Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Assassination of terrorist leaders: legit tactic, or violation of international law?

  1. #1
    Moderator Ken Cheng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    24,367

    Default Assassination of terrorist leaders: legit tactic, or violation of international law?

    One of the tactics that the nations (mostly the U.S.) currently fighting international terrorism uses is the assassination of terrorist leaders. This is typically accomplished with unmanned drone missiles.

    If a terrorist group or lone terrorist nut were to gun down a political leader in an established nation, most countries would condemn the act as a violation of international law. In light of this, is assassinating terrorist leaders a legitimate tactic in the war against terrorism, or is it a hypocritical violation of international law?

  2. #2
    Moderator Ren Wo Xing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Currently DC
    Posts
    6,660

    Default

    Would you like to see the official State Department press guidance on this type of question? I'm almost positive that there's gotta be something on this, somewhere in our press guidance intranet...
    Read the latest chapters of Coiling Dragon at Wuxia World!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    In Northern Ireland, the strategy was to identify those on the opposing side who would be willing to talk, making political moves to allow them to talk without alienating their support base, and assassinating hardliners who were firmly against talks. One of the tactics was to leak information to groups who want said hardliner dead.

  4. #4
    Moderator Ken Cheng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    24,367

    Default

    The pragmatic value of pursuing such a tactic is evident, but politically, it's costly because people will raise cries of "hypocrisy."

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Cheng View Post
    The pragmatic value of pursuing such a tactic is evident, but politically, it's costly because people will raise cries of "hypocrisy."
    I've not heard anyone complaining. There was more political risk in continuing to talk to the IRA even after a bomb or two went off, notably one at Canary Wharf which killed one, but the governments (Major's and Blair's) persisted. It was accepted that the Army and Secret Service would engage in dirty tricks where necessary, as long as they weren't too blatant about it. Now that it's evident that there will be no return to the general violence of the past, some of the less contentious stories have come out, such as the regular Army's actions against IRA operations. The really contentious stories, such as just how deeply the IRA had been infiltrated (one estimate was one in three IRA members was a British agent), will probably remain hidden in our lifetime.

  6. #6
    Moderator kidd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Somewhere Out There
    Posts
    13,111

    Default

    So, 'kam chak sin kam wong' strategy cannot be use now?
    什麼是朋友?朋友永遠是在你犯下不可原諒錯誤的時候,仍舊站在你那邊的笨蛋。~ 王亞瑟

    和諧唔係一百個人講同一番話,係一百個人有一百句唔同嘅說話,而又互相尊重 ~ - 葉梓恩

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Out of interest, have you been watching The West Wing, specifically the assassination of the Qumari minister?

  8. #8
    Senior Member KeongJai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    1,139

    Default

    It's a legit tactic if you don't get caught.

  9. #9
    Senior Member CC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Cheng View Post
    One of the tactics that the nations (mostly the U.S.) currently fighting international terrorism uses is the assassination of terrorist leaders. This is typically accomplished with unmanned drone missiles.

    If a terrorist group or lone terrorist nut were to gun down a political leader in an established nation, most countries would condemn the act as a violation of international law. In light of this, is assassinating terrorist leaders a legitimate tactic in the war against terrorism, or is it a hypocritical violation of international law?
    Unmanned drone missiles?

    To answer your question, its a real can of worms. In the first place, leaving the question of targetting specific individuals aside, there is the legal question of lobbing a warhead into a house where terrorists are suspected to hide isn't it?
    Its BIxie Jianfa Gawdammit you guys!!!!

Similar Threads

  1. What Constitute a Legit Marriage in Wuxia/Ancient China?
    By Suet Seung in forum Wuxia Fiction
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-28-12, 03:27 PM
  2. Rea life hero stops terrorist on plane
    By jiang bao in forum Open Debate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-10, 02:26 PM
  3. Ongoing Mumbai terrorist attack
    By jiang bao in forum Academia
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-29-08, 08:09 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-03-06, 11:36 PM
  5. How can this cruel Mongolian tactic be countered?
    By Candide in forum Wuxia Fiction
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-22-05, 06:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •