License to Kill ??

wexie

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

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

realies wrote: »

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

Very true.

krudler

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

cloptrop

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

Chuck Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

forfuxsake wrote: »

sounds like you are on the side of terrorists.

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

Wild Bill

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

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

well that's because they speak jibberjabber

Wild Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

RichieC

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

??

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

Wild Bill

RichieC wrote: »

No arrest, no charges.

No surprise

Ponster

Update :

FBI and Department of Justice are investigating the shooting. The kid called a friend to say he was being followed by a strange man and the friend was on-line up until the moment that a fight broke out and the cellphone was dropped.


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10775671-trayvon-martin-case-to-go-to-grand-jury-fla-state-attorney-announces

Wild Bill

A grand jury will investigate the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old shot to death in a gated community in Florida on Feb. 26, state attorney Norm Wolfinger announced Tuesday.

What does that mean? What's a "Grand Jury"?

RichieC

Ponster wrote: »

Update :

FBI and Department of Justice are investigating the shooting. The kid called a friend to say he was being followed by a strange man and the friend was on-line up until the moment that a fight broke out and the cellphone was dropped.


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/20/10775671-trayvon-martin-case-to-go-to-grand-jury-fla-state-attorney-announces

Just read this now, there was a petition on change.org with over 400,000 signatures. That's what it took.... Americaaaaaa f*ck yea... (the sad slow version)

RichieC

Wild Bill wrote: »

What does that mean? What's a "Grand Jury"?

It will determine whether a criminal indictment will be handed out.

Wild Bill

Kinda like the DPP?

Manic Moran

Wild Bill wrote: »

Kinda like the DPP?

No. That would be the DA's office.

A Grand Jury in this context is kindof like a pre-trial. The DA presents the GJ with an amount of evidence and the GJ determines whether or not the accused has a case to answer for. If the DA can't even convince the GJ that there's a reasonable chance of a conviction, the GJ won't waste anyone's time with a proper trial.

Manic Moran

After doing a little research, the homicide issue seems to be a bit of a non-starter. It would appear that Mr Zimmerman (who despite the initial reports does appear to be a Hispanic, not that it matters) displayed evidence of a being on the receiving end of a few blows when the police showed up. Given the laws in Florida, the only grounds for an indictment would be if it could be shown that it was likely that he was the one to turn the incident to violence. Not an easy task unless there were eye witnesses. (Several people did call to report a scuffle, so maybe they can provide light.)

The Feds are taking a civil liberties perspective. They'd have no jurisdiction on a murder/manslaughter charge as those are State charges. Exactly what the levels of evidence are required for such charges, I don't rightly know.

NTM

Ponster

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Feds are taking a civil liberties perspective. They'd have no jurisdiction on a murder/manslaughter charge as those are State charges. Exactly what the levels of evidence are required for such charges, I don't rightly know.

NTM

Does that mean that in Florida I could kill someone that I provoked into attacking me first and claim self-defense ?

Wild Bill

Ponster wrote: »

Does that mean that in Florida I could kill someone that I provoked into attacking me first and claim self-defense ?

If there are no witnesses it appears you could skip the provoking bit

Manic Moran

Ponster wrote: »

Does that mean that in Florida I could kill someone that I provoked into attacking me first and claim self-defense ?

Pretty much.

The moral of that story is to not go around getting into fights and to resist provocation, which I think is good advice worldwide, but particularly important in places where people routinely carry weapons.

If there are no witnesses it appears you could skip the provoking bit

Also, pretty much. You'd still have to beat all the forensics, though (and in this case, the audio recordings), so it's a pretty ballsy move.

Overall, I'm not entirely comfortable with leaving this particular incident stand given the amount of knowledge we have, but I see few grounds (again, on limited information) for actually charging the man, as, evidently, did the local police department.

Ponster

Manic Moran wrote: »

but I see few grounds (again, on limited information) for actually charging the man, as, evidently, did the local police department.

I have no idea what the racial makeup of the area is but should he not be charged with something the words 'Rodney King' come to mine.

Maybe the best that can be hoped for is a repeal of the law which made this possible in the first place.

frag420

FatherLen wrote: »

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




james bond theme.

Thats the theme tune to Jaws!!

Ponster

Manic Moran wrote: »

but I see few grounds (again, on limited information) for actually charging the man, as, evidently, did the local police department.

Here's one maybe.

911 call by Zimmerman sounds like he whispers "****ing coons"

Manic Moran

Ponster wrote: »

Here's one maybe.

911 call by Zimmerman sounds like he whispers "****ing coons"

I had a listen to it last night, I'm not convinced that's what he said. I'm sure the FBI's audio enhancement team is better at such things than I am with my headset at home, however.

I have no idea what the racial makeup of the area is but should he not be charged with something the words 'Rodney King' come to mine.

If he cannot be proven to have broken any law, what do you suggest?

Maybe the best that can be hoped for is a repeal of the law which made this possible in the first place.

Seriously doubt it's going to happen. It's a good law which has had great benefit to the citizenry at large who no longer have to worry about being second-guessed by people when they believe themselves to have done nothing wrong (even if they did nothing wrong criminally, they are still open to civil litigation). Possible abuses like this are very rare in comparison to the justifiable homicides which caused the law to be written in the first place.

NTM

Wild Bill

Manic Moran wrote: »

I see few grounds (again, on limited information) for actually charging the man, as, evidently, did the local police department.

So, could we not just shoot him on the same basis he shot the kid? Seems like a plan.

Manic Moran

Wild Bill wrote: »

So, could we not just shoot him on the same basis he shot the kid? Seems like a plan.

How are we going to get him to attack us? Taunt him for being a tad overweight?

NTM

Wild Bill

Manic Moran wrote: »

How are we going to get him to attack us? Taunt him for being a tad overweight?

NTM

Just might work - he is obviously easily enraged

Manic Moran

Just to update.

Someone in the Sandford PD apparently leaked some of the police report to the local media.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest at very close range, according to authorities.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

No evidence as to who actually started the fight was in the leak.

NTM