send in a team of snipers and have it all over and done with. Would it be morally acceptable (to you)?

Sunnyisland · 17-03-2012 9:46pm

It happens all the time,With western & other nations doing it quite frequently,The Iranian scientists are a example as is the OBL case to name but a few.There is nothing new about this secret war that goes on around us.

Biggins · 17-03-2012 10:06pm

realies wrote: »

...There is nothing new about this secret war that goes on around us.

Very true.

krudler · 17-03-2012 10:12pm

isnt it often the ones who authorise assassinations who put dictators into power to begin with?

cloptrop · 17-03-2012 10:28pm

Thought this was a James Bond thread , heads wrecked now , wont be able to sleep off this drunk .

Chuck Stone · 17-03-2012 11:19pm

If it was justice that was sought then they would be tried in a court.

Take the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. They could easily have captured him and put him on trial but you can't have an articulate former CIA asset appearing in a court showing up his captors as the treacherous duplicitous people that they are.

Having OBL in court talking about US support for brutal regimes and unconditional support for Israel in its inexorable throttling of the Palestinians would be too embarrassing for the masters of the universe.

Sunnyisland · 17-03-2012 11:25pm

Before this gets into another US bashing thread its not just the US that does it,Many countries carry these out these activities,Its part of a clandestine war that goes on every day every year,Right around the globe.

Chuck Stone · 17-03-2012 11:34pm

realies wrote: »

Before this gets into another US bashing thread its not just the US that does it,Many countries carry these out these activities,Its part of a clandestine war that goes on every day every year,Right around the globe.

It's not 'US' bashing - the US is a country of 300 million people. Being critical of US foreign policy =/= hating the US.

When you have certain countries going on about freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law while simultaneously propping up brutal regimes then they should be called out on it.

Targeted assassinations are not in keeping with western values.

Sunnyisland · 18-03-2012 11:07am

During the 1930s and 1940s Joseph Stalin's NKVD carried out numerous assassinations outside of the Soviet Union, such as the killings of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists leader Yevhen Konovalets, Ignace Poretsky, Fourth International secretary Rudolf Klement, Leon Trotsky, and the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) leadership in Catalonia.[13]

During the Vietnam War, partly in response to Viet Cong assassinations of government leaders, the U.S. engaged in the Phoenix Program to assassinate Viet Cong leaders and sympathizers, and killed between 6,000 and 41,000 persons, with official 'targets' of 1,800 per month.

The Irish Republican Army guerrillas of 1919–21 killed many RIC Police Intelligence officers during the Irish War of Independence. Michael Collins set up a special unit – the Squad – for this purpose, which had the effect of intimidating many policemen into resigning from the force. The Squad's activities peaked with the killing of 14 British agents in Dublin on Bloody Sunday in 1920.

This tactic was used again by the Provisional IRA during the Troubles in Northern Ireland (1969–present). Killing of RUC officers and assassination of RUC politicians was one of a number of methods used in the Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997. The IRA also attempted to assassinate British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher by bombing the Conservative Party Conference in a Brighton hotel.

After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the new Islamic government of Iran began an international campaign of assassination that lasted into the 1990s. At least 162 killings in 19 countries have been linked to the senior leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran.[16] This campaign came to an end after the Mykonos restaurant assassinations, because a German court publicly implicated senior members of the government and issued arrest warrants for Ali Fallahian, the head of the Iranian Intelligence.[17] Evidence indicates that Fallahian personal involvement and individual responsibility for the murders were far more pervasive than his current indictment record represents.[18]

On August 17, 1988, President of Pakistan Gen. M. Zia ul Haq died alongside 31 others including the Chief of Staff of the Pakistani Armed Forces, the US Ambassador to Pakistan and the chief of the US Military Mission to Pakistan when his C-130 transport plane mysteriously crashed. The crash is widely considered — inside of Pakistan — to be an act of political assassination.

In India, Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi (neither of whom were related to Mohandas Gandhi, who was assassinated in 1948), were assassinated in 1984 and 1991 respectively. The assassinations were linked to separatist movements in Punjab and northern Sri Lanka, respectively.

In Israel, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated on November 4, 1995. Yigal Amir confessed and was convicted of the crime.

In Lebanon, the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on February 14, 2005, prompted an investigation by the United Nations. The suggestion in the resulting Mehlis report that there was Syrian involvement, prompted the Cedar Revolution, which drove Syrian troops out of Lebanon.

In Pakistan, former prime minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in 2007, while in the process of running for re-election. Bhutto's assassination drew unanimous condemnation from the international community.[22]

Not forgetting the Israelis and south American and african governments And so it goes on & on

Wild Bill · 18-03-2012 11:17am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When you have certain countries going on about freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law while simultaneously propping up brutal regimes then they should be called out on it.

This is the key issue and the reason why Western hypocrisy is so detested in the rest of the world.

Every Government (near enough) engages in murder. Only the Western ones try to justify mass murder in the name of freedom, democracy and the rule of law - even while routinely and repeatedly destroying all three across the globe whenever geopolitical self-interest dictates.

FatherLen · 18-03-2012 11:19am

dun dun dun duuun dun dun dun dun dun duuuun dun dun dun dun dun duuuuuun duuuuuun dun dun dun dun.

james bond theme.

Freddie59 · 18-03-2012 11:23am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not 'US' bashing - the US is a country of 300 million people. Being critical of US foreign policy =/= hating the US.

When you have certain countries going on about freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law while simultaneously propping up brutal regimes then they should be called out on it.

Targeted assassinations are not in keeping with western values.

You're right. Only extremist Islamic ones. Fight fire with fire. God bless the USA.

forfuxsake · 18-03-2012 3:52pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

You're right. Only extremist Islamic ones. Fight fire with fire. God bless the USA.

yeah we should outevil them. That'll learn 'em.

RichieC · 18-03-2012 3:55pm

krudler wrote: »

isnt it often the ones who authorise assassinations who put dictators into power to begin with?

The circle of life... It's the wheel of fortune...

twinQuins · 18-03-2012 4:02pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

You're right. Only extremist Islamic ones. Fight fire with fire. God bless the USA.

Hey! Hey look at me! Pay attention to me I'm being controversial! Are you paying attention to me? Come on, I said pay attention to me!

Manic Moran · 18-03-2012 8:10pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Targeted assassinations are not in keeping with western values.

What is not Western about enacting a policy of "if you declare war on us, we will kill you?"

The case of the Russian journalist is not applicable here. He was supposedly killed not because he had ideals of killing people, but because the Russian government allegedly didn't like what he had to say. That is more contrary to contemporary Western values.

Chuck Stone · 18-03-2012 8:43pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

What is not Western about enacting a policy of "if you declare war on us, we will kill you?"

Are we talking about targeted assassinations or war?

If we are talking about war would it have been reasonable for Iraq to send a team of snipers to the US to take out GWB and some Neocons as a garnish?

Would it be reasonable for Iran to send a team of assassins to the US to take out people who are blowing the bugle for a war against Iran?

mikom · 18-03-2012 8:47pm

RTE are bringing out a licence to kill.
160 euro a year if you have a steak knife in your kitchen......... even if you never use it to kill.

Wild Bill · 18-03-2012 9:49pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

What is not Western about enacting a policy of "if you declare war on us, we will kill you?"

No country has declared war on a Western country since Japan and Germany (another Western country). There is no such "Western policy".

It is simply a universal reality.

Folk shoot at you and grab your land you retaliate. Hence 9/11 for example. :cool:

And that's why the West is scuttling out of Iraq and Afghanistan as fast as their logistics will carry them

forfuxsake · 18-03-2012 10:11pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Are we talking about targeted assassinations or war?

If we are talking about war would it have been reasonable for Iraq to send a team of snipers to the US to take out GWB and some Neocons as a garnish?

Would it be reasonable for Iran to send a team of assassins to the US to take out people who are blowing the bugle for a war against Iran?

sounds like you are on the side of terrorists. commie b'stard. if you love terrorism so much why don't you go in and live there and get away from us right-thinking peaceful nations?

Chuck Stone · 18-03-2012 10:33pm

forfuxsake wrote: »

sounds like you are on the side of terrorists.

They're not terrorists - they're just misunderstood. :pac:

Wild Bill · 18-03-2012 10:46pm

mikom wrote: »

RTE are bringing out a licence to kill.
160 euro a year if you have a steak knife in your kitchen......... even if you never use it to kill.

forfuxsake · 18-03-2012 11:46pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They're not terrorists - they're just misunderstood. :pac:

well that's because they speak jibberjabber

Wild Bill · 19-03-2012 2:52am

forfuxsake wrote: »

well that's because they speak jibberjabber

I knew a man once who spoke jibberjabber, with a slight Cork accent.

He is said to have spent his days and nights (especially weekends and Bank Holidays) trolling in fluent jib-jab.

Sadly he passed away today. I'm told the last words he uttered were "vote Santorum".

Spooky.

Manic Moran · 19-03-2012 3:41am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Are we talking about targeted assassinations or war?

Insofar as the US conduct of it (I'm presuming that's the crux of this discussion) is concerned, is there a difference? The US isn't targetting political enemies, it's targetting those who would kill Americans. It's just being a little more precise about it, instead of sending a Marine Expeditionary Unit to conduct an assault, doing something a little cheaper, more low key, and less likely to involve people who really don't have much to do with the dispute. Is there a legal difference between sending in three battalions of troops to go kill someone, and using a drone to do the same thing?

If we are talking about war would it have been reasonable for Iraq to send a team of snipers to the US to take out GWB and some Neocons as a garnish?

I don't know about as a garnish, but yes, I would have thought that the concept had occurred to both Iraqi and US elements that the President might be a suitable target in the event of hostilities.

Would it be reasonable for Iran to send a team of assassins to the US to take out people who are blowing the bugle for a war against Iran?

Since no statements or acts of hostilities have yet been declared, no, I would not think so. Unless that team were going to assasinate someone in the military chain such as the President, in which case it's "game on", you have yourselves a military conflict, and I doubt the response would be anywhere as discrete as a hit squad.

No country has declared war on a Western country since Japan and Germany (another Western country). There is no such "Western policy".

That's OK, I don't think any Western country has declared war on any other country since WWII either. That hasn't stopped conditions of war having been in effect involving Western countries multiple times in the post-War era, from Korea through the Football War, the Falklands to Iraq.

NTM

Wild Bill · 19-03-2012 10:17am

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US isn't targetting political enemies, it's targetting those who would kill Americans.

Eh..no. It's targeting political enemies (and their children and anyone who happens to be around them in passing) on the grounds that they might kill Americans.

There is no difference in what they are doing than, say, the Chinese killing people in Silicon valley with car bombs on the basis that some "targeted" scientists/military, who are suspected of involvement in activities hostile to Chinese interests, might be amongst the victims.

Is there a legal difference between sending in three battalions of troops to go kill someone, and using a drone to do the same thing?

No - you got at least this right! Both are mass murder and if carried out by enemies of America would be deemed "war crimes" or even "crimes against humanity" by Western politicians and media.

Since no statements or acts of hostilities have yet been declared, no, I would not think so.

I think the actions taken against Iran thus far would be regarded as acts of war were some country to do the same against America. (And I'm not 'targeting' America here - Ireland is probably complicit, through the EU aggression, in acts of war against Iran)

That's OK, I don't think any Western country has declared war on any other country since WWII either.

Yeah, nobody declares war any longer. It seriously restricts your options when things go wrong. So the defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, can be presented as some sort of charity mission that the ungrateful natives didn't appreciate - rather than geopolitical disasters triggered by post 9/11 anger and hubris

Manic Moran · 19-03-2012 4:17pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Eh..no. It's targeting political enemies (and their children and anyone who happens to be around them in passing) on the grounds that they might kill Americans.

I think they're more worried about the ones who intend to and have a reasonable ability to. Everyone on the planet might kill Americans.

No - you got at least this right! Both are mass murder and if carried out by enemies of America would be deemed "war crimes" or even "crimes against humanity" by Western politicians and media.

Got an example of that, out of curiousity?

I think the actions taken against Iran thus far would be regarded as acts of war were some country to do the same against America.

So is China at war with America due to the restrictions in trade that they have imposed? Sanctions and trade barriers may be causes of war, but they are rarely (unless they get to the level of blockade) actually acts of war.

Yeah, nobody declares war any longer. It seriously restricts your options when things go wrong. So the defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, can be presented as some sort of charity mission that the ungrateful natives didn't appreciate - rather than geopolitical disasters triggered by post 9/11 anger and hubris

I think it's just a formality that nobody bothers with any more. A state of war existed between Argentina and the UK, between Israel and Egypt, South and North Korea, El Salvador and Honduras, Kuwait and Iraq, India and Pakistan... There was no doubting the nature of the conflict or the rules which applied. The fact that nobody bothered making an official pronouncement in parliament was kindof redundant: The people pulling triggers were under no illusions.

NTM

Logical Fallacy · 19-03-2012 4:19pm

krudler wrote: »

isnt it often the ones who authorise assassinations who put dictators into power to begin with?

No, they put "friends with mutual interests" into power. They become Dictators later when their interest diverge.

In about 10 years time you will be able to predict unrest in the Middle East based on who defriends who on Facebook.

forfuxsake · 19-03-2012 6:05pm

thought this thread was going to be about the fact that women are issued with driving permits.

RichieC · 19-03-2012 6:19pm

Check this one out from florida.

Quick run down.

17 year old black male goes to the shops to buy sweets, he's visiting at his aunts house in a gated community, on his way back he's spotted by a vigilante "neighbourhood watch" patrol. 240 pound white male. He rings the police and tells them there's a suspicious guy in the housing estate "just walking around looking at thing" - police tell him not to follow him, he does, chases him and guns him down, Child dies. in his hand he had a packet of skittles and in his pocket a can of iced tea.

Shooter cites self defence as his reason for the shooting. 140 pound child. Police accept his excuse and no charges have been filed.

The kid's described as an A and B student who majored in being cheerful. his name is Trayvon Martin.

The Shooter Zimmerman “was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer" and has been the subject of multiple complains from neighbours in the community for his aggressive tactics.

No arrest, no charges.

LH Pathe · 19-03-2012 9:04pm

??

that's right.. and you know I'm going straight for your heart

License to Kill ??

Comments