Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Targeted Killing Vindicated

The decision to target and kill Osama Bin Laden is being applauded by
all decent people. Approval to capture or kill this mass-murdering
terrorist leader was given by Presidents Obama and Bush. It was the
right decision, both morally and legally.
Although Bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no official
military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As the titular
and spiritual head of Al Qaeda, he was the functional equivalent of a
head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the
beginning of recorded history, killing the king was the legitimate
object of military action. The very phrase "check mate" means "the
king is dead, "signifying the successful end of the battle.
Yet there are those who claim that all targeted killings are immoral
and illegal. These critics characterize such actions as "extrajudicial
executions" and demand that terrorist leaders and functionaries be
treated as common criminals who must be arrested and brought to trial.
The operation that resulted in Bin Laden's death was a military action
calculated to kill rather than to "arrest" him. It is possible, though
highly unlikely, that he could have been captured alive and brought to
trial. The decision to employ military personnel with guns, rather
than a drone firing rockets, was probably made by generals rather than
lawyers.
Had it been militarily preferable to fire a rocket, that option would
almost certainly have been selected--as it was by the NATO forces that
rocketed Ghadafy's compound. A rocket attack would have been a pure
targeted killing with no possibility of live capture. The operation
directed against Bin Laden may have been designed, in part, to have
preserved the theoretical option of "arrest", though the likelihood of
a live capture was virtually impossible under the circumstances.
Indeed it is likely that Bin Laden's death was deemed preferential to
his capture and trial, because the latter would have raised the
probability that Al Qaeda would take hostages and try to exchange them
for Bin Laden.
Indeed, a US national security official has confirmed to Reuters that
"this was a kill operation" and there was no desire to capture Bin
Laden alive. This was a targeted kill appropriate for a military
combatant but not for an ordinary (or even extraordinary) criminal.
Nonetheless, our government felt it necessary to announce that Bin
Laden was shot after he allegedly resisted thus suggesting he was not
killed in cold blood. But it is clear that he would have been killed
whether or not he resisted, since this was a kill operation from the
outset and it is unlikely he was ever given the opportunity to
surrender an opportunity not required under the laws of war.
Accordingly, those who have opposed the very concept of targeted
killings should be railing against the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Among others, these critics include officials in Britain, France,
Italy, Russia, the EU, Jordan, and the United Nations. Former British
Foreign Secretary once said, "The British government has made it
repeatedly clear that so-called targeted assassinations of this kind
are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive." The French foreign
ministry has declared "that extrajudicial executions contravene
international law and are unacceptable." The Italian Foreign Minister
has said, "Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always
condemned the practice of targeted assassinations." The Russians have
asserted that "Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of
extrajudicial settling of scores and 'targeted killings.'" Javier
Solana has noted that the "European Union has consistently condemned
extrajudicial killings." The Jordanians have said, "Jordan has always
denounced this policy of assassination and its position on this has
always been clear." And Kofi Annan has declared that "extrajudicial
killings are violations of international law."
Yet none of these nations, groups or individuals have criticized the
targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden by the US. The reason is obvious.
All the condemnations against targeted killing was directed at one
country. Guess which one? Israel, of course.
Israel developed the concept of targeted killings and used it
effectively against the "Osama Bin Laden's" of Hamas, who directed
terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, killing and wounding more
Israelis, as a percentage of its population, than the number killed by
Bin Laden. It was when Israel managed to kill the head of Hamas, that
the international community, with the striking exception of the United
States, decided that targeted killing was illegal and immoral.
But now that it has been used against an enemy of Britain, France,
Italy and other European nations, the tune has changed. Suddenly
targeted killing is not only legal and moral, it is praiseworthy
(except, of course, to Hamas, which immediately condemned the US
killing of Bin Laden).
Well the truth is that when used properly, targeted killing has always
been deserving of approval--even when employed by Israel, a nation
against which a double standard always seems to be applied.
Indeed, in Israel, the use of targeted killings has been closely
regulated by its Supreme Court and permitted only against terrorists
who are actively engaged in ongoing acts of terrorism. In the United
States, on the other hand, the decisions to use this tactic is made by
the President alone, without any form of judicial review. So let the
world stop applying a double standard to Israel and let it start
judging the merits and demerits of military tactics such as targeted
killing. On balance, targeted killing, when used prudently against
proper military targets, can be an effective, lawful, and moral tool
in the war against terrorism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/targeted-killing-vindicat_b_856538.html

 right decision, both morally and legally.
se si è dei barbari. E infatti il barbaro titola parlando di vendetta,
che è la negazione assoluta di ogni legalità, e moralità


eh, cazzo, e dillo subito che è  Dershowitz, l'"avvocato" che esalta
la fine della libertà sancita dal Patriot Act.

 eh, cazzo, e dillo subito
sarebbe inutile, tu non sai fare le tue ricerchine.