Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To kill or not to kill terrorists: thatís the question
The Times UK ^ | February 22, 2010 | William Rees-Mogg

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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bho44; counterterrorism; enemy; gwot
Terrorist must be dispatched if not captured for intelligence purpose.
1 posted on 02/21/2010 5:12:44 PM PST by ricks_place
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

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.


2 posted on 02/21/2010 5:14:36 PM PST by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

kill. next question.


3 posted on 02/21/2010 5:15:26 PM PST by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

Wrong context, “assassination” is for political leadership, output of War is for killing enemies.


4 posted on 02/21/2010 5:16:30 PM PST by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

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.


5 posted on 02/21/2010 5:20:23 PM PST by driftless2 (for long term happiness, learn how to play the accordion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

I vote for kill: Is this a trick question?


6 posted on 02/21/2010 5:20:29 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2 million for Sarah Palin: What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
Terrorist must be dispatched if not captured for intelligence purpose.

BUMP!

Western civilization needs to pre-empt any and all by unleashing asymmetric warriors/warfare.

Terrorize the terrorists, their enablers, their wannabees.

7 posted on 02/21/2010 5:24:57 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

KILL..that was easy..


8 posted on 02/21/2010 5:25:42 PM PST by GSP.FAN (These are the times that try men's souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

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.


9 posted on 02/21/2010 5:25:56 PM PST by SantosLHalper (Eat some bacon.No, I got no idea if it'll make you feel better, I just made too much bacon.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
I say read them their Miranda rights.And then shove an ice pick into the backs of the slimey heads.
10 posted on 02/21/2010 5:26:41 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Host The Beer Summit-->Win The Nobel Peace Prize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

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.


11 posted on 02/21/2010 5:27:54 PM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skooz

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.


12 posted on 02/21/2010 5:28:30 PM PST by Old Texan (Nobama, cound't get a job as a shift leader at Church's Fried Chicken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


13 posted on 02/21/2010 5:28:34 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (obama out now! I'll keep my money, my guns, and my freedom - you can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

The largest deep pocketed group opposed to surgical removal with extreme prejudice is the Defense Industry. Ironic Huh ? :)


14 posted on 02/21/2010 5:29:21 PM PST by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

It could also be argued that killing a terrorist is a defensive act, as dead terrorists cease being threats.


15 posted on 02/21/2010 5:29:59 PM PST by umgud (I couldn't understand why the ball kept getting bigger......... then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

It could also be argued that this person was not assassinated but rather executed.


16 posted on 02/21/2010 5:34:16 PM PST by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

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.


17 posted on 02/21/2010 5:38:42 PM PST by Deo volente (January 19, 2010...the Second American Revolution begins, right where it all started!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

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.


18 posted on 02/21/2010 5:49:06 PM PST by Citizen Tom Paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
There are ≈1.3 billion møøselimbs on the planet.

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...

19 posted on 02/21/2010 5:53:32 PM PST by null and void (We are now in day 395 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Brilliant.


20 posted on 02/21/2010 5:58:07 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dsc

First posted 11/2/07...


21 posted on 02/21/2010 6:00:27 PM PST by null and void (We are now in day 395 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

Never take a terrorist alive.


22 posted on 02/21/2010 6:25:40 PM PST by BuffaloJack (Despair disguised as Hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
"To kill or not to kill terrorists: that’s the question"

We have to think about this?

23 posted on 02/21/2010 6:26:33 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
The international law on assassination is clear enough; assassination is murder and can be an act of aggression. ... That is the ruling in law, but there is a separate issue of morality.

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.

24 posted on 02/21/2010 7:06:06 PM PST by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
I say read them their Miranda rights.And then shove an ice pick into the backs of the slimey heads.

...after shoving a pineapple up their butt.

25 posted on 02/21/2010 7:10:28 PM PST by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

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.


26 posted on 02/21/2010 7:17:31 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

Kill them before they kill us.


27 posted on 02/21/2010 7:26:15 PM PST by rdl6989 (January 20, 2013- The end of an error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

Kill em twice, why ask


28 posted on 02/21/2010 7:27:24 PM PST by JamesA (You don't have to be big to stand tall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear

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 !!!!!


29 posted on 02/21/2010 7:27:43 PM PST by terycarl (4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

Kill em wherever you find em.

If the UAE wants to go to war with Israel, good luck with that.


30 posted on 02/21/2010 7:32:24 PM PST by edge10 (Obama lied, babies died!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Cold, brilliant numeric analysis of the situation.


31 posted on 02/21/2010 7:50:07 PM PST by Hardastarboard (Note to self: Never post in a thread about religion again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

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.


32 posted on 02/21/2010 8:35:15 PM PST by cotton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
IMHO:

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.

33 posted on 02/21/2010 8:40:03 PM PST by HP8753 (Live Free!!!! .............or don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

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.”


34 posted on 02/22/2010 2:03:36 AM PST by Ronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson