Targeting Mugniyah Was The Right Thing
If Imad Mugniyah -- the Hezbollah terrorist mastermind who was responsible for hundreds if not thousands of murders -- was indeed successfully targeted for assassination, his untimely death should be cause for celebration. I say untimely, because if he had been killed years ago, many innocent lives would have been saved.
At the time of this writing, no one can be sure whether Imad Mugniyah is really dead, whether if he is dead he was killed by a car bomb, and who is responsible for his killing. But his targeting makes the strongest case for the appropriateness of targeted killing of terrorists who are being harbored by states that support terrorism.
Mugniyah has been indicted by the FBI for the murder of hundreds of Americans. Syria, where he made his home, was unwilling to turn him over to the United States for justice. He continued to engage in terrorism. The case for targeting him is compelling -- legally, morally, religiously, and militarily. By any reasonable definition of that term, he is a combatant who has declared war on the United States, Israel, France and other countries whose citizens he has killed. Although he did not wear a uniform, he was a general in the terrorist war. Under the laws of war any combatant is a proper target, so long as the means used to kill him are "proportional" -- that is, he can be killed without disproportionate harm to non-combatants. When that condition is met, targeted killing is highly preferable to more conventional military means that have been employed over the centuries.
Throughout history, when one nation has been attacked it has been responded by counterattacking the attacking nation. The counterattack often takes the form of military invasion, air attacks and other conventional military means. Inevitably these military attacks cause large numbers of civilian casualties. Targeted killing on the other hand, if done properly, does exactly what its name suggests -- it targets a combatant who is involved in ongoing terrorist attacks, and by killing him prevents the death of innocent civilians. Yes it is "extrajudicial" killing, but all military deaths are extrajudicial, as are conventional killings in self-defense and killings of armed felons who are escaping or resisting arrest. What I am most opposed to are judicial killings, namely the death penalty for people who are already in custody. When a person such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is already in custody, there is an alternative to killing him -- namely confining him for life. When a terrorist like Imad Mugniyah is not in custody and cannot be captured, there is no reasonable alternative to killing him. Targeted assassination is the option of choice. So a hardy three cheers for whomever killed Imad Mugniyah. It was a good deed, a lawful deed and a life-saving deed.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
History is written by the victors. Remember when Cortez, Pizzaro and the many other adventurers to the New World were presented to us as courageous and heroic?
Only after we departed the spin of elementary history class did we learn the truth: that these men were driven by greed and committed mass murder in pursuit of the riches of other civilizations.
Wars are never fought to promote an idea other than what is theirs must belong to us.
"We rob banks," said Bonnie of Bonnie and Clyde.
"We rob nations" should be the truthful motto of the New World Order.
It needs to be demonstrated that those who indescriminately target and support the murder of innocents will themselves be targeted no matter where the be in the world!
Those nations who knowingly give shelter to men of terror must come to realise that they too will be seen in the same light and be treated accordingly!
That said, there has been unjustifiable atrocities on all sides, the above comments are applicable to all!
What we have in effect is endless tit for tat and the causory problems not being addressed or resolved!
Result, everybody loses!
The last paragraph could be interpreted as an argument against attacking Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Too bad this is not actually what Mr. Dershowitz is arguing. In his next article he will be calling for Israel and their proxy U.S. to begin bombing these same countries in the name of peace and democracy.
Your reference to the US as a "proxy" of Israel would be funny if it weren't reflective of the frighteningly loopy, Bizarro-world view of so many more who share your view.
So you're suggesting that we kill everyone we can't arrest? Or just those that plot violence against the government? Does that include american militias? The world is a better place without those types, but maybe we shouldn't be in such a rush to be barbarians.
"So you're suggesting that we kill everyone we can't arrest?"
I think he is referring to really heinous killers where there is an overwhelming body of convincing evidence that would assure conviction if we were to apprehend the person, and where there is compelling case that the person will continue to harm others if left at large. And yes, where capture is not likely and when the case is comparable to acts of war.
Wow, way to live to a higher moral standard Mr. Dershowitz. It is appalling, that you are given so much prominence. I wonder how you would feel in the event the Lebanese took grievence and decisive action agianst those who Bombed their home land 2 summers ago [assuming they follow your logical process]. Similarly, all of the US elected officials, are open game for Afganis and Iraqis. Or what about your own Butcher of Beirut, resposnible for between 900-3500 innocent civilians. Oh, that's right, you wouldn't say anything.
Your "Moral Equivalence" argument is specious. By your standards, you would judge Franklin Roosevelt as heinous as Adolf Hitler, as many innocent Germans died as a result of Allied actions during World War II.
So what if you just happen to kill a few innocent Moroccan waiters, or so in the process. That's just collateral I guess. Goes along with that quaint custom of un-electing one's political leaders by much the same method. Proxy rules!
It's hard for me to say this is right or wrong, viewed in isolation. If, as we ought to, we're going to resist actions like invading Iraq in favor of more individualized law enforcement, and host-protector nations of suspected enemy-terrorists refuse to cooperate in bringing them to justice, then actions like this one may be the least objectionable option. But that of course assumes we get it right when we designate targets without even a trial in absentia. The Bush administration has given us plenty of reason to question such assumptions. And even if we are right about this guy or another equally notorious character here and there, the danger is that once we open the door to this sort of thing, we invite attempts to shoehorn into the program ever more questionable targets. Slippery slopes and all....
I just think these issues need to be aired out in the kind of public dialog that seems all but impossible nowadays, in light of how successfully partisan extremists and ideologues on both sides suck the oxygen out of the debate on issues like war, security and terrorism, caricaturizing and demonizing their opponents along the way. I'm pessimistic about our ability to reason these questions in a moral yet practical way to any sort of consensus.
Once again I find that I generally agree with Prof. Dershowitz' assessment. The only thing left out of the brief analysis is the location of the killing, and the issue of the sovereignty of the State where the killing occurred.
One of the additional factors that must be considered is whether the political costs of a targeted killing are worth bearing for the benefit received. There is no analysis of this in Prof. Dershowitz' post.
There is also the matter of international law - we would not want foreigners coming onto US soil and assassinating US citizens who might be regarded somehow as terrorists by their enemies (perhaps private security company executives, for example, who could be seen as responsible for civilian deaths in far off lands). We set a dangerous precedent by operating outside of international legal norms - are we ready to allow foreign spy agencies to target US "terrorists?"
I am not generally susceptible to slippery slope arguments, but international legal stability is jeopardized by a broad policy of targeted killing (even if by the "good guys"), as we would not want others to engage in it.
This proves what I have said all along. Isreal could get Ben Laden in thirty days, if we in the US would just ask them to. But that would out of place in the Bush admin.
I don't care if somebody killed this murderous freak, but by your logic, as a practical matter, the "targeted killing" of the president of Israel by Arabs should be all right as well. Is it?
There is quite a difference between deliberately targeting civilians or a peace-keeping force and trying to stop attacks launched from civilian areas. Using a civilian populated area to launch attacks happens to violate international humitarian law, by the way.
Did you notice there were no civilian casualties in this assisnation?
And if, years ago, a homeland where it was safe for a Jew to be a Jew had been placed somewhere else where it didn't have to be stolen from those living there at the time, many innocent lives would have been saved.
Purchased land is not stolen land.
Land obtained in a war of self-defense is not stolen land.
Alan, your spirited defense of murder is always welcome. Thank you for your fair and balanced post.
I'm not going to waste any sympathy on Mugniyah. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.
On the other hand, the Israelis have been trying to wipe out Hezbollah by assassinating their leaders for a while now. Hezbollah is stronger than ever. My bet is that Mugniyah can and will be replaced, so killing individuals is not a sufficient solution to the terrorism problem.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
