While the American Left wails over the fact that captured terrorists don't get a mint on their pillow at Gitmo, the top court in Israel has recognized that targetting terrorists for death is a proper policy.

Israel's high court upheld Thursday the military's right to assassinate members of groups the state defines as terrorist organizations, but cautioned that such operations should always be weighed first against the potential harm to civilian bystanders and the human rights of the target.

The unanimous decision departs little from guidelines the military says it already follows in carrying out "targeted killings," the terminology used by the government and by the court in its ruling. But it does say commanders should allow an independent investigation to follow each assassination and recommends that the military compensate "innocent civilians" harmed in the operation.

Under current practice, Israel's military works with Shin Bet, the domestic security service, to compile lists of Palestinians who are influential or active figures in armed groups. Using eavesdropping equipment, aerial surveillance and informants, air force pilots or drone operators receive detailed information about a target's movements, most commonly in the Gaza Strip, where the army no longer operates regularly on the ground.

Military officers say the decision to strike is made -- sometimes in a matter of minutes -- by balancing the threat posed by the target against the potential for injuring bystanders. Many of the strikes have killed civilians in addition to targeted individuals.

Israeli military officials said they would review the court's findings in coming days. But one senior officer who specializes in matters of international law said the ruling, although vague in places, appeared to be a "validation" of existing policies regarding assassinations, and he expected few new restrictions to be implemented.

Why is it that I expect that American courts will not use this decision by a foreign court when interpreting our Constitution in cases related to the Crusade Against Jihadi Terrorism? Could it be because the decision makes sense on a fundamental level, and recognizes that terrorists, like the pirates of old, are the enemies of all mankind?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 3 kb.