|
|
|
|
|
|
by Polly Mann, W A M M
|
State-Mandated Assassinations: Getting Away with Murder
Israel’s high court recently upheld the military’s right to assassinate members of groups the state defines as terrorist organizations, adding the caveat that operations should always be weighed against the potential harm to civilian bystanders and the human rights of the target. It seems to me unusual and even commendable for the issue of assassination to be adjudicated. There have been so many assassinations of Palestinians that I assume the situation could no longer be ignored. Peculiar, very peculiar, however, for the court to even mention the “human rights of the target.” What rights has a corpse? All of this makes me wonder whether anybody has ever done an analysis or study of immorality as public policy. It sounds bizarre, but so much that occurs today is bizarre.
I do not know of any instance in which the issue of assassination has been brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. The agents of the U.S. government do engage in assassination. We know that years ago the U.S. colluded with the International Telephone and Telegraph Company in actions against Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, who was assassinated during the upheaval there. The ensuing violence brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to office and resulted in incarceration, torture, and the deaths of thousands of Allende supporters. To my knowledge, none of the responsible U.S. agents have ever been identified nor has the branch of government which was involved. It could be assumed that the C.I.A. was involved, but I have never heard of any indictments against any of the individuals involved, be they government agents or merely hired killers. Perhaps some of them still serve in governmental positions today.
Many of us believe that the U.S. government has tried to assassinate Fidel Castro. Years ago when I was in Cuba, I was told that he owned numerous homes and in an effort to foil possible assassins (U.S.-hired?) it was never revealed where he would be spending the night. We know that U.S. planes bombed Libya in an attack upon Muammar Khadafi, and that members of his household, including an adopted daughter, were killed. According to a recent article in the Guardian Weekly, U.S. military and intelligence agencies have used drones to carry out assassinations against alleged terrorists, including a November 2002 strike on a car in Yemen that killed six suspected members of al-Qaeda. Who knows who really dies? And notice that they always say “suspected.” Were children killed? How can it be legal or moral to assassinate people who are only suspects and have not been proven in any court of law to have done anything wrong? Where is the international outcry?
The situation clearly demonstrates that planned killing in itself is not a crime; that is, if the killing is done by the state. What I would be interested in knowing is the manner in which the assassination is conducted. The powerful government figure who decides on an assassination must issue some sort of edict. It would seem unlikely that this would be in writing. However, it could not be a casual matter. In some cases military aircraft is involved. Does there exist somewhere in Washington a policy concerning the conditions under which assassination can be ordered? Who makes the final decision? Obviously, the president would have to depend upon intelligence provided. The information would have to come from the highest level of government. The head of the C.I.A.? Military intelligence? U.S. immigration authorities (in the case of drug runners)? Who exactly?
With the specter of terrorism being kept before us constantly, the legitimacy of assassination is probably not going to be questioned. But someday, somehow, somebody must bring the issue before the Supreme Court of this country. In my opinion it denigrates the entire judicial system by permitting a government to engage in acts that would bring instant reprisal if committed by an individual. Are we a nation of laws that apply only to individuals as the government runs amok? |
|
|
Word UP!
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations—but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.
What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
—President Jimmy Carter Excerpted from “Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine,” LA Times, December 8, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
© 2007 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete February 2007 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
