Skip to comments.To kill or not to kill terrorists: thatís the question
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 Mossadif it was responsiblewas 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?
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...
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.”