----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:09 PM Subject: RE: Tragedy in Israel
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Kevin Tarr wrote: > > > I don't like these splitting hair arguments, but there have been plenty > > of police who have legally killed individuals who were not firing > > weapons at the officers. The Learning Channel, or some show like it, > > showed police in LA killing the driver of a stolen army tank. The tank > > had killed no one, just caused massive destruction. The tank was > > stopped, it had driven onto a concrete wall and broken it's track. The > > police rushed the tank, popped the top, and told the guy to get out. > > When he didn't....bang. No tear gas, no wounding shot. > > > > Even in Alberto's example, what if a cop got to the same floor as a > > person shooting at people below him. Yes the cop(s) would be in danger > > if the guy whirls around and starts shooting, but they aren't in > > immediate self-defense danger. Should police sharp shooters never fire? > > Or be trained to shoot guns out of criminal's hands? > > > > I understand your point, that uncontrolled hunter killer teams shouldn't > > be tolerated but I cannot say never because there may be a time when > > such methods are necessary. > > I agree that protecting the public takes precedence over procedure. And > terrorism is a sticky case--it's hard to know whether to handle the > subject in terms of criminality or warfare, since the stakes are so high. > But the example I'm concerned about is the business of hunting down > (alleged) terrorists after the fact and assassinating them without any > kind of public trial or public show of evidence. Once a procedure like > that is permitted, the state suddenly gains a degree of power it should > never have. > I realize that I'm slow responding to other posts, but this is a subject I've been thinking a good deal about. I think the dividing line between criminality and war is not so much the actions of the perpetrator but the power of the government to counter the actions. One of the reasons we can and should guarantee the rights of citizens to a fair trial is the power we give to the government. A physical battle between the US government and a determined militia (such as the Texas Republic) would be overwhelmingly one sided. As citizens, we give the physical power to our government to interfere in our lives at will, constrained only by our laws (including our legal rights). But, with attacks by outsiders, there balance is quite different. For example, in WWII, the US was not required to determine culpability of the people at military targets they were bombing. It only had to do whatever was reasonably possible to minimize civilian casualties. Treaties, such as the Geneva convention, were made to address this question. And, now we come to terrorists. If it is an internal matter, then it is clear that the government should use regular criminal justice. If it is an attack by outsiders that are based in a country that is willing to cooperate in finding them and bringing them to justice, it would be difficult to argue against using criminal law. But, if they find refuge with a friendly government, then it starts to look more like war. I don't think the absence of uniforms means that it isn't a way; it just means that the war isn't fought according to the Geneva Convention. Under those circumstances, when terrorists are aided and abetted by foreign governments, and are given refuge, then it seems reasonable for a country to treat them as soldiers who violate the Geneva convention, not criminals. Dan M.
