Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale.israele
Titolo: Omicidio Yassin: problemi legali

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6886
Ruth Wedgwood, a leading international law expert, says the killing of Sheik
Ahmed Yassin in Gaza March 22 by Israel could be described either as an
"extrajudicial execution"--as critics have argued--or labeled by Israel as a
justifiable form of "targeted self-defense." The ambiguity of the law in
this case reflects an ongoing tension in the legal community between those
who argue human rights laws should prevail, and those who want to give
preference to laws dealing with armed conflict. Wedgwood, who is the Edward
B. Burling Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Johns Hopkins
University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, says
that Israel has not done a good job of demonstrating that such killings were
taken as measures of last resort.
"One thing that Israel has not done a good job of doing, I think, is showing
that it really has exhausted all other means before carrying out
assassinations," she says. That effort is needed to give legal justification
to such a move as a legitimate act of "self-defense."
Wedgwood was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for
cfr.org
, on March 23, 2004.
Following the assassination on Monday in Gaza of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the
leader of Hamas, there has been considerable discussion of the legality of
the action as well as its political and moral consequences. What are the
legal arguments against it? What would be a prosecutor's charge against
Israel?
Well, the argument to condemn the killing of the sheik with rockets begins
by saying that criminal law should provide the framework for analyzing how a
state punishes any individual, including individuals in occupied territory.
And criminal law asks that you take the individual into custody and prove
any case you have against him by admissible evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt, and that you can't jump over that process and summarily execute him.
So the phrase that would be used [to condemn the assassination], something
like "extrajudicial execution," or "arbitrary killing," comes from either
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, to which Israel belongs as a treaty party. The
argument would be that even if Israel calls the [killing of Sheik Yassin]
justified in a war, Gaza is nonetheless an occupied territory in which, even
under the law of war, Israel has responsibilities as a de facto occupying
power, and that it can't confuse occupation with active armed conflict
itself.
Would the same argument be made if the United States killed Osama bin Laden,
for instance?
I suppose the United States would attempt to distinguish its action [from
Israel's] by saying that bin Laden may be in either Afghanistan or Pakistan,
countries we are not "occupying" in the real sense. It's an active area of
conflict, the Taliban are resurgent. It is not a pacified, occupied
territory where we are really the governor. Israel might respond and say
"neither is the Gaza Strip." There are some family resemblances here, and
the United States has, in many ways, more and more acceded to Israeli-style
arguments, saying that terrorism can be considered a form of warfare.
What Israel might call "targeted self-defense," the U.N. Human Rights
committee would call "extra-judicial execution," and therefore say [Israel
is] bound to use criminal processes. Deadly force can be used in criminal
law to make an arrest if a person is resisting arrest and poses an immediate
threat to the safety of others around him. But you have to make the attempt
to arrest him. You can only use force in the course of an arrest. You cannot
simply take somebody out as if he were a soldier.
At the beginning of the Iraq war, remember, the United States tried to kill
Saddam Hussein with a rocket. Would that have been legal if he had been
killed?
Well, again, it may well turn on this question of whether you consider [the
killing] to have been part of an armed conflict or not. There is also a big
debate going on between human rights lawyers and law of war lawyers about
the relationship between these two schools of law. The Civil and Political
Rights Covenant says in Article 9 that there should be no arbitrary
deprivation of the right to life. Warfare is in many ways filled with
relatively arbitrary deprivations of the right to life, where you can take
out an enemy solider on a much thinner predicate than you would ever do in
peacetime.
What is the Israeli legal justification for the killing of Yassin?
Well, the argument that they have given, and I am not sure they have always
made this case effectively in public, is to say: "Look, we have tried to use
methods of arrest, but there are really areas [in the disputed territories]
that are 'no go'. We just can't get soldiers in and out without losing huge
numbers of our own people and potentially causing harm to bystanders if we
tried to invade Gaza Strip to take the sheik in a pure arrest. We would
undoubtedly kill many people in the way because it would provoke a riot and
an armed resistance."
So their argument is that they have effectively exhausted criminal law
means. And that because the sheik, in the Israeli view, is in the direct
line of command and control in mounting suicide bombings, he is a combatant
in the sense of Admiral [Isoroku] Yamamoto in World War II. [Yamamoto was
the commander of the Combined Fleet for Japan and planned the attack on
Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. He was killed when the plane in which he was a
passenger was shot down in a planned aerial ambush by U.S. Army Air Force
planes in the Pacific in 1943]. In wartime, if there is an armed conflict,
you can take action against your adversary, not only in the immediate moment
he is mounting an attack, but if he is planning future attacks. The Israelis
would liken it to warfare. They would say [Sheik Yassin] is the same as a
corps commander of an opposing army corps. 'It is not that we don't like
him,' they would say, 'and not that we are taking him out for political
reasons, but rather that we must prevent him from giving future orders as
commander of his military movement.'
Of course, the Israeli press is full of analysts saying this assassination
was largely a political decision to make a future Israeli withdrawal from
the Gaza more acceptable.
The main argument against what Israel did is that this action creates
another saint or martyr. And if there is any attempt to lower the
temperature [of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict], even while Sharon
proceeds with his fence building and Gaza withdrawal, this was perhaps not
the way to do it. If you have a wall around Gaza, and a fence on the West
Bank, why would you need to take out the sheik? That's how the argument
would run.
What's your own legal analysis of the situation?
There is a debate in the United States, for example, about Jose Padillo [a
U.S. citizen accused of plotting to explode a "dirty" radiation device] who
was arrested in the Chicago airport. [Padillo, because he was detained as
part of the war on terrorism, is being held as an enemy combatant, not a
criminal detainee entitled to full constitutional protections]. One side
says, 'Well, if you call Padillo an enemy combatant, does that mean you
could shoot him at O'Hare Airport as he comes back from Pakistan?' The
answer is, "Of course not." You are able to arrest him. He's not immediately
throwing a bomb. So, of course, you should take him into custody, peaceably
if you possibly can. You even have that duty under the law of war. If
someone wants to surrender, or if you need not kill him, then you shouldn't
kill him. Israel is in the particular situation of having a huge population
that is de facto under an occupation, and with whom it will have to get
along for a very long time. Both Israel and the Palestinians need to craft a
kind of mixed regime in which some of the reticence and delicacy of criminal
law is present, and yet some of the robustness of the law of armed conflict
is present. One thing that Israel has not done a good job of doing, I think,
is showing that it really has exhausted all other means before carrying out
assassinations.
You hear reports in the press that there are people who are on their "hit"
list for long periods of time. What you would really need to show, even
under the Israeli argument, is that you have had a dynamic process of
continually trying to arrest the person, and had continued to fail. Another
problem with Israel is that oftentimes the situations where they use force
are in crowded urban areas and inevitably there is a significant amount of
collateral damage. That gives rise to additional concern that even if it is
appropriate to take out the sheik, or a similar person, what about the kids
standing nearby? Or the other people in the car? That collateral concern is
also a concern under the law of war.
So does Israel have a legitimate legal argument to justify the
assassination?
The Israeli argument is that when the Palestinians come across the barrier
from Gaza, or come across the Green Line from the West Bank and conduct
suicide bombings, those bombings are unqualifiedly illegal under
international law. You can't target civilians. You simply can't ever aim
your weapons at a civilian. So when you take a suicide backpack filled with
ball bearings into a café or a market place trying to kill as many people as
you can, you are committing a war crime.
The Israelis see themselves undertaking a kind of humanitarian intervention
on their own behalf to prevent the continued campaign of suicide bombings.
Since they are allowed to shoot suicide bombers as they attack, their
argument is, 'If I can shoot the poor young kid who has been seduced into an
atmosphere of violence, because he is the immediate instrument of the
bombing, why can't I shoot the man who recruited him or the man who sent
him?' If they were trying to make their case in a legal court, much would
depend on how much intelligence they had to show operational control by the
sheik. If he were simply a father figure, someone who abstractly advocated
violence against Israel or the extermination of Israel, or if he was simply
an ideologue, then they would lose much of their credibility in the
argument. But if they could show through wire taps or other sources that
every time there has been a suicide bombing, the sheik, like the head of an
organized crime family, had lifted his pinky finger to say yes, or nodded
yes, or signed a decision-directive, then they could place him as an
operational combatant.
Summing up, does Israel have the law on its side?
It has a justifiable theory. But Israel has not always been good at
sustaining the theory with facts. It must show that it has a good predicate
for the actions that it has taken. Israel's public relations, in the
profound sense of a good justificatory brief, have not always been what they
should be for Israel.

 
Cioé, non un problema legale ma un problema di PR.
Tb 

 Cioé, non un problema legale ma un problema di PR.
Non mi pare: "Israel has not always been good at sustaining the theory with
*facts*".
Namib


E legalmente è lecito fare saltare i bus di civili?
Ad'I

 E legalmente č lecito fare saltare i bus di civili?
No. Et alors? Ciň toglie ogni diritto al criminale (ed a chi gli passeggia
casualmente vicino)?
Namib

 Namib
Lasciamo perdere che Yassin era un lurido assassino.
Mettiamo che fosse il comandante di una formazione militare in guerra con
Israele.
C'è qualcosa di illecito nell'uccidere un nemico in guerra?
Ti risulta che qualcuno nel mondo sia stato processato per aver colpito un
comandante nemico in guerra?
Riguardo invece a chi gli era vicino, non ti dice niente il fatto che
nessuno ha accusato gli americani di crimini di guerra in Italia, nonostante
la loro aviazione abbia ucciso circa settantaduemila civili? O vuoi
cominciare tu a lanciare questa accusa?
Ciao
Ad'I

 cominciare tu a lanciare questa accusa?
Veramente, gli USA sono stati accusati di svariati crimini di guerra: in
primis delle colossali stragi di Hiroshima e Nagasaki. Questo significa
forse che avrei preferito Hiro Hito? Qual è il nesso fra le due cose?
Namib

 Ma mettiamo che non lo fosse.
la presunzione di innocenza applicata a Yassin - a tanto arrivano i nemici
di Israele.

 tentato TK. E' un nemico o un criminale?
Si puo' essere entrambi: un ufficiale nemico criminale di guerra  tenti 
di ucciderlo al pari di quelli che combattono correttamente.
Se poi, nelle more dela conflitto, hai l'occasione di catturarlo allora 
lo processi come criminale dato che il suo status cambia, una volta 
catturato, da nemico libero di nuocere a nemico prigioniero.
Ciao
Ale

 primis delle colossali stragi di Hiroshima e Nagasaki. 
Accusati formalmente? E' una domanda.
Ciao
Ale

 di Israele.
1. La mia frase completa č: "Ma mettiamo che non lo fosse [un comandante
militare]. Mettiamo che fosse solo un poersonaggio sinistramente carismatico
al servizio delle mire di alcuni macellai".
2. La presunzione d'innocenza, nel mitico Occidente, si applica a tutti, ai
rei confessi ed agli arrestati in flagranza di reato compresi.
3. I "nemici del popolo" colpiscono ancora? Ma non era finita, 'sta storia,
dopo Stalin e McCarthy?
Namib

 rei confessi ed agli arrestati in flagranza di reato compresi.
la avresti applicata ad Adolf Hitler ? Dico: mentre la guerra era in corso ?
E avresti sospeso la guerra fino alla conclusioen del processo ?

casualmente vicino)?
Le regole in guerra sono leggermente diverse da quelle in tempo di
pace. :-(
 
Puo' non piacere, ma la realta' non cambia

 E avresti sospeso la guerra fino alla conclusioen del processo ?
No, naturalmente: ma quella era appunto una guerra. Sempre a questo punto si
torna, ovvero alla complessa natura giuridica del conflitto MO. Se ne puň
discutere seriamente, senza reciproci anatemi?
Namib

 Accusati formalmente? E' una domanda.
Ne ignoro la risposta. Ma ritengo di no, per ragioni fin troppo ovvie.
Anyway, tu ritieni che Hiroshima e Nagasaki siano stati crimini di guerra?
Formalmente, intendo (dal punto di vista morale, credo non ci siano dubbi;
ma questo punto di vista č sterile). Chiedo venia a ms. Ipazia, ma credo che
tutto sommato non si vada troppo OT, anche in considerazione del fatto che
tema centrale del conflitto MO č appunto la definizione "efficace" di
"crimine di guerra".
Namib

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:yo0ac.119044$z23.5...@news3.tin.it...

Beh, Ale, "nelle more del conflitto" è un elegante escamotage retorico per
non affrontare il fatto che le due contraddittorie decisioni sono state
prese (probabilmente per opportunità politiche diverse) indipendentemente
dalla "catturabilità" o meno del nemico. Il conflitto è ancora in corso, e
Barghouti non è certo caduto in braccio all'IDF. Perché si è deciso di
catturarlo come *presunto* criminale (e sei sicuro che lo si potrebbe
formalmente processare come criminale *di guerra*?), invece che ucciderlo
come *sicuro* nemico?
Namib

 come *sicuro* nemico?
se tu fossi un capo-fazione palestinese, chessò Jibril Rajub, oppure lo
stesso Arafat, cosa risponderesti a questa domanda ?

 discutere seriamente, senza reciproci anatemi?
carino l'espediente retorico della "reciprocità". Solo che una parte propone
due popoli, due Stati, l'altra desidera distruggere Israle. Chi fa anatemi
contro chi ?

 Anyway, tu ritieni che Hiroshima e Nagasaki siano stati crimini di guerra?
Credo siano stati atti terribili - come Amburgo, Tokio o Dresda o il 
bombardamento continuato per mesi e su larghissima scala di altre citta' 
tedesche e giapponesi - ma non crimini di guerra.
Ciao
Ale

 formalmente processare come criminale *di guerra*?), 
Processarlo si, condannarlo non so, serve un processo per stabilirlo (se 
ha ordinato attacchi a civili IMHO ovviamente si).
 > invece che ucciderlo come *sicuro* nemico?
Perche' non conveniva, l'haidetto tu stesso. Le guerre, non le 
operazioni di polizia in tempo di pace, si combattono cosi'.
Ale

 tedesche e giapponesi - ma non crimini di guerra.
Beh, ai sensi delle Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II; July 29,
1899), "In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to
spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and
charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected,
provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes". Ti
sembra che siano state prese tali precauzioni? Se Hiroshima (figuriamoci!)
poteva godere di "scausanti teoriche" (era la prima volta), cosa dire di
Nagasaki? A mio avviso fu un crimine spaventoso. Per il quale nessuno pagň.
Anzi. Anywa, poiché finiremmo completamente OT, trasferisco la discussione
su IPI. Ciao.
Namib