December 1, 2008

“Who will want to save them?” i.e. “Who wants to capture any alive?”
by Bill Levinson
Mumbai: Doctors Shocked At Hostages Torture reports that the Islamic supremacist perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre tortured many of their hostages before murdering them. The article also says, however, that the Indians may have used what Kumbaya-singing Westerners might call “excessive violence” on the terrorists. The Islamic supremacists’ faces were “beyond recognition” and “One of the terrorists was shot through either eye.”

In other words, the terrorists got exactly what they deserved, and what the United States and Israel ought to give the perpetrators of 9/11 and Ma’alot respectively on a routine basis. The French use the term “pour encourager les autres”–literally “to encourage the others,” but more generally “as an example to others.” We stated more than 25 years ago that first aid for wounded terrorists should be limited to the cost of a single pistol cartridge.

Terrorists feel free to detonate nail bombs in synagogues and pizza parlors, orchestrate the 9/11 atrocity, cut off people’s heads, torture hostages, gun down children at Ma’alot, and shoot pregnant women in their bellies because they know that the Kumbaya-singing West will usually give them at most time in a relatively comfortable jail (e.g. Guantanamo, where prisoners gain weight and have access to first-class medical care), with an excellent chance of very early release. As an example, Israel released numerous terrorists in exchange for the bodies of Israeli soldiers, and at least one individual who was freed from Guantanamo resumed operations with a terrorist group.

The convicted terrorist who got life without parole at an American maximum security prison, and the Bali bombers who were recently executed by Indonesia, were four very unlucky exceptions to the general rule that terrorism carries no price tag. Piracy is meanwhile on the upswing because pirates are no longer hanged from the nearest yardarm as was once legal and customary.

The methods of the Roman Empire and Vlad Dracula were very effective in discouraging banditry and terrorism, but they would admittedly not pass muster under the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, there is no question that most terrorists would be deterred by the prospect of being treated as horrifically than their victims. They should be treated as completely outside civilized law, and with no protections under the Hague or Geneva Convention (which apply to uniformed combatants who conduct their operations in accordance with the laws of war). It is said that General Pershing executed Islamic supremacist terrorists with bullets that had been lubricated with pig fat. This is something for hostage rescue teams to consider in the future; in retrospect, the Indians could have rubbed their bullets with pig fat before using them on the terrorists.

Punishment (or retaliation) that does not serve at least one of the following three functions is useless sadism: (1) correction of the perpetrator’s behavior, (2) prevention of future crimes by the perpetrator, and (3) deterrence of like-minded individuals. The actions of the Indian commandos fulfilled objectives (2) and (3) perfectly. The dead terrorists will never harm another innocent person, and other prospective terrorists will be deterred.

Meanwhile, India has given us a real-world alternative to the line, “What Would Jack Bauer Do?”: “Unko bachana kaun chahega?”

===================================

Addendum for the U.S. (Not legal advice, we are not attorneys)

In the United States, it is illegal to take the law into your own hands, and it is illegal for the police to dispense “street justice.” If you shoot a terrorist in self-defense, it is illegal to emulate Bernhard Goetz by proclaiming, “You don’t look so bad, here’s another [bullet].” You are allowed to take someone’s life only if that individual puts you in “reasonable fear” for your own safety.

Having said this, however, we remind our readers of terrorists’ well-established practice of using suicide bombs. During the Second World War, Japanese would often “surrender” and then detonate concealed bombs or grenades when they got close to their prospective captors. American soldiers soon demanded that Japanese who were trying to surrender strip to their underwear to prove they were not carrying bombs or grenades. To do this, however, one needs a firearm to make the prospective prisoner keep his distance, and also plenty of room between him and any innocent bystanders.

A police officer, or a citizen who turns the tables on a terrorist in a confined room or passenger aircraft, does not have the option of holding the terrorist outside the lethal radius of a suicide belt while demanding that the terrorist undress to show that he does not have one. Under these circumstances, it might easily be “reasonable and necessary” to kill him even if he is wounded and down, or even if he says he surrenders. We will add that, as a juror, we will not have any problems with a law enforcement officer or private citizen who refuses to risk his/her life and possibly the lives of others by giving the terrorist the benefit of the doubt under such conditions.