Countries going after a harbored terrorist

[Craig234]

Let's take a person who is known/believed to have committed terrorist acts, killing people, in incidents making him infamous, wanted by a government for trial.

Let's say this person is in another country, who refuses to extradite them. Let's say they give as a reason 'he could be tortured if extradited'. Or 'we don't know where he is'.

Let's say the country who wants him looks for him in the host country and finds him.

Some questions:

Does the country have the right to kill the person in an operation without the consent of the host country?

If the host country is found to have knowingly harbored the person, what are they guilty of?

Do you base the answer to what's allowed on principles, or might - is the answer different based on the military might of the country who wants to perform the operation?

Do you oppose a country harboring the person with preferential treatment based on being, perhaps unofficially, sympathetic to the terrorist's 'side', possibly having supported some acts?



Update (after some responses to the general topic above, with 11 replies so far):

Now apply your answers to people like Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, both wanted for a long string of terrorism including bombs and a civilian airliner.

One of them said that 'all the planes are warplanes' of the country he attacked.

The US refuses to extradite, for example, Carriles, to Venezuela, where he has been tried and found guilty for terrorism but escaped prison, on the grounds 'he might face torture'.

The US has tried Carriles not for any of his terrorism, but for minor charges - lying to immigration - for which he was aquitted by a Texas jury (Texas) last month. He lives free.

He also was not subject to any of the treatment others suspected of terrorism are - not even held in detention.

But his terrorism and crimes involve the (secret and illegal) backing of the US government - and so it appears he's receiving protection from justice for terrorism.

Doesn't this make the US just as guilty of the same things Pakistan is, if they knew of bin Laden's whereabouts?

This requires anyone who approves of the operation to kill bin Laden to approve of foreign countries conducting a similar operation on US soil to kill these men. Are they consistent?

It appears that 'might makes right' has corrupted many, to hold inconsistent views based on whose team they're on, on who has the might to get away with actions.

Certainly, Osama bin Laden faced at least as much risk of 'torture', at least if captured by Bush, as Carriles did in Venezuela. (Indeed, while Carriles is accused of torturing others as some of his crimes, there is no evidence for Venezuela being a torture risk; none that they tortured him when he was in their custody before. Venezuela's foreign minister said he would provide Carilles with a "gold cage and feed him caviar every day" if the US wanted that as a condition for honoring its extradition treaty with Venezuela. The only evidence the judge based his decision on that there was a risk was one old friend of Carriles, who had no expert knowledge but merely said there was a risk, who was not cross-examined.

I think this is illustrative of the issue with this sort of operation to look at how it's handled differently in different situations.

Some background reading on the people and history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_Flight_455
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles
http://www.ahora.cu/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4046&Itemid=58
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Bosch
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/20...orlando-bosch-outclassed-by-cuban-dissidents/

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

All answers are valid.

 

[Drako]

Yes, they can, if they are countries like the US, China, Russia

 

[bfdd]

Harboring a criminal, makes one a criminal consort, equally as guilty. So yes, invading and killing said responsible is ok.

 

[matt0611]

I don't think the US should just be able to "kill" anyone on a whim without any sort of trial. Even someone like Bin Laden.

They tried to take Osama into custody, for example, and if he reached for a weapon so they killed him so I have no problem with that.

Now, can we go into another country and apprehend a suspected terrorist if we have the countries permission? Definitely yes.

What if we don't have that countries permission? It gets kinda blurred at this point. What if we know the country is intentionally harboring the terrorist? I think I'm ok with going in to apprehend someone suspected of a crime if a country is intentionality harboring him. But I can understand someone who thinks we shouldn't without that countries permission.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think the US should just be able to "kill" anyone on a whim without any sort of trial. Even someone like Bin Laden.

They tried to take Osama into custody, for example, and if he reached for a weapon so they killed him so I have no problem with that.

Now, can we go into another country and apprehend a suspected terrorist if we have the countries permission? Definitely yes.

What if we don't have that countries permission? It gets kinda blurred at this point. What if we know the country is intentionally harboring the terrorist? I think I'm ok with going in to apprehend someone suspected of a crime if a country is intentionality harboring him. But I can understand someone who thinks we shouldn't without that countries permission.

I can understand the purpose of vagueness in the OP's question if it is about general principles or avoiding the introduction of bias. The problem is that serious answers require more. Because of the lack of context any response can be valid because it allows one to insert any scenario, hence my post. That doesn't make the question useless, but what is gleaned is insight into the person, which I've done myself.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Craig, they can come get you and I wouldn't care.

 

[OCGuy]

We can basically do what we want.

 

[iGas]

The US , Canada, Israel, Russia, China and many countries have allowed/harbored defectors/terrorists from other countries. Hence sneaking into another country to kill the defectors, "terrorists" is wrong IMHO, however it would make sense to capture them and bring them to the world court so that the truth can be unveil.

 

[Drako]

The US , Canada, Israel, Russia, China and many countries have allowed/harbored defectors/terrorists from other countries. Hence sneaking into another country to kill the defectors, "terrorists" is wrong IMHO, however it would make sense to capture them and bring them to the world court so that the truth can be unveil.

LOL, world court

 

[BurnItDwn]

One man's political refugee is another man's terrorist.

I think we need to be VERY careful with how matters like these are handled.
Essentially, we need to get permission from the "host" country if we want to go into there and extract somebody.

Sometimes this means asking for it and getting it.
Other times we give them aid and expect for a little bit of slack in return...

 

[Bowfinger]

I can understand the purpose of vagueness in the OP's question if it is about general principles or avoiding the introduction of bias. The problem is that serious answers require more. Because of the lack of context any response can be valid because it allows one to insert any scenario, hence my post. That doesn't make the question useless, but what is gleaned is insight into the person, which I've done myself.

This. There are some who consider GWBush a terrorist, yet I suspect those who supported the U.S. killing bin Laden might not be as supportive of Iran, for example, going after Bush. Context matters.

 

[Craig234]

OP updated to add another example of this type of operation, to see if the general views are consistent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Craig, a question. Suppose that someone was about to commit what you and most other people consider a serious crime. Would you approve of killing him to prevent it or not?

 

[Infohawk]

Some people are trying to equate Polanski with Bin Laden. At a certain point, you either have common sense or you don't. People like Bin Laden, Pol Pot and Hitler are on a certain level of moral deviance that pretty much all of humanity sees as evil. If you can't see the difference between them and someone who may or may not be negligent like GWB you have problems.

Context matters.

Yes.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, a question. Suppose that someone was about to commit what you and most other people consider a serious crime. Would you approve of killing him to prevent it or not?

This thread isn't for you to change the topic. There's plenty to discuss on the topic.

 

[Craig234]

Some people are trying to equate Polanski with Bin Laden. At a certain point, you either have common sense or you don't. People like Bin Laden, Pol Pot and Hitler are on a certain level of moral deviance that pretty much all of humanity sees as evil. If you can't see the difference between them and someone who may or may not be negligent like GWB you have problems.

Yes.

This has nothing to do with Bush. It's not about an operation to kill him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This thread isn't for you to change the topic. There's plenty to discuss on the topic.

I believe that one is free to introduce other ideas into any thread one chooses. There was an illustrative point to be made, but like an open ended scenario, sometimes insight outside a direct answer is to be had.

I'm satisfied. Please continue.

 

[davmat787]

I don't think this is a poll/question that can be answered ahead of time. The crimes involved, country in question, context, trade partner status, etc are all too important to make a generalized answer to an interesting question. It really is a case by case basis. If for example OBL was found in Moscow or Riyadh, the operation would have been much different.

Sorry if that last sentence is a captain obvious, but there are simply too many variables IMO.

 

[davmat787]

This thread isn't for you to change the topic. There's plenty to discuss on the topic.

Hayabusa Rider's avatar is my favorite on AT. Discuss. :twisted:

j/k *ducks and blocks Craig234's incoming strike*

 

[SparkyJJO]

Too many variables for each case to make a blanket statement of any sort.

 

[Rainsford]

To be honest, I actually support targeting foreign leaders if they support acts of war against the US as a general principle. It seems ridiculous that when it comes to military conflict, those at the top are exempt targets when they are almost certainly the individuals most directly responsible for the war.

I don't think it should be our business to go around killing CRIMINALS in other countries. But if someone has declared a war against the US and has taken action to that effect, I think they are certainly a perfectly valid target. Certainly as valid as the foot soldiers we're almost certainly killing instead.

The ability to take out someone wherever they hide is an ability that gives the US a MAJOR advantage. How readily would countries shelter or support terrorists or commit covert acts of war against the US (which are really the same thing) if it means a smart bomb or a SEAL team might come crashing through their leaders' bedroom windows?

 

[Craig234]

I don't think this is a poll/question that can be answered ahead of time. The crimes involved, country in question, context, trade partner status, etc are all too important to make a generalized answer to an interesting question. It really is a case by case basis. If for example OBL was found in Moscow or Riyadh, the operation would have been much different.

Sorry if that last sentence is a captain obvious, but there are simply too many variables IMO.

So, you can't find any rules to apply in general, it's all totally based on everything made up from nothing for each situation, and complete inconsistency is fine?

Are there any differences between your complete lack of rules, and a 'might makes right' policy whereby any power that does anything can justify it on that basis?

So, when the USSR assassinated Georgi Markov in London at the request of Bulgaria, for defecting and criticizing Bulgaria as a BBC journalist, that's ok?

That's the one where the KGB had a poison-tipped umbrella used to poke him in the leg on the street, a mystery confirming who did it for decades.

You didn't say 'suspected of violent crimes' is even a requirement, you had no rules.

 

[Craig234]

To be honest, I actually support targeting foreign leaders if they support acts of war against the US as a general principle. It seems ridiculous that when it comes to military conflict, those at the top are exempt targets when they are almost certainly the individuals most directly responsible for the war.

I don't think it should be our business to go around killing CRIMINALS in other countries. But if someone has declared a war against the US and has taken action to that effect, I think they are certainly a perfectly valid target. Certainly as valid as the foot soldiers we're almost certainly killing instead.

The ability to take out someone wherever they hide is an ability that gives the US a MAJOR advantage. How readily would countries shelter or support terrorists or commit covert acts of war against the US (which are really the same thing) if it means a smart bomb or a SEAL team might come crashing through their leaders' bedroom windows?

A danger is, the US used to repeatedly target foreign leaders for assassination not for 'declaring war on the US', but for selfish reasons - they won't do as we tell them.

The exposure of these long abuses of power came in the Church hearings in the mid-70's, after which Reagan for good reason signed an order against assassination.

It's not just the act - it corrupts the politics of a country where the mere threat can force leaders to betray their countries out of the concern for the US killing them.

 

[Craig234]

Too many variables for each case to make a blanket statement of any sort.

In lieu of any rules, can you offer any better defense for the Carriles situation where we're harboring a terrorist, than 'he committed terrorism for our side so it's ok'?