Is Targeted Assassination of Terrorist Leaders Unlawful?

[Oh Jerusalem]

From "The Case For Israel", by Alan Dershowitz:

Is Targeted Assassination of Terrorist Leaders Unlawful?

THE ACCUSATION

The Israeli policy of targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is murder prohibited by international law.

THE ACCUSERS

"Assassinations have been part of Israel's security policy for many years.
Israel is the only democratic country which regards such measures as a legitimate course of action. This policy is patently illegal, according to both Israeli and international law, a policy whose implementation involves a high risk of hurting bystanders and from which there is no turning back even if errors are uncovered after the fact. Israel must cease assassinating Palestinians immediately." (Yael Stein of the Israeli human rights organization B'Tseleml)

THE REALITY


Targeting the military leaders of an enemy during hostilities is perfectly proper under the laws of war, which is what Israel-as well as the United States and other democracies-has done.

THE PROOF

In one sense, the polar opposite of collective punishment is targeted assassination. This tactic seeks to prevent future terrorism by incapacitating
those who are planning to carry it out but are beyond the reach of other methods of incapacitation, such as arrest. Tyrannical regimes have widely employed an extreme form of targeted assassination against perceived enemies at home and abroad. Hitler had his rivals murdered with impunity. Stalin took his campaign of targeted assassination around the world, even to Mexico, where his operatives murdered Leon Trotsky.

The United States has certainly tried to assassinate foreign leaders over the years. Its hit list has included Fidel Castro, as well as Patrice Lumumba, Muammar el-Qaddafi, and Saddam Hussein. Although the United States did not directly murder Salvador Allende or Ngo Dinh Diem, it certainly played an active role in helping others to dispatch them.
Recently, it again targeted Saddam Hussein, his children, and his generals, and has put bounties on the heads of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammad Omar. Other democratic nations have also given their agents a "license to kill" in extreme situations.

Targeted assassination, like collective punishment, operates along a continuum. At the hard end is the widespread targeting of all perceived political opponents, as Hitler and Stalin practiced it. At the soft end is what the United States and Israel current)y do: targeting specific terrorist leaders who are actively involved in planning or coordinating terrorist attacks and who cannot be arrested. An example of such a target was Yehiya Ayash, I known as "the Engineer," the chief bomb maker for Hamas, whom Israeli I' agents killed in January 1996 by placing explosives in his mobile phone.
Another example was the April 2003 Israeli rocket attack on a car that killed the leader ofIslamic Jihad, Mahroud Zatme. His organization issued a statement "condemning the killing" but boasting that "the martyr was the engineer of bombs and explosive belts that killed tens and wounded I hundreds of Zionist occupiers,"2 meaning Jewish children and other civil- I ians. No one else was killed in the attack on Zatme.

The vice of targeted assassination is that those who authorize the hit are prosecutor, judge, and jury-and there is no appeal. In Israel, the deci- I sion regarding who is an appropriate target is generally made by highranking government officials with political accountability. The virtue of targeted assassination, if the targets are picked carefully and conservatively, is precisely that it is targeted and tends to avoid collateral damage and col- I lective punishment. Albert Camus's "just assassin" was employing targeted I assassination against an evil wrongdoer, and he refused to proceed in the face of collectively (or collaterally) punishing the evildoer's young niece and nephew. Even where there are collateral victims, there are fewer of them than in typical military reprisals.

Under international law and the laws of war, it is entirely legal to target and kill an enemy combatant who has not surrendered. Palestinian ter-
rorists-whether they are the suicide bombers themselves, those who recruit them, those in charge of the operation, or commanders of terrorist groups-are undoubtedly enemy combatants, regardless of whether they wear official uniforms or three-piece suits. It is lawful to kill an enemy combatant even when he is sleeping, as the United States tried to do with Saddam Hussein, so long as he has not surrendered. Nor need he be given an opportunity to surrender. He must take the initiative; otherwise the soldier on the other side will risk being fired upon. The Israeli government generally targets only terrorists, not political leaders, as evidenced by the fact that it has repeatedly protected the life ofYasser Arafat, who is both a political leader and a terrorist. Israel has also announced that it will stop targeting Hamas terrorists if the Palestinian Authority would start arresting them.

The key issue in evaluating targeted assassination is whether the targeting is sufficiently focused on the terrorist without unduly risking the lives of innocent (and sometimes not-so-innocent) civilians. For example, when the United States targeted Qaed Salim Sinan Al-Harethi-al Qaeda's top man in Yemen-for assassination in Yemen, it blew up the car in which he was traveling, killing him and other occupants of the car. The only real question was whether those occupants were themselves appropriate targets. Similarly, when Israel bombed a terrorist headquarters in Gaza, targeting Mohammed Deif, a leading Hamas terrorist, the appropriate criticism-in which I joined-was that the action was not sufficiently targeted, in light of the fact that several innocent bystanders were killed or injured. Many Israelis shared my criticism of that particular assassination, and the Israeli military acknowledged that the intelligence on which that action was based was flawed. When the United States targeted Saddam Hussein and in the process killed many civilians, the issue was the same.

I believe that targeted assassination should only be used as a last recourse when there is no opportunity to arrest or apprehend the murderer (although this is not required by the law of war if the murderer is a combatant), when the terrorist is involved in ongoing murderous activities, and when the assassination can be done without undue risk to innocent bystanders. Proportionality is the key to any military action, and targeted assassination should be judged under that rubric. Under any reasonable standard, Israeli policy with regard to targeted assassinations of "ticking-bomb terrorists" does not deserve the kind of condemnation it is receiving, especially in comparison with other nations and groups whose legal actions are far less proportionate to the dangers they face.

[Mira~]

http://www.israel-embassy.org.uk/web/pages/terrpres.htm

[peacelover]

I'll repsond in more detail when I have done some revision for my property law exam! (not as interesting at intl law!)

Although I think this is a promsing article, the main problem I can see is that it centres on Yassin etc being combatants, and I'm not sure the definition in the convention extends to cover him.

[peacelover]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
From "The Case For Israel", by Alan Dershowitz:

Is Targeted Assassination of Terrorist Leaders Unlawful?

The United States has certainly tried to assassinate foreign leaders over the years. Its hit list has included Fidel Castro, as well as Patrice Lumumba, Muammar el-Qaddafi, and Saddam Hussein. Although the United States did not directly murder Salvador Allende or Ngo Dinh Diem, it certainly played an active role in helping others to dispatch them.
Recently, it again targeted Saddam Hussein, his children, and his generals, and has put bounties on the heads of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammad Omar. Other democratic nations have also given their agents a "license to kill" in extreme situations.

All good points, but doesn't make it legal. What it does make it is hypocritical for other nations to slate Israel for doing no worse than they themselves do.

Under international law and the laws of war, it is entirely legal to target and kill an enemy combatant who has not surrendered. Palestinian ter-
rorists-whether they are the suicide bombers themselves, those who recruit them, those in charge of the operation, or commanders of terrorist groups-are undoubtedly enemy combatants, regardless of whether they wear official uniforms or three-piece suits.

Sadly, this isn't backed up by a reference to the law to support the assertion taht they are combatants.

The key issue in evaluating targeted assassination is whether the targeting is sufficiently focused on the terrorist without unduly risking the lives of innocent (and sometimes not-so-innocent) civilians. For example, when the United States targeted Qaed Salim Sinan Al-Harethi-al Qaeda's top man in Yemen-for assassination in Yemen, it blew up the car in which he was traveling, killing him and other occupants of the car. The only real question was whether those occupants were themselves appropriate targets. Similarly, when Israel bombed a terrorist headquarters in Gaza, targeting Mohammed Deif, a leading Hamas terrorist, the appropriate criticism-in which I joined-was that the action was not sufficiently targeted, in light of the fact that several innocent bystanders were killed or injured. Many Israelis shared my criticism of that particular assassination, and the Israeli military acknowledged that the intelligence on which that action was based was flawed. When the United States targeted Saddam Hussein and in the process killed many civilians, the issue was the same.

Agreed.

I believe that targeted assassination should only be used as a last recourse when there is no opportunity to arrest or apprehend the murderer (although this is not required by the law of war if the murderer is a combatant), when the terrorist is involved in ongoing murderous activities, and when the assassination can be done without undue risk to innocent bystanders. Proportionality is the key to any military action, and targeted assassination should be judged under that rubric. Under any reasonable standard, Israeli policy with regard to targeted assassinations of "ticking-bomb terrorists" does not deserve the kind of condemnation it is receiving, especially in comparison with other nations and groups whose legal actions are far less proportionate to the dangers they face.

Again, good points. BUt most of them refer to why the assassinations are OK in the abstract, and it isn't really backed up in law. Binyamin might have come up with something though - check the thread over in the In the News forum.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by peacelover
Sadly, this isn't backed up by a reference to the law to support the assertion taht they are combatants.

The relevant part of the GC states:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

Yassin acrivtely took part in hostilities.

So what is the problem?

Where does the GC use the word "combatant" to exclude Yassin?

[peacelover]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
The relevant part of the GC states:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

Yassin acrivtely took part in hostilities.

So what is the problem?

Where does the GC use the word "combatant" to exclude Yassin?

arts 43/44.

"Taking no active part" is open to debate as well, because not when he was killed he wasn't. MIght sound silly, might be "splitting hairs" but such is the law.

In any case, I'm sick of people misinterpreting what I'm trying to do, so I hereby abstain fm arguing about the legalities of it, particularly when I have always maintained Israel should be free to do the strike anyway.

[Binyamin]

These issues were discussed at length in the Yassin thread.

The article is extremely poorly written. Peacelover pointed out some of the problems, most notably that he makes no references. It is long and involved- who was he writing for?

"Taking no active part" is open to debate as well, because not when he was killed he wasn't. MIght sound silly, might be "splitting hairs" but such is the law.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms
If someone who is not involved in combat at the time of death is not included, the GC would not have to include "forces who laid down their arms." This phrase means that until they lay down their arms, even if at the time they are not doing anything, they are considered combatants.

Don't forget Art. 5. Even if he is otherwise a protected person, he loses his protection if not killing him will threaten the security of the state.
As I post everywhere else, if the terrorist is a legal target, then it is legal to ignore the civilians around him. (Art. 28)

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by peacelover
arts 43/44.

"Taking no active part" is open to debate as well, because not when he was killed he wasn't. MIght sound silly, might be "splitting hairs" but such is the law.

Sounds silly.

It's splitting hairs.

Bottom line is the law doesn't say so.

[peacelover]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Sounds silly.

It's splitting hairs.

Bottom line is the law doesn't say so.

Well, the law might say it depending on how you define "taking no active part" is the point.

The law is about splitting hairs - that's what keeps lawyers in business.

It is far too short sighted and naive to "bottom line is law doesn't say so". That really doesn't take into account the nature of law at all.

Equally, any decent lawyer acting for Israel would plead art 28, as Binyamin very sensibly has. Any decent lawyer acting for the estate of Yassin or whoever would say "ignore" is an overstatement.

It's usual for there to be 2 sides to a legal argument. Israel, IMO, has a very strong one here. But I'm not kidding myself that "bottom line is law doesn't say" anything, because that is just not realistic.

[Oh Jerusalem]

To target or not to target
By Micah D. Halpern April 20, 2004

Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi was a pediatrician. He was also the leader of the terrorist organization Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

He was targeted by Israeli defense and security forces. He was killed, assassinated. Now he's buried.

But was Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi a good father? Was he a kind, caring physician? Did he love his mother? Believe it or not, those are some of the questions I'm hearing. And quite honestly, they are completely irrelevant for the here and now. So, too, are the voices raised in question on the other end of the spectrum. Those voices are asking, who cares? Asking, why should anyone shed a tear for Rantisi who was, after all, a really, really bad guy? Again, it is all irrelevant, it is and should be of no concern to us.

The private lives of terrorists and mass murderers do not enter into the equation of good versus evil. These people have stepped over the line. Whatever good they did or do in their private lives is obliterated by their own actions. Their own actions, not the actions of those who seek - and oftentimes succeed - in silencing them.

Adolf Eichmann was a vacuum cleaner salesman. Osama bin Laden suffers from a chronic kidney condition. Saddam Hussein probably had lice when he was captured by the Americans. Factoids for a board game, nothing more.

There are only two questions to be asked after the planned, targeted, assassination of an enemy.

The first question is: was the act morally correct?

The second question is: was the act conducted in a legal manner?

YES. And YES. An unabashed, overwhelming, YES. Israel was morally and legally justified in killing this Hamas leader and just as morally and legally justified in killing the previous Hamas leader.

Rantisi was a valid target because he was a leader of a terrorist organization that continues to murder innocents. He was not a head of state. But as head of the terrorist organization, he both claimed and accepted responsibility for Hamas attacks. He boasted about the many lives he was responsible for taking. His sworn goal was the elimination of Israel. You need not take my word for it, just look at the official Hamas website to see the claims that Hamas made under Rantisi's leadership.

The targeting of Hamas leaders is another step in the fight against terror. It is an essential step. It is a fight that requires action not appeasement.

Targeting is one of the only ways to attack the terrorist leadership.

Targeting does not engage the enemy in combat.

Targeting does not kill large numbers of innocents even though terrorists seek sanctuary among crowds.

This targeting is a continuation of a process, as was the targeting of Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

How did the Israelis pull this off? The Intel required was truly impressive. Rantisi was in hiding. He had exchanged the car he always rode in and which made him immediately identifiable for a new, different vehicle. But Israel found him. They knew his route and the direction he was taking. They hit him and only the people in the car with him, his bodyguard son and another bodyguard. Only several innocent civilians were injured in the vicinity.

Will Israel have a cost to pay for this action? Yes, both in the short term and in the long term. In the short term, there may be higher motivation on the part of Hamas and Hamas sympathizers to hit Israelis. But Israeli security is already high since last month's assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. There has yet to be a successful retaliation against civilians, even though attempts have been plentiful - but they always are. Never the less, Israelis are more palpably fearful of retaliation.

In the long term the targeting of Hamas and other terrorist leadership will contribute to winning the war against terror. It will help make the region a safer place.

Surprising and counter intuitive as it sounds, the targeting of Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip even helps Palestinian Authority leadership. Hamas was neither scared nor intimidated by the PA leadership. Israel has leveled the playing field for the PA just as it prepares to hand the Gaza Strip over to Palestinian rule. Israel, of course, hopes that the area will now be safer for Israelis.

Decapitating - literally and figuratively - the leadership of Hamas sends out a clear message of zero tolerance for terror. It sends a trickle down effect to the masses leaving them leaderless and floundering.

Hamas is left with a serious power vacuum. The world is left with one less terror lord.

[Oh Jerusalem]

An excellent rebuttal to the UN's SC meeting regarding the Rantissi elimination, by Israeli UN Ambassador Gillerman. Not that it will help, of course.

Statement by Amb. Gillerman to the UN Security Council on Rantisi

19 Apr 2004
"Rantisi turned his craft from the healing of children,
to the killing of children."

Statement by Ambassador Dan Gillerman,
Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations,
Before the Security Council

Mr. President,

At the outset, I would like to congratulate you on your assumption of the Presidency and express our appreciation for your wise stewardship.

Today, the Jewish people and the people of Israel commemorate Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. I know that all delegates will join with me in commemorating the memory of the six million victims of the Holocaust, innocent Jews who suffered unspeakably at a time when there was no Jewish State to defend them.

Mr. President,

It is with regret that the Council has been compelled to convene again on this day not to condemn the murder of innocent civilians by organizations such as Hamas, but to denounce the demise of a key architect of those massacres. As we have said time and again, this pattern of activity only harms the prestige and reputation of the Council.

Just hours before the targeted counter-terrorist operation against Mr. Rantisi, the organization which he headed, claimed responsibility, together with the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, for yet another suicide attack - this time at the Erez Crossing where Palestinian workers enter Israel daily. The attack killed 20 year-old Kfir Ohayon of Eilat, a guard at the crossing, and injured several others. It was perpetrated by an individual who had been given a license to work in Israel, and against a person whose primary task was to facilitate the entry of Palestinian workers to their places of employment. In recent days there has also been repeated and indiscriminate Qassam rocket fire at civilian communities in Israel and continued attempts to perpetrate acts of terrorism.

On any fair and balanced account, these acts of terror should be the focus of the Council's specific attention, not the acts of self-defense necessary to prevent them.

Mr. President,

Were the current Palestinian leadership a genuine partner in peace, defensive actions such as the one Israel was recently compelled to undertake would not have been necessary. The Palestinian obligation to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, arrest terrorists, confiscate illegal weapons and stop incitement is as obvious and fundamental a legal imperative as it is a moral one. Under the Road Map, Security Council resolutions, signed agreements and international law, the Palestinian Authority is required to arrest murderers like Rantisi - not give them protection and safe haven. This is what the international community demands in the global fight against terrorism.

If there is something "extrajudicial" here it is the total refusal of the Palestinian leadership - for years - to act against terrorism in violation of every judicial standard.
I need not repeat the litany of cold-blooded murder, which Mr. Rantisi was responsible for, and intent on continuing. He was a radical terrorist leader that joyfully and publicly celebrated the murder of innocent men women and children, sought to destroy any peace initiative, and called for the destruction of Israel by force of arms. He believed that violence was the "only option". He developed alliances with terrorist groups operating around the world, supported by regimes in Syria and Iran, and was committed to fostering terrorism in Iraq and throughout the Western world. A pediatrician by training, this doctor led the campaign to mobilize women and children for use in suicide bombings. He turned his craft from the healing of children, to the killing of children.

Rantisi was a trader in death, a doctor of death, and no one should be surprised that he paid the price for it. For those who criticize his targeting as "extrajudicial" - let me say that we are sensitive to these concerns. Were it possible to arrest Mr. Rantisi, while minimizing harm to civilian life, Israel would have done so, as is its usual practice. But in the absence of any cooperation from the Palestinian Authority, and any viable means of arrest, Israel is sometimes left no choice but to target those who plan, orchestrate and execute the murder of our innocent civilians.

We are engaged in an armed conflict against terrorism of an unparalleled scale, magnitude and brutality. It is no good to affirm in theory Israel's right to defend itself in this conflict, but then in practice seek to deny us the right to specifically target those illegal combatants directly responsible, as well their command and control structure. We do so in a manner that is both necessary and proportionate, and when no other realistic option of detention or prevention exists. In these circumstances, such actions are wholly consistent with international law and we have little doubt that nations similarly faced with such a horrific choice would act accordingly - and indeed have done so, and are doing so, with the support or acquiescence of the international community.

The targeting of Mr. Rantisi was not merely a necessary defensive act to prevent ongoing and planned attacks against innocent civilians, it is part of the global struggle against terrorism that has been thrust upon all of us. It sends a clear message that those who deal in terrorism, those who have exported airplane hijackings, kidnappings and suicide bombings to the world, will have no immunity.

In line with Security Council resolutions 1368, 1373, 1377 and others, this action makes clear that those who harbor or tolerate terrorists, let alone those who forge alliances with them, must be held accountable. The Palestinian leadership, and other regimes in our region cannot brazenly violate international law by supporting terrorists, and then seek to deny Israel the right to protect itself against them, a right guaranteed under that same law.

The entire world knows that Hamas is a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel and of the hopes of peace by the deliberate massacre of innocent civilians. The entire world, including the Arab world, knows that Hamas is the enemy of peace and stability in the region and that there is a clear obligation to dismantle this terrorist organization. Although politics and rhetoric may silence this, the defensive targeting of Mr. Rantisi is no doubt a relief for many innocent Palestinians whose life he endangered by the strategy of terrorism and the rejection of peace he so defiantly championed.
Mr. President,
The draft resolution presented before you, is yet another example of misrepresentation and double standard. It focuses yet again on the response to terrorism rather than the terrorism itself. It grossly distorts reality. And it seeks to bully the Council to score political points. It is a document that any fair-minded Council should be ashamed to adopt, and that any fair-minded delegation should be ashamed to sponsor.

[Oh Jerusalem]

(cont.)

Mr. President,

As I have said, there cannot be peace and terror. There cannot be peace and Hamas. But as the struggle against terrorism continues, and at considerable risk, Prime Minister Sharon has launched a bold and unprecedented initiative to bring new hope and opportunity to the peace process. The disengagement plan, when approved, will lead to the evacuation of settlements and military installations in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. This move is not required by the Road Map, but as Mr. Sharon has declared, it is an opportunity to restart the Road Map process to which Israel remains committed. Prime Minister Sharon's bold initiative deserves the support of the international community, and of this Council, and we are grateful for the many expressions of support we have received. As the Secretary-General's Special Coordinator recently announced before the Council this proposed step "should be welcomed by all".

In the absence of a peace partner, Israel has been compelled to propose this unprecedented initiative itself, but it hopes and plans to implement it in a coordinated fashion that will ensure stability and security for both Israelis and Palestinians, provide a sound humanitarian infrastructure and rekindle the peace process.

This initiative is completely consistent with Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, despite claims to the contrary, it supports and can facilitate the two-state solution in the context of the Road Map process, and indeed is also consistent with previous peace proposals. As Israel has declared, we remain committed to a negotiated solution to all permanent status issues that will guarantee peace, security, prosperity, and stability for both peoples, as well as secure and defensible borders. As always, we recognize that no permanent peace agreement can be imposed - it must be agreed by negotiations between the parties. This is also set out very clearly in the statements issued in connection to the disengagement plan, for those who have taken the care to read them.

For those who have sponsored and tolerated terrorism, and sought for decades to prejudge the outcome of negotiations by pushing one-sided resolutions through the United Nations, to complain of a so called "unilateralist approach" is the height of hypocrisy that totally, and perhaps deliberately, misunderstands this historic and courageous initiative.
This is a moment of opportunity, a chance for the Palestinian side to prove finally that it is capable of a new and responsible leadership that fights terror and prefers the welfare of its people to the personal wealth of its leaders.

The heart of this initiative is the evacuation of settlements - something the Palestinian side has long called for. And yet, so far the Palestinian leadership has acted consistently with its long tradition of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

As I have said before, the Palestinian leadership has a choice - and the international community, and this Council, should encourage it finally to make the right one. It need not be on the wrong side in the war against terror. It can also choose a different path. It can prove to the world that it is ready to assume responsibilities, not just assume privileges. It can show that it is ready to establish a democratic society that will respect the rights of its people, and the rights of its neighbors, and not another terrorist dictatorship in the heart of the Middle East.

Israel is ready, as always, to be a partner in peace with such a leadership.

Thank you, Mr. President

[Donna]

I think Dan Gillerman is good-looking.

And er, oh yeah....his speech was excellent.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Donna
I think Dan Gillerman is good-looking.

And er, oh yeah....his speech was excellent.

This guy?

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/bio...Gillerman.html

[Mediocrates]

I'm afraid you'l have to explain


What does unlawful mean? To whom? In the arena of law, justice attempts to be applied with equity. This means that the community agrees to be subject to it, or in the case of things like organized crime or even war, agrees that certain things may in fact be crimes whether or not one believes one should be subject to that justice. Terrorism simply does NOT acknowledge that laws are meaningful or even exist in any practical way. Would the terrorist admit they were wrong if you pointed out them the Law which prohbits genocide? Would the terrorist refrain from murderous anarchy if you pointed to the Law which created the State of Israel? I submit it's a strange and largely useless distinction to say targetted assassination in the prosecution of a limited urban war is unlawful or that the word 'unlawful' has much useful context. What we are really talking about is some internal measure of utility we are or are not willing to accept.

Next you'll have to explain the difference between justice and law. They are two different things. Laws are good or bad, weak or vague, useful, violent, racist, fair......Good people make bad laws, so do bad people. Do the critics here fall over themselves in support of refuseniks who will not work inside YESHA even though that is the law? What happens to that law? This is where the notion of the difference between law and justice exists. Justice is about what is in the best interest of the community. Law is merely a tool to instruct one in the day to day limits of actions. Clearly the program of targetted assassinations is just regardless of its legal status and I submit it has no legal status at all because neither the concepts of law or justice are embraced by the people who are targetted and I suspect their supporters too.