Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Is assassinating terror suspects lawful?

http://narrabyee-e.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-assassinating-terror-suspects-lawful.html
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Is assassinating terror suspects lawful?
US is making a mockery of justice by pressing for the extrajudicial killing 
of an American citizen living in Yemen
Source: The Christian Science Monitor , By Ronald Sokol 02/10/ 2010
The suit raises a fundamental question: When, if ever, is it lawful for 
governments to assassinate? While a private individual has no right to kill 
except in self-defence, the right of those acting under colour of law, such 
as police officers, soldiers, or the CIA, is considerably more complex.
Last month, civil liberties groups and the family of cleric Anwar Al Awlaki 
filed suit to stop the US government from killing Awlaki - an American 
citizen living abroad in Yemen.
The US, which is trying to have the case dismissed, labels Awlaki a threat 
for his alleged involvement in terror plots and inspiring anti-American 
sentiment. Awlaki is believed to be a target for extrajudicial killing.
The suit raises a fundamental question: When, if ever, is it lawful for 
governments to assassinate? While a private individual has no right to kill 
except in self-defence, the right of those acting under colour of law, such 
as police officers, soldiers, or the CIA, is considerably more complex. Even 
a soldier in a declared war does not have an unfettered right to kill the 
enemy.
At the close of the Second World War, when the question arose of what to do 
with Nazi leaders, then British prime minister Winston Churchill proposed 
shooting them. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin agreed, but the US advocated a 
trial.
It argued, and eventually persuaded, both the British and Soviet governments 
that the proper path was not blind retaliation, but the rule of law. A 
lawful procedure required a finding of individual guilt before punishment 
could be implemented.
The US argued that leaders of the German and Japanese government and 
military should be tried in a court of law for having waged an aggressive 
war and for crimes against humanity. Only if they were found guilty after a 
trial, at which they would have the right to defend themselves and present 
evidence, could they be punished.
The US position prevailed, and the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials set an 
historic post-war gold standard for what came to be called the movement for 
the rule of law. The core doctrine is that government itself must obey the 
law on the same basis as individuals.
The doctrine has been embraced by every US administration since 1945, but 
America has had difficulty adhering to it.
Twenty-five years after the Nuremberg trials, the CIA sought to assassinate 
Cuban leader Fidel Castro. This breach was mended in 1976 when US president 
Gerald Ford signed an Executive Order forbidding any government employee 
from engaging in assassination.
That policy lasted until 2002 when president George W. Bush told the CIA to 
assassinate terrorist leaders whose names were on a 'high value target 
list'. How one got either on or off the list was never made clear.
By allegedly authorising Awlaki's assassination, an American citizen living 
in Yemen, the US administration shows that American policy has not yet 
returned to the Nuremberg standard.
Right way
The key fact in the administration's decision seems to be that Awlaki 
resides in Yemen. If the citizen resided in Chicago, the administration 
would not be suggesting that he be assassinated. He would be arrested, 
charged, tried, and if found guilty, sentenced, and imprisoned.
Extrajudicial killing may meet mafia standards, but it does not meet the due 
process requirements of the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment or the Sixth 
Amendment's right to a jury trial and to confront witnesses. It is deeply 
troubling that the US government claims the right to kill anyone.
That a government has the right to kill in certain defined circumstances 
cannot reasonably be denied, but it must be to protect itself or its 
citizens from imminent danger, and the protective measures must be 
proportionate to the nature of the danger. In Awlaki's case, an American 
citizen hiding in the chaotic state of Yemen poses no direct threat to the 
existence of the US government.
The troubling aspect of extrajudicial killings is that the executive branch 
acts as prosecutor, judge, and executioner. While officials claim that an 
American in Yemen is advocating and perhaps participating in terrorist acts, 
they disclose no evidence. No independent party judges whether there is 
sufficient proof to justify killing.
Indeed, the plaintiffs in the Awlaki suit demand that the US government make 
transparent the process used to determine whether a citizen can be executed 
without trial. When a government asserts an unreviewable power to kill its 
own citizens, it mocks the rule of law, and claims a power more familiar to 
tyrants than democracies.
Ronald Sokol is a lawyer in France. He taught at the University of Virginia 
Law School and is the author of Justice after Darwin. 

 E ora vado a scolarmi un tretrapak di Tavernello
Amen.
Namib 

 Ecco, e ora un secondo tetrapak, ma di rosso: roba da leccarsi i baffi.
Ma non potresti sborniarti senza comunicarlo urbi et orbi? Bah.
Namib 

 protestato.
per i morti no, per l'allarme farlocco (e giudicato tale da TUTTI i
servizi europei) sì, eccome...