From: ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Subject: Re: shoot to kill?
Organization: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:22:47 GMT

>In article <9359@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk>, imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord)
>says:
>>
>>  I'm afraid I don't understand the phrase 'shoot to kill' : is there a way to
>>shoot people without killing?

	I think when the term 'shoot-to-kill' is used in this context,
it accuses the Army command of ordering that (suspected) IRA persons
be killed rather than captured and brought to trial. That is,
regardless of whether they are armed, or surrendering, or whatever.
This is what people mean when they talk about the 'shoot-to-kill'
policy. I'm not saying that this policy exists, but that's what
they're talking about. Even in wartime, this would be considered
pretty barbaric, and a violation of the Geneva Convention, etc. (Not
that it doesn't happen in every war anyway). In a civilian police
situation, this is nothing less than murder. 
	There are at least some indications that there is a
shoot-to-kill policy in effect in NI. A British investigator was
assgned to inventigate this, (Stalker) and was subsequently dismissed
by the government, the stong indication was that he was not coming up
with the 'right' answers. There was also the case of the people shot
on the Rock of Gibralter.
	Before I get engulfed in flames, let me add that
it seems to me that many of you discussing this topic are quite gullable.
If there is a shoot-to-kill policy, of course the British gov't would
do their best to cover it up. Also I think that there are very few
of us who can claim that their gov't would never do such a thing. Both
the British and Irish (and Americans for that matter) have done far
worse in the past, and will no doubt do worse in the future. This is,
of course, no excuse.
	Furthermore, even if there isn't such a policy, the IRA would
naturally insist that there is. What I mean is, all three side of this
(the British, the Loyallists, and the Republicans) are past masters of
wartime propaganda. 
	I guess what I really don't understand (after a lifetime of
hearing these arguments) is why anyone would stick up for any of the
participants in the NI conflict. It seems to me to be a fight between
the criminally stupid and the stupidly criminal. The British can't
'just leave,' as so many think will happen, because it would result in
a total bloodbath between the other two parties involved. In fact, if
any one party withdrew from the conflict, the results would be
disasterous for some group of innocents. In that sense, they are each
protecting someone.
	It is so ironic that the only armed boarder left in all Europe
is the NI/Republic of Ireland boarder. People are killing and dying, all in
the cause of the nation-state, just at a time when the importance of
the nation-state is radically declining. In almost every way, Ireland
(the republic, I mean) and Britain are great places the live, great
places to visit, and, basically, modern Western democracies. NI, on
the other hand, is like a Nazi police state.
	One last thought, which is a qoute from John Locke (which, as
some of you will no doubt point out, was British). "It is universally
recognized that all men have prejudices, and all agree this is bad. It
is of primary importance, therefore, that each man let alone the
prejudices of his neighbor, and stop to examine his own."
	
	Well, that was a longer comment than I intended. I can't wait
to see what kind of heat this generates!
				Ed Hartnett
	


Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic