Discussion on e1-3-post-here-by-3-19
Rosemarie J.
E1.3
Rosemarie Johnson
Professor E. O’Connell / English 101, Class 3226
March 19, 2010
Having established himself as the definitive authority on genocide and
slaughter, Goldhagen now addresses the problem of deterrence.
Goldhagen unashamedly states in the Spiegel interview, “…anyone who
has the chance to kill those who commit mass-murder should do just
that.” Goldhagen is wrong: Not only is this an incitement to world
wide vigilantism, it could lead to the indiscriminate killing of
innocent people in aggressive invasions, or by over zealous bounty
hunters from poor countries eager to avail themselves of the
substantial rewards leading to the arrest and capture of dictators
unwilling to voluntarily surrender themselves to a court of competent
jurisdiction. Goldhagen should remember that Hitler’s generals staged
an unsuccessful coup. These men had Hitler’s trust, knew his habits,
and had access to his person. In hindsight, they should have
succeeded but with all these advantages, the generals were apprehended
and executed. While Hitler’s execution would have been excused under
extenuating circumstances, Goldhagen cannot rationalize the killing of
anyone on moral grounds. He is neither judge nor jury. He is just a
writer who uses the power of the written word to accomplish his own
transformative process.
In Worse Than War (p. 579), Goldhagen enacts his own version of what
he sees as moral law. He alleges that: “The state of war with the
perpetrators would end only with their deaths, capture or surrender to
the International Court, where the only sentence for conviction of war
against humanity ought to be life or death.” Without citing the
source or legal application of such a law, Goldhagen sees fit, not
only to pass a death sentence, but he would have the “bankrupt” ICC
assume jurisdiction. Assuming that the totalitarian state has agreed
to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction, the court finds a way to overcome
the requirement of “intent” to commit genocide, and the European
community agrees to waive its objection to the death penalty, the
person or persons asserting a moral defense would be better off to
plead diminished capacity. In the meantime, Israel holds the God
given mandate – the supreme precedent for nation-building,
annihilation of a people on cultural and religious grounds. (Jews)
“observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the
city: men, women and children, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep
and asses.” Joshua 6:21 the bedrock of Goldhagen’s moral law is
indeed well grounded.
There is no distinction between those who instigate genocide and those
who carry it out. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Genocide, Article 4 states: “Persons committing genocide or any other
acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are
constitutionally responsible leaders, public officials or private
individuals. Arguably, suppliers of munitions or arms, the media, if
it incites people to commit atrocities, and financial institutions
engaged in money-laundering with rogue regimes could be held liable
and judged culpable according to their degree of fault. Goldhagen
knows the value of the written word, and avails himself of the
opportunity to spread his beliefs in international forums. If his
argument that those who commit genocide are waging war on humanity
appeals to just one fanatic to start a chain of aggressive actions, he
too may be charged as an instigator.
In the Spiegel interview, Goldhagen sidesteps the question of
sovereignty. As an apologist for Israel, Goldhagen knows that
Mossad’s abduction of Adolf Eichmann violated Argentina’s sovereignty,
and international law’s requirement that the trial should take place
where the crimes were committed or before the ICC. The recent
assassination of a Hamas official in Dubai by alleged Mossad agents
using stolen European passports is yet another example of Goldhagen’s
dangerous philosophy. While Israel has neither admitted nor denied
the attack, Israel has publicly warned Hamas officials that they will
never be safe anywhere. This is precisely Goldhagen’s argument for
invoking the legal doctrine of Hostis Humani Generis.
It appears unlikely that the U.S. and its allies will intervene in
every global hotspot. Tibet, a former pacifist state, is now engaged
in Western-style riots against China. It would be the height of folly
to bomb Beijing’s military installations. Nigeria, like the Sudan, is
an oil rich nation which leaves it immune to intervention. It would
be naïve to think that transnational corporations, which control the
global economy and its politics, will not continue to influence
selective preventive intervention. There is no easy answer to the
problem of mass-slaughter: Nigeria alone has ninety-one ethnic
groups, each with its own dialect clamoring for self-determination.
In the absence of a global police force and a global judicial system,
the ICC’s effectiveness would be greatly increased if the U.S.
recognized its jurisdiction, but afraid of any encroachment on its
sovereignty, and unwilling to subject its military to its scrutiny,
the ICC lacks the endorsement of the most important power in the
world. Where World politics are concerned, morality does not enter
into the picture. We must cut off all economic resources to despotic
regimes without harming its people. Goldhagen’s higher moral law is
nothing more than an idealistic concept. In today’s increasingly
complex society, “the strong do what they will and the weak suffer
what they must.” Thucydides (431 B.C.)
Alternate Opinion
It is disingenuous of Goldhagen to suggest that the U.S. and its
allies ask their taxpayers to fund bounties for the apprehension of
dictators with eliminationist agendas. The U.S. subsidizes Israel
with four billion annually, without which Israel could not continue it
genocidal policy against the Palestinians, who allegedly, pose a
demographic threat. The unqualified U.S. and European support for
Israel’s theocratically sanctioned massacre of Palestinians,
ironically merits Godlhagen’s charge that “genocide is facilitated by
the indulgent international community.”
Israel’s former Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Mordechai Eliyahu – one of the
most senior theocrats in the Jewish State ruled that, “there is
absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killings of
civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza…
according to Jewish war ethics…an entire city holds collective
responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals…” Eliyahn’s
son, himself Chief Rabbi of Safad, amplified his father’s remarks
stating: “If they do not stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a
thousand…and if they do not stop after we kill 100,000, we must kill a
million. Whatever it takes to stop them.”
Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide adopted in the wake of the Holocaust, “Direct and public
incitement to commit genocide is a punishable act.” As the U.S. and
its allies are complicit in promoting and financing genocide,
obviously, they will not enforce a non-eliminative political system
“overnight”.
References
Hesse, M. (2009, February 12). Qantara.de, Dialogue With The Islamic
World.
Deterrence As the Only Option: Interview with Daniel J. Goldhagen
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1263/i.html
Abunimah, A. (2007, May 1). The Electronic Infifada.
Top Israeli Rabbis Advocate Genocide
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6987.shtml
Miller, M. (2010, February 21), Los Angeles Times.
Targeted For Death.
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-web21-2010feb21
Brinkbaumer, K. and Doerry, M. (2009, October 8). Speigel Online
International.
Speigel Interview With Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
Retrieved March 8, 2010 from http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html
MG
Professor O'Connell
English 101
18 March 2010
The Israeli government did nothing wrong when they decided to go
to Dubai and kill Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Mabhouh. That's even if
they were the ones who were in charge of the slaying of Mahmoud
Mabhouh. Just because the Israelis are known for killing or getting
back at their enemies according to their detractors that is, it does
not mean they were responsible of the slaying of Mahmoud Mabhouh. Even
if they were in charge, they did not commit a crime because Mahmoud
Mabhouh was known to have committed several barbarous acts against
Israel. For example, he abducted two Israeli soldiers and killed them.
How so? It was because he was cold hearted racist person that hated
everybody who is not from the same country or religion. This travesty
is genocide. In the left wing bias media however, the Los Angeles
Times keeps targeting Israeli's for the killing of Mahmoud Mabhouh as
an act of terror. If they were a proponent of keeping the region safe
and secure from ethnic and religious targeted terrorism, the media
should back them up. If the "Israeli government" or the "Israeli's
Mossad spy agency" was truly in charge of the killing of this
terrorist then the Israeli's did the world a favor by protecting them
further from terrorists that ravage the world of peace-seeking
people.
Golhagen believes or claims that perpetrators like Mahmoud Mabhouh
are thinking in terms of war. These people want to make war against
humanity. Goldhagen claims that "if they are making war, the rules of
war apply (spiegel.de)." He also claims that, "we should encourage
those who can to kill them (spiegel.de)." According to Goldhagen the
Israeli government did the right thing because by removing the threat
of Mahmoud Mabhouh, they were saving innocent people from being
brutally murdered in large numbers. In this manner the Israeli
government acted in self defense. The LA Times states that "there is
no legal justification for the cold-blooded murder of a man who, if
alleged to have committed crimes, could have been arrested and charged
(articles.latimes.com)." If one was to agree with their opinion, then
they must think about what if Mahmoud Mabhouh was never caught? What
would the further consequences be? And if was just simply caught and
arrested, should he be kept alive for the sake of political
correctness while the blood from murdering innocent people remains on
him?
The removal of Mahmoud Mabhouh, just like many other terrorists
and elminationists who have threatened our society, was certainly
justified. Even though it is not any human being's decision to decide
who lives or who doesn't, these elminationists must have to be dealt
with, sometimes their deaths might be the only way for them to truly
no longer be a threat. So, if someone has to be killed then it should
be people like Mahmoud Mabhouh and his other elminationists buddies.
It's not fair for them to kill innocent people because of the way they
look, where they come from, or what religion they are. Terrorists,
elminationists, etc must be stopped to protect Truth, Justice, and
Freedom. Nobody wants to kill anybody, but in war, the enemy often
leaves us with no other choice.
Works Cited
Articles.latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, Winter 2009. Web. 18 Mar.
2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
Spiegel.de. Spiegel.de, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. <http://
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html>.
Meagan Judkins
English 101 #3226
Professor E. O’Connell
E 1.3
March 19, 2010
I feel it extraordinarily dangerous for Goldhagen to claim, as he does
in his interview with Michael Hesse, that “anyone who has the chance
to kill those who commit mass murder should do just that”. This type
of thinking can create madness and potentially more killings. I
suppose if there were situation wherein an individual was in a room
with the likes of Hitler, had a weapon and knew full well the entire
western world was after him, it could be considered a duty to make a
citizen’s arrest or in an extreme situation use violence to detain the
person in question. However, to encourage the seeking out of such
individuals by a regular citizen seems terribly absurd and quite
dangerous, especially if there was a reward involved. Who is to say,
without a judge, that an execution is fair? Encouraging people to
play God seems so risky. The consequences seem obvious to me; this
type of action could potentially cause intense retaliation on the
individual or their family, negative foreign relations and/or mistaken
killings in the name of prevention of genocide.
I completely understand what Goldhagen is trying to convey, but
unfortunately I feel as though the only real option here is to
continue to get his message to as many supporters as possible,
continue to probe the United Nations for more call to action and hope
that The International Court of Justice can improve its policies and
reaction times. He should continue to try to get the media’s
attention, as he writes (situation where the media gave world wide
attention) “Bosnia shows the media’s immense power to spur
action” (pg. 520). I agree fully with Goldhagen’s proposals found in
the Spiefel interview “We must create an international environment
where those leaders that might contemplate eliminationist assaults
would think, it’s probably not a good idea because I’ll either lose
power or could lose my life”. We should implement a much stronger
international “police force” if you will or rather a much broader
international understanding of consequences. We should definitely
strive to stop genocide before it even happens, as opposed to always
trying to stop what has already begun. To make it a worldwide known
fact that if you act in any way with eliminationism, associated with
anyone who does or support any type of genocide or the like, then you
are subject to punishment, be it, a fine, imprisonment, or even death.
Chapter 10 of Goldhagen’s “Worse Than War” is a “Prologue to the
Future” in which Goldhagen, in great detail, pins political Islam as
being the biggest threat of eliminationism to the 21st century. He
gives countless examples of the radical nature of these groups, each
as chilling as the next “Osama Bin Laden explained to a reporter: “We
love death, The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between
us.” One quote from two Hamas genocide bombers’ video testament: “We
are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood
better than the blood of the Jews.” Goldhagen continues to site
instances were political Islam not only bragged about its willingness
and want to bring death and destruction, but even where political
Islam has been successful. Yet in the interview “Deterrence as the
only option” Michael Hesse asks Goldhagen, “Are you optimistic that
genocides can be prevented?” Goldhagen replies “Yes, I am.” Yes, we
have overcome imperialism, Nazi Germany and have even moved past
slavery. But I have to wonder, how do you fight something when the
biggest threat you can give is death, to a group of people who not
only do not fear death, but as quoted above, “love death”? What can
we as a world do together to stop these types of radical groups from
implementing not only genocide but worldwide destruction and mass
murder? Because as Goldhagen makes clear at the end of chapter 10,
“In twenty to thirty years, certainly in fifty, the technology and
know-how for developing such weaponry (nuclear missiles/bombs etc)
will be widely if not generally available.” Will the same
preventative steps Goldhagen suggests towards eliminating genocide
from even forming hold any real weight against political Islam? Or
will an all out war be the only answer?
Work cited:
Hesse, M. (2009, February 12). Qantara.de, Deterrence As the Only
Option: Interview with Daniel J. Goldhagen
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1263/i.html
Spiegel.de. Spiegel.de, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2010.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html
Goldhagen, D.J. Worse Than War. 2009.
Sandy B
English 101 # 3226
Professor Ed O’Connell
March 19, 2010
e1.3
The Four International Principles of Law
Goldhagen propose to the United Nations four international principles
of law to eliminate “mass slaughter and bankrupt” in the humanity
world. Four international principles of law that could bring peace to
all the countries around the world, according to him these four
principles of law that are: “1. Automatically apply…mass murder and
elimination, 2. Target people wanted for such offenses, 3.
Substantially expand…wanted people, and 4. Pay the substantial rewards
not only for inf. leading to the arrest…also for killing them
all” (Goldhagen 578-579) will decreased or eliminate “mass slaughter
and bankrupt.” In chapter eleventh from “Worse Than War” (WTW), he
conclude all the “revelations” that he proof through his entire new
book about what “people” don’t know of mass slaughter in the third
world. Also he explains his rhetorical questions with a solution “the
four international principles of law” to eliminate the “mass
slaughter”. SPIEGEL publishes the article, “Mass Slaughter Is a
Systemic Problem of the Modern World” which is about an interview with
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen of his new book and the four principles of law.
SPIEGEL seems to disagree with Goldhagen solutions because they sound
“a bit naïve.” Goldhagen’s four principles of law do sound naïve and
ignorant. He mentions in WTW that “War produces war” (534), but he’s
contradicting himself.
There aren’t any problems of Goldhagen being against on “mass
slaughter,” but his solutions are completely silly. Goldhagen claims,
“Mass murder and eliminations politics are humanity’s human scourge,
more devastating than natural disasters, more murderous and worse than
war” (519), of course, they are the worse and monstrous in the human
kind. In the other hand, SPIEGEL asked him, “What should the
international community do?” and Goldhagen responded him, “President
Barack Obama…should create a no-fly zone over Darfur; he should bomb
Sudanese military installations until there is a total cessation of
activities” (Spiegel.de). Isn’t he contradicting himself? He mentions
before that “War produces war,” but he said in SPIEGEL interview that
Obama should “bomb” Sudanese. If Obama bomb Sudanese like Truman did
in Japan, then Goldhagen will identify him as mass murder, too.
Goldhagen continued answering SPIEGEL questions, “This may sound
radical, but it is a far more effective, less-costly and, believe or
not, likely solution that sending in a UN or some other rapid reaction
force” (Spiegel.de), but this is wrong because it’s another genocide
of human kind. This time it’s not about eliminating a race, nor ethnic
but getting rid off murders. The families of these murders would like
to have a war if this happens. So Goldhagen lead his solutions to
another problem.
There are more practical ways to fight against mass murders than
eliminating them because this problem isn’t something that can be
change from the morning to night. Mass murders have being around for
decades and generations, so the UN troops or Goldhagen four principles
of law can’t change a problem in one day. Furthermore, as Goldhagen
mention before in WTW that mass slaughter exist in all over the world,
and in secret places that many people might not know. The US media
can’t broadcast images of mass slaughter because parents will complain
of bloody images that will traumatize children. Another though I
dislike about Goldhagen that he says a lot in his book WTW “The
people” or “The Germans”, as SPIEGEL said, “’The’ before ‘Germans,’
you transform an entire people into perpetrators” (Spiegel.de).
Goldhagen have this habit of using “The” before pronouns or nouns.
What makes me wonder the most that Goldhagen judged the history events
from almost all the countries around the world as mass murders, but he
didn’t mention of the country Israel of being mass murders. Every
single day “The” Israelis military are killing Palestine’s or “rebels”
in Israel. They are eliminating a group of people and “The” people of
US and Europeans and other countries know about it, so I doubt he is
the only person who doesn’t know about this mass slaughter in Israel.
Work cited:
Goldhagen, D.J. Worse Than War. 2009.
Brinkbäumer, K. and M. Doerry. 2009, October 8. Spiefel interview with
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Speigel Online International.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html.
Ryota F
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
3/19/2010
An Argument against Those who Oppose Goldhagen’s Anti-Eliminationist
Program
In his book, Worse than War, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
proposes an anti-mass murder and elimination monetary prevention
program, which consists of four elements. Goldhagen argues that the
program must do the following: (1) automatically apply; (2) target
people wanted for such offenses; (3) expand the program’s universe of
people automatically deemed culpable; and (4) pay the substantial
rewards…for killing them (578). His proposal, especially the last
element, is controversial. In fact, Hesse who interviewed Goldhagen
seems to think that killing the culpable should be left to UN troops.
Philip Alston, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, also
argues that targeted killings are against international law (Miller).
Vicki Divoll, former CIA lawyer who teaches U.S. government and
Constitution at the Naval Academy, also disagrees with targeted
killings unless the United States’ survival is at stake (Miller).
Their opinions are wrong because the U.N.’s response is slow and
ineffective, international law does not protect victims, and the
United States should view this problem of eliminationism as a moral
issue. To end eliminationist assaults, targeted killings should be
allowed and rewarded.
Hesse asks Goldhagen, “Wouldn’t that be better left to UN
troops?,” suggesting that killing of mass murderers should not be left
to any country or any individuals who have access to them, but that is
wrong because the United Nations has been so ineffective in finding
and killing perpetrators. Philip Alston also claims, “There is no
legal justification for the cold-blooded murder of a man who, if
alleged to have committed crimes, could have been arrested and
charged” (Miller), but that is also wrong because he fails to
recognize the difficulty of arresting and charging many of the mass
murderers. Finally, Vicki Divoll also claims, “Our moral code and
policy pronouncements once reflected an understanding that such
treacherous killing was not how a great nation should defend itself –
unless, like Israel, its very survival is at stake” (Miller), but that
is also wrong because his opinion reflects only the national interests
and such attitude is the very reason why the international community
has responded to eliminationist assaults so slowly and so
ineffectively.
The idea that to end eliminationist assaults targeted
killings should be allowed and rewarded is more correct on the topic
because, if a country or somebody who finds out that a dictator or a
political leader is about to launch an eliminationist assault but does
nothing, that dictator or political leader can kill hundreds of
thousands of people. This alternate opinion is also more correct on
the topic because mass murderers keep occurring despite the existence
of the United Nations, international law and the establishment of the
International Criminal Court in 2002. It is time to try something
different to solve this problem. Finally, the idea that targeted
killings should be allowed and rewarded is strongly supported by Worse
than War’s author Daniel Jonah Goldhagen who claims that “in working
to prevent the much more massive eliminationist assaults…it must also
go beyond the antiterrorist program by…not only seeking their arrest
but also authorizing their killing” (578). In the interview with
Hesse, Goldhagen also states that “[a]ny country that can prevent
another from committing mass murder should have the right to intervene
in the killing. And anyone who has the chance to kill those who commit
mass murder should do just that.”
Works Cited
Goldhagen, D.J. Worse Than War. 2009.
Hesse, M. 2009, February 12. Deterrance as the only option: interview
with Daniel J. Goldhagen.
Quantara: dialog with the Islamic world.
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1263/i.html
Miller, M. 2010, February 21. Targeted for death. Los Angeles Times.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-web21-2010feb21
Jiwon Nam
Eng 101 #3226
E 1.3
3/19/2010
Goldhagen’s “Worse than War” ends by what we can do to stop or to
prevent genocides. “Targeted for death”, a short article by Miller,
shows Philip claiming that the targeted killing has no legal
justification. Philip is wrong because targeted killing decision is a
law-abiding process. In Spiegel’s interview with Goldhagen, ‘Mass
Slaughter Is a Systemic Problem of the modern world,’ Spiegel relies
on the international court to solve the elimination and claim that
most German soldiers during the holocaust didn’t know anything.
Spiegel is wrong because the international court isn’t functioning to
prevent elimination. Moreover, the extermination of Jews was carried
out to kill millions of people by soldiers during WWII without any
shame or fear. The alternative opinion is that the international
society should focus more on preventing elimination, because it’s the
most effective and ideal way and would cost less people’s lives.
Creating an international environment where acting out genocide is
viewed as declaring a war against humanity will lessen the
elimitionist assaults. The alternative opinion is supported by
Goldhagen as he gives reasons for the effectiveness of preventing
elimination as being ideal, easier, and preferable compared with
intervention.
Philip Alston claims from ‘ U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial
killings’ that “There is no legal justification for the cold-blooded
murder of a man who, if alleged to have committed crimes, could have
been arrested and charged.” Cold-blood murder might not be a peaceful
negotiation, but it is neither an illegal justification. The
targeted killings are the legally allowed operations that can take
place in particular situations. The targeted killing decisions are not
randomly decided by alleged voices, but they are made by assured
crimes. Spiegel rely on the international rule to solve the problem of
elimination by asking, “Doesn't sovereignty present a problem, and
international law?” while conducting an interview with Goldhagen about
‘Mass Slaughter Is a Systemic Problem of the modern world.’ This is
wrong because the international law is slow and can’t function to
prevent mass murders before it’s too late. Moreover, the international
law now fails to prevent genocide from occurring in the first
place.Spiegel also says that “Most of the (German) soldiers say they
didn’t know anything.” while the elimination of Jews occurred during
the holocaust, but that’s wrong because the act of murdering millions
of people in their society cannot be unknown to its own soldiers. Some
soldiers might not have known, but most of them knew and wasn’t
ashamed to act out the extermination under orders.
The targeted killings are effective, and the international law can
allow intervention when elimination occurs, but most importantly,
taking actions to prevent the elimination is the first and the most
significant step. Compared to how effective rewarding for
eliminationist’s information is or how fast the international law can
react to such events, the prevention of mass murdering would be most
effective and would cost less people’s lives. Offense is the best
defense. The international society should enforce an environment where
genocide is declared as a ‘war against humanity’, and is targeted from
the international world. This alternative opinion is also supported by
Goldhagen in ‘Worse than War’ when he mentions “the international
community should focus on prevention. For three reasons: First,
ideally eliminationist assaults would never begin.”, “developing an
effective prevention regime is substantially easier than an
interventionist one,”, and “a preventive regime is also preferable to
relying on a justice regime, which operates after the mass
extermination and elimination have taken their toll.” Therefore,
seeking ways to prevent elimination is the most important part that
international society should focus on.
references
Goldhagen, DJ Worse Than War. 2009
Hesse, M. 2009, February 12. Deterrance as the only option:
interview
with Daniel J. Goldhagen.
Quantara: dialog with the Islamic world.
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1263/i.html
Miller, M. 2010, February 21. Targeted for death. Los Angeles Times.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-web21-20...
Laura C.
Laura Cortes
English 101 Section 3226
Professor O’Connell
In his novel, author Daniel J. Goldhagen argues that, those that
commit mass murder or have any involvement with one deserved to be
killed. It is understandable for people to feel so angry that they
wish for these specific people to die, but is it rationale to say that
it is ok for another party to intervene and assassinate these
individuals when they haven’t been asked to do it? The matter of the
fact is, even if having horrible people killed makes the world seem
like a better place, no government should be allowed to send
undercover agents into another country to commit an assassination
without having fear of receiving some type of backlash from the
international community. Doing such a thing is quite frankly
disrespectful to the country where the terrorist is hiding and it
undermines the laws that have been set for circumstances such as this.
Even though Goldhagen supports The International Court of Justice,
which was established to enforce the laws which apply to such cases as
assassinating terrorists, he believes they aren’t efficient enough, he
stated in his interview with Qantara.de that The International Court “…
is an institution that works extremely slowly. It requires far too
much time to come to any decision... But it's not just lacking in
assertiveness, some countries don't even recognize it as a court.”
Perhaps this type of court established to handle international issues
isn’t quite where it needs to be, but it demonstrates that most
governments in the world recognize the need for something to be done
to stop terrorists, wars, and genocides all together. When it comes
down to it taking matters into your own hands and bypassing everyone
to commit an illegal assassination is wrong regardless of what that
particular person might have done.
Targeted assassination has been and continues to be a standard
practice in many governments, even when they never come out and say
they do it. Although now-a-days many films romanticize the idea of
undercover agents assassinating terrorists in foreign countries, the
reality of doing such a thing without the consent of a particular
country is nothing more than a common murder committed by a secret
agent and the government that sent them. A very famous targeted
assassination is that of the members of Black September who were
responsible for the death of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches at the
Munich Olympics back in 1972. This made the Israeli government quite
famous for hunting down its enemies at any cost. The backlash of such
a bold assassination was the fact that Israel immediately became the
main suspect in the murder of Mahmoud Mabhouh on January 19, 2010, who
was in Dubai at the time. Unfortunately it isn’t simple to say that
perhaps it was some time of coincidental murder and that it had
nothing to do with Mabhouh being the founder of Hama’s military wing,
but realistically speaking, what are the chances be that he would be
killed for any other reason? Even if Mahmoud Mabhouh was responsible
for horrible acts, killing him without receiving permission from Dubai
was and is an illegal assassination. As Philip Alston from the U.N.
special rapporteaur on extrajudicial killings, stated, “There is no
legal justification for the cold-blooded murder of a man who, if
alleged to have committed crimes, could have been arrested and
charged. Political murders of this type undermine the fabric of
international law as well as stoke the fires of conflict.” Jumping the
gun and literally committing an act of revenge sets back all the
efforts put in to create laws that can stop people like Mabhouh from
existing in the future. The most appalling aspect of this particular
assassination was the fact that the assassins used fake passports to
enter Dubai. It’s obvious that in a case like this you do not want to
come out and say where you are from but on top of disrespecting the
country you are lying to you are also tarnishing the name of other
countries as well. It is easy to look at targeted assassination
against terrorists and almost sigh in relief that one less truly evil
person has ceased to exist, but can we overlook that this was achieved
by illegal means? Couldn’t we also benefit by the capture and
interrogation of said terrorist? The more we learn of an organization
the easier it is to destroy it, “If the target can be arrested, then
that is better, as he can provide valuable intelligence.” On the other
side of the spectrum, authors like Goldhagen, who argues in his latest
novel, that a country should have permission to intervene if they can
stop a mass murder from occurring and not only should they detain the
perpetrator but kill him if they can. It is an understandable argument
to have when you witness the scars left over from terrorism as a
whole. Still, there is no doubt that targeted assassinations go
against the law and are there for illegal. No one can say for
certainty whether or not the Israeli government planned the murder of
Mahmoud Mabhouh, but if they did it wouldn’t be unreasonable for them
to get punished for it.
As it currently stands, targeted assassinations are permitted if the
person is openly and actively preparing to commit some type of
terrorism. Of course there are other factors that must be taken into
account to truly justify murdering said person, even if they are
suspected of having done horrible things. When it comes to genocide
where hundreds or thousands of people have died because of foolish
belief systems, wanting to kill the perpetrators is a natural thing to
yearn for but at the same time if it is done without consulting the
international community it is reduced to nothing more than revenge. If
all people involved in acting out a heinous crime, such as mass
murder, are to be punished it should be done through legal means.
Because, if it isn’t done this way, countries will continue to do as
they please and it will create new conflicts that could lead to war.
It is for this purpose that implementing The International Court of
Justice is a vital step in creating order and providing guidance to
all nations, that is, if they follow the laws implemented for such
situations.
Los Angeles Times . (2010, February 21). Targeted for death. Military
and human rights lawyers weigh in on the legality of the killing of
Hamas’ Mahmoud Mabhouh , Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-web21-2010feb21
Hesse, Michael. (2009). Deterrence as the Only Prevention for
Genocide. Retrieved from http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1263/i.html
patrick d
#3226
Daniel Goldhagen, in his book “Worse than War” suggests that
elimination of mass slaughters can be stopped through “ targeting
people wanted for such offenses”. He proposed rewards for information
leading to arrest of the perpetuators of the crime. These, in his
belief, would lead to the decrease of eliminationism. ( Goldhagen,
p578-579) His opinion is wrong, for his proposal can target the “
person responsible” for the crime, but does not clearly eliminates
genocide. I believe that the United Nations’ action plan for genocide
is more practical in the prevention of such mass murders.
Goldhagen is “ calling for the killing of the politically responsible
to genocide”, for he believes that “ mass murderers are successful and
have nothing to fear.” (Coon)
Although the people behind genocide have acknowledged the act of
their killings, murderers, I believe should be handled by a universal
governing unit that should handle their cases. In this case, the
International Court of Justice. However, Goldhagen finds the
‘international law ineffective” , calling it for a reform. He
continues that though he supports the institution, he feels that “it
works extremely slowly”. He feels that it “requires far too much time
to come to any decision, lacking assertiveness, and that some
countries do not recognize it as a court”. Goldhagen, thus continues
his belief that anyone who has the capacity to kill the murderers can
intervene. His statement makes me feel that the killing of
perpetuators by just anyone who wants to put it into their own hands
makes them no different to these murderers. It will result to more
chaos, hatred , and uplifting of a more grave conflict. Put into
consideration, the family, supporters, and political allies of these
leaders. Putting judgment into anybody’s hands would result to more
hatred, fault-finding, and uprising.
I support Gen. Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary, who set an
action plan for genocide on April 7, 2004. His commemoration of the
Rwandan’ genocide set forth the United Nation’s plan in stopping the
killings. These are the : “ prevention of armed conflicts, protection
of civilians in armed conflict, the ending of impunity, early and
clearly warning, and last, the need for swift and decisive action,
which may include military action”. ( Annan ) The prevention of armed
conflicts would basically “ address the causes of conflict” at the
local, regional, or national levels. This targets the minor issues at
hand, to prevent a major conflict thus preventing more killings that
would protect more civilians, and the ending of recurrence. However,
if the needs arise, for the intervention of the military, the council
would meddle. These , I think goes to necessary steps and decisions
that comes from the present need of the situation. As any decision
made, it comes with a collaboration of different parties, council
members and countries.
The motivation of peace and harmonious ways to deal with the
oppressed, will be justified.
Decisions come and go, but we are not supposed to take matters into
our hands.
The responsibility to do so, should be united effort of the many, with
an appointed council, that comes with a moral existence, that this
world calls for. If not, the cycle goes on. In “No More Killing
Fields: Preventing Deadly Conflict., Dr. Hamburg’s book does not give
in to defeatism. Instead, his view is one of unbridled optimism and
ferocious dedication to the idea that hard work and good thinking can
achieve remarkable ends.”
Works Cited:
Coon, Nina. "Deterrence as the Only Prevention." Qantara.de. 02 Dec.
2009. Web. 18
Mar. 2010. <http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/
_nr-
1263/i.html>.
Cushman, Tom. “ Is Genocide Preventable?” United States Holocaust
Museum.
25. Feb. 2003. 18 Mar. 2010. < http. www.ushmm.org/genocide/analysis/
details.php?content=2003-02-25.>
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War.
"UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Action Plan to Prevent Genocide."
Prevent
Genocide International. 07 Apr. 20041. Web. 8 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/UNdocs/
KofiAnnansActionPlantoPrevent
Genocide7Apr2004.htm>.