Learning to Hate | Belmont Club
But for America to kill him illegally even though the detonation signal was technically detonated by the Mossad is more than some lawyers can bear.
“It is a killing method used by terrorists and gangsters,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame. “It violates one of the oldest battlefield rules.” …
Mughniyah was targeted in a country where the United States was not at war. Moreover, he was killed in a car bombing, a technique that some legal scholars see as a violation of international laws that proscribe “killing by perfidy” — using treacherous means to kill or wound an enemy.
If the lawyers can muster such outrage over Mughniyah, how much indignation will they feel for ISIS? It will be interesting to see how the State Department reacts to Jordan’s announcement. They surely cannot endorse collective punishment or support such a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention as Jordan suggests. To countenance this action would clearly be an abandonment of all international law. If so why are some of the public cheering on Jordan?
I hope these lawyers’ families are kidnapped, tortured, raped, and snuffed on video. Afterwards, I’d ask these lawyers if they’ve revised their views in any way.
However illegal it may be to shoot the ISIS prisoners there will be a lot of cheering among the great unwashed if Amman executes the whole kit and caboodle.
I wash assiduously. And I’ll cheer.
Of course, I want to kill these bastards, not negotiate with them. And then kill the regimes that created them in the first place – starting with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the UAE,
The thing that struck me was Instapundit’s implicit answer to Fernandez’ question about how close we are to not giving a damn. When the usually calm Glenn Reynolds is using phrases like “pyramid of skulls” we’re obviously looking at the line in the rear view mirror.
It’s vaguely unnerving when Reynolds starts sounding like me.
Don’t be unnerved, put it on your business card: Kyle Haight, Thought Leader
“…how close we are to not giving a damn.”
Fallout from a refusal by western governments to even call the enemy by name, by refusing to engage and kill them on the battlefield, and by turning captured terrorists loose. Over time that leads to “not giving a damn”.
Me, I don’t give a damn to start with.
The problem is not international law. International law was created as a practical device for alleviating the worst brutality in warfare. Inherent in international law of war is the concept of mutuality. In other words, it is a mutual agreement. Once one side breaches the agreement, the agreement is off, at least in that particular area. That creates an incentive for everyone to behave.
The international left has no interest in international law as a mutual standard of conduct. It sees it only as a weapon to be used against its enemies – the west, democracy, etc. That is why US “violations” are decried while ISIS, Al Qaeda, North Vietnamese, North Korean, etc., violation pass without comment.
Here is how international law actually works: one side kills prisoners – killing prisoners is now on the table for everyone. One side uses a car bomb – car bombs are now on the table for everyone. Jordan and Japan have every right to kill every ISIS fighter it finds, whether that fighter has surrendered, is injured, whatever. ISIS breeched the agreement, the agreement is off. This ironically would reduce future brutality as everyone else would learn what happens to war criminals (ISIS in this case).
By the way, that famous picture of the Saigon Chief of Police shooting the guy in the head is a picture of a war crime. Not the police guy doing the shooting – he’s the good guy. The war criminal is the guy getting shot in the head. If you don’t know why, then you need to study up on international law as it actually is and not as left-wing lawyers say it is.
Funny — it sounds like good tactics to me.
“Once one side breaches the agreement, the agreement is off, at least in that particular area. That creates an incentive for everyone to behave.”
And it works, too. Years ago, I read something about tribal warfare in what I think was pre-Islamic Middle East. The story went, IIRC, that poisoning oases was a no-no, because it affected everyone. One tribe poisoned an oasis to gain an advantage, and everyone else declared a cease-fire long enough to wipe them out to the last man.
That’s how you do it.