Should Mossad carry out extrajudicial killings?

The fact that five Al-Queda operatives were allegedly killed in Pakistan; at the cost of the lives of 700 innocent people is hardly an argument for repeating such atrocities.
[[http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/18-over-700-killed-in-44-drone-strikes-in-2009-am-01]]

Even the Washington Post says “Al-Queda operative “apparently” killed in Pakistan.”
[[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121104037.html]]

U.S law and most human rights organizations oppose the killings of hordes of innocent people as well as terror-suspects(who may or may not be guilty but should be assumed “innocent until proven guilty” if American justice has a say in it.)

That others do it and that Mossad has done it before is not an argument that they should do it now, there are differing circumstances between nations and times.

A lot is put down to precedent when it should not be, in this case the precedent should make no difference in whether they should carry out extrajudicial killings and similarly “this” should be no reason not to.

When a country claims that something is wrong and then goes ahead and does it on the basis that other people do it; it is quite simply: hypocrisy/double-standards/injustice.

nations should not be let off like teenagers who submit to peer pressure and the like. In fact; even teenagers suffer consequences even in that circumstance.

National security should not trump the right to life. A state does not have a right to go around murdering people no matter what they were doing. Mossad has engaged in kidnapping people to put them on trial and put them in prision such as with numerous ex nazis and Mordechi Vanunu. Why could they not have done so in this case, it seems that they had plenty of time in which to do so. It seems that they simply murdered because it was simpler and took less time. Simple ease should not be the motivation of a state killing.

Countries have never objected to kidnapping terror-suspects and torturing them unlawfully in extra-territorial prisons.

Countries(via coalition forces) have sold terror-suspects they’ve captured to the U.S for this purpose.
International Human rights Organizations, oppose these acts not countries; mind you.

Point being, most terror suspects(ranging from Somalis, Filipinos,Yugoslavs,Arabs,British and even American [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010400800.html]] in a recent case) have been to the U.S(and her allies) and were not killed nor captured there because murdering a thousand people to catch 5 suspects is impossible/impermissible/unacceptable on U.S soil; mainly because it is inhuman.

Mossad has no right to take the U.S’s ‘bad behavior’ as an excuse to take lives.

This is such a dangerous concept I can’t believe it is made. What else in the world can we grant carte blanche freedom to our rulers to circumvent all concepts of human rights. To me it is like the ‘One Percent Doctrine’. That is if there one percent risk of terrorist attack on US, they must act as if a certainty! The political ‘principle of proportionality’ to which I subscribe is that governments should only act as far as is necessary. That is, as far as is necessary. There can be no rational reason for going beyond this idea! When two waring factions continually look to present ‘credible deterrence’ every threat must be met with ultimate anger and aggression, retribution must always be sought. There can be no peace without an end to this mentality. This mentality will not end until the people are brave and back an inspirational leader willing to extend an olive branch.

Getting killed seems to me to be a considerably worse deal than criminals get. If you are able to kill someone using a hit squad you could at least attempt to arrest (kidnap!) them and take them to trial.

The palestinians must also feel the same way about the way that Israeli soldiers dont even get a prision sentance after launching attacks on Palestine. See the equality!

How can it be justice without any checks and balances? In this particular incident mossad got their man no problem but what happens when there is mistaken identity and the wrong person is killed or someone gets caught in the middle and killed, then there is no way it could be considered justice.

How do oppression and subjugation justify nasty behaviour? They dont. Yes attempts to throw off such subjugation can result in ugly scenes (usually caused by the oppressors) but that does not mean those involved should get off at the end of it.

Symmetry is not a very good idea because then Mossad would sometimes have to be blowing up hamas people with suicide bombs which would be both wasteful of manpower and fraught with danger to bystanders.

Israel makes no distinction between its extra judicial killings of those who have killed soldiers or citizens.

Extrajudicial killing, targeted killing, liquidation, preventative strike, targeted thwarting or interception are all just synonyms for murder, and a gross violation of human rights.

It is not about one group being worth more, or having more human rights than the other. It is wrong for terrorists to take the lives of Israelis but it is just as wrong for the Israeli state to carry out extrajudicial killings.

And John Stewart,Noam Chomsky and many many Rabbis are antisemitic despite being Jews themselves.

Speaking up against an atrocity does not make a person; “antisemitic”.
The Jewish people(just like the Arab-Semites,Orientals,Whites, Blacks,Browns etc) are not Sacrosanct; there are murderers,thieves and wrongdoers in that race just as there are in every other.

Carrying out killings on foreign territory without the approval of the government of that territory is unlikely to be viewed sympathetically – particularly if that country’s citizens are put at risk as a result (e.g. due to the method or location of the attack or due to the use of forged documents that implicate innocent people).

Leaving aside any moral implications from that, such actions are likely to produce negative publicity and negative diplomatic reactions from other states. Israel’s public reputation is likely to be harmed by the impression given by such actions that Israel is willing to endanger foreign civilians to achieve its goals – and in countries used to the rule of law, that they are prepared to assassinate individuals rather than engage in a judicial process. Extrajudicial killings may therefore cause more harm to Israel’s interests than good.

Extra-judicial killing is illegal, immoral, contributes in no way to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and can only serve to further delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the world.

There will be no shortage of volunteers to replace any that they kill – the longer the conflict continues the more Palestinians will see no way out but to attack Israel.

The only solution is to negotiate and compromise – as the UK appears to have managed with Northern Ireland. The alternative is to repeat the Nazi ‘final solution’ which would be an horrendous irony. Unfortunately blood tends to lead to more blood as it is vengence people want when someone is killed.

We need a documented rule of law in order to draw a thought out ethical line in the sand which we will not cross. Man in a moments anger, can easily rationalise any action as necessary in order to allow his base nature to pacify his fury. The ‘Right’ in question here being that of a ‘Right to a Fair Trial’ where evidence shall be produced. Errotion of rights are not an abstract myth which you remain untouched by. Corruption and perversion by power, of process, to meet its goal of appeasing masses is indeed real. To many think selfishly of their immediate family and selves with no thought to their many generations to follow who might be blighted with wrongful convictions, assisination, etc. You only need to look to Britain and the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes as to what exessive fear can bring to know this is a real risk !