There are a great many innacuracies in your post. Not least your statement that no guilt is placed on the police if they shoot and kill civilians.

A hostage taker could not be found guilty of murder in the UK if the police accidently killed his hostage. He could be found guilty of kidnapping, but not murder. Hence Prof Dershowitz argument is incorrect under English law.

Under english law the police are able to use 'reasonable force'. 'Reasonable force' can mean 'lethal force' under certain circumstances, but only highly trained firearms officers are able to use guns in the UK.

Gail Kinshen was shot in a dark alleyway while being held as a human shield. Her death provoked an enormous public outcry, but the officers involved were able to argue that they had followed all official guidelines and hence had not negligently caused her death. They did stand trial though, which evidences the fact that the killing of a hostage is not permitted under UK law. Again Prof Dershowitz argument is incorrect.

Stephen Waldorf was shot six times and bludgeoned with a pistol without any warning whilst sitting in his car. Officers had mistaken him for a suspected armed robber. Amazingly - he was not killed, but survived and received significant compensation. The officers in question stood trial for attempted murder. They were found not guilty because they argued that official guidelines permitted their actions. Amidst huge public pressure the police altered their firearms guidelines significantly to ensure this could not happen again. The new guidelines required officers to warn suspects that they intent to fire, aim for the torso to incapacitate and reasses the situation after every shot.

The officers who shot Stephen Waldorf would be found to have done so unlawfully under these guidelines.

John Shorthouse was not a suspect, he was a 5 year old boy and was shot 'by mistake' after an officer accidently discharged his weapon whilst searching beneath his bed. His defence was that he had not intended to fire the gun and that he was unaware that the boy was in the bed. This is a simply appalling incident.

Cherry Groce was the mother of a suspected armed robber. A CID officer shot her by mistake during a raid on her home. Again she was not killed, but was paralysed from the waist down. The officer again argued that the gun had been discharged by mistake and was found not guilty because he had followed official guidance. Ms Groce was represented at trial by Paul Boateng (now an MP) and this case led to a huge change in police firearms policy. The outcome is that CID officers are no longer entitled to carry weapons which may now only be used by licensed firearms officer.

The last 3 were cases of the police wounding or killing entirely innocent people by mistake and the law in the UK has effectively been changed to prevent them happening again.

The man with the cigarette lighter gun was shot 6 times. Police were tried on the basis that they had used unreasonable force, but were found innocent.

Thankfully, the situation in the UK remains that police are required to protect hostages in a hostage situation and if they fail to do so they cannot defend themselves as Prof D suggests by arguing that the incident was the 'fault' of the hostage taker.

More recently, the ongoing case of Jean Charles de Menezes illustrates the english approach to the use of lethal force. He was killed by police who mistakenly believed he was a suicide bomber and was shot many times without warning.

he was killed due to controversial police guidelines introduced to fight terrorism called operation kratos, which effectively allow the police to 'shoot to kill' in the event that they suspect someone is a suicide bomber. The police officers involved will be tried for 'health and safety' offences and I am confident that operation kratos will ultimately be dropped if not found to be unlawful.

All of which serves to reinforce my point that (in the UK at least) Prof D's argument is deeply flawed.

Israel is attacking terrorists and in so doing it is killing civilians without warning. Prof D's assertion that the responsibility for the civillian deaths lies with Hezbullah is false.

 

I personally feel that the Israeli attacks are justified, but disproportionate. I also think that their purpose has been served and that the continued attacks are counter productive.

I believe that it is now time for the rest of the world to ask all parties to cease fire and try to find peace.

As I said before Israel have a right to defend themselves, but they also have moral responsibility for the civilians they have killed and that is something they cannot blame on Hezbullah.

I would hope any country launching an attack on another in which they can be sure that civillians including children will be killed do so with a heavy heart and a suitable sense of responsibility.

 

I never said the hostage taker is at fault, I simply said the police are not at fault.

Yes, all of the cases did go to trial, suggesting that it is not legal for a police officer to simply shoot and kill a hostage. However, based off of all of these cases it is pretty obvious that a police officer can shoot and kill a hostage under given circumstances and not be considered guilty. No where in Prof. D's argument did he say that they were immedeately considered innocent, but based on the fact that they've never been found guilty I'd say he's right on in saying the hostages death is not the police officers fault.

Also, the last three/four cases that I pointed out I think pertain more so to the given situation and I said they were not hostage situations but cases of mistaken identity. There are innocent people being killed in the Middle East due to either mistaken identity or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (whether under their own power or not). However in every one of those cases none of the police were found guilty of murder so why should Israel be found guilty of murder if they are doing the same thing, obviously on a slightly larger scale. And you talk about how after each of these trials the law becomes more and more strict and yet these incidences continue to happen and the police continue to be found innocent, so what good is reforming the law if it still doesn't pertain to police.

And I don't think Israel gets pleasure out of killing civilians, I'm sure they do it with a heavy heart as you suggested. However under the circumstances they are given no choice. Not too mention it is the government's and the military's responsibility to protect its citizens, Israel is trying to uphold their responsibilities, Lebanon is not.

 

Heiss5 - I hope you don't mind continuing this discussion. I have respect for your opinions, but I continue to disagree. I also think we all learn something about other peoples views from this sort of debate and I for one have been interested to read your posts in that respect.

Prof D in his essay was clearly saying that the blame for the death of a hostage, killed by the police rested with the hostage taker. In fact he said that they were guilty of murder.

I have issue with this 'ideai in terms of the domestic analogy and also in terms of the conflict in the middle east.

In the UK the only defence a firearms officer would have for killing a hostage would be that it was a mistake or an accident - that the gun discharged in error, that somehow aim was wrong or that for some reason he was unable to tell the difference between hostage and hostage taker. He could argue in mitigation that he was defending himself, but since he has a particular extra responsibility, because he is issued with a firearm this on it's own would be insufficient.

He would have to prove that he followed all relevant guidelines, that the attempt to shoot the hostage taker was reasonable force and that he did not recklessly endanger the hostage.

In short (and this is good) the police in the UK would need to be VERY careful in this situation. As I said in my post if any of the examples you mentioned were repeated today, there is a good chance that the police would be found guitly of unlawful killing.

The little boy shot in his bed and the shooting of Cherry Groce are not mistaken identity - but horrible mistakes - the police discharged their weapons in error in each case.

The civilians being killed in Lebanon are not being killed because of 'mistaken identity' the Israeli's know that they are bombing civilian areas, they have warned people to flee, which is a good thing, but they are aware that civilians will be killed in every attack.

Again - as I have said I believe they are entitled to defend themselves, but I also believe that their defense has been disproportionate. However, this point is not relevant to the discussion.

It is Prof D's essay that I am arguing against here and it seem to me that he proposes that Israel do not need to take particular care to avoid the deaths of civilians, because the blame for their deaths lies with Hezbullah.

Israel are responsible for the deaths of civilians killed in their attacks, just as hezbullah are responsible for the deaths of Israelis killed in their attacks.

They may each consider this price worth paying, but it is their responsibility alone and in this single principle I find myself in total disagreement with Prof D's essay.

 

....this is definitely true, and time will show this as I mentioned in my previous posts. Also, I feel that specifically targeting key bridges, access roads, ports (in the south), fuel depots (one has caused an enviromental catasrophe, spilling thousands of gallons of oil in the Med.) - although valid military objectives when you want to take over a country who's goverment has declared war on you (which the Lebanese Gov. has clearly not done - only an organization that 6 countries recognize as a terrorist group, EU and Russia not included) - are doing nothing to Hezbollah fighters with their Katyusha missiles. More importantly, it CUTS off humanitarian supplies and HELP!!! Innocent people especially children are suffering and dying because of this. Has anyone seen images of what I'm talking about? Really. I'm not talking about a few house here and there harboring Hezbollah fighters, WHOLE towns have been wiped out. Where is the military justfication in this? Come on....

It is clear to me, that Israel is trying to establish a fairly big buffer zone north of their border having as a defacto expectation that an international UN force will keep it neutral and guarded. Good use for the UN So this is the objective IMHO. I can't imagine what would happen if Israel goes for ground ops in Beirut. I hope they don't do it.

It is and will not be possible to eradicate this problem in this way. History shows it. Just look around the Middle East - threats and attacks provoked western military actions which were also based on satisfying certain agendas on the side...look at the result.

My opinion, the Palestinian people should be given their own state. I cannot say it will solve ALL problems but
at least it's a roadmap in a direction that points to peace. And that can't be bad.

 

Slightly off-topic, but important:

I wanted to take this opportunity to compliment all of the board members. The conflict in the Middle East is one of the most controversial and divisive issues I can think of. It combines politics and religion, and implicates U.S. foreign policy. This topic could have very easily degenerated into name calling and insults. For the most part, the discussion has been intelligent and respectful, despite posters? disagreement as to the cause of the problem and potential solutions. One poster who, in my opinion, stepped over the line slightly, even sent me a pm apologizing. On many other boards (both car and non-car related), the members cannot even treat each other with respect when discussing the main topic. Our members have a long history of intelligent discussion of the E60, but have now demonstrated intelligence and respect on another level.

Now back on topic:

With respect to the analogy in the Dershowitz article to domestic criminal law - a bank robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage - in the US there is something called the ?felony-murder rule.? In essence it states that if anyone is killed during the commission of certain felonies, even if the deaths were unintended by the criminals, they are guilty of murder. This is a departure from most of criminal law which requires an element of intent to be guilty. It recognizes that some acts are so dangerous that the perpetrators will be held liable for results that they did not intend.

Thus, I think the analogy does hold true. If Hezbollah launches rockets from a hospital, they must realize that Israel will attempt to destroy the rockets thus, drawing fire on the hospital. Using the Dershowitz analogy, Hezbollah would be responsible for the destruction and/or deaths. As long as Israel was targeting the rockets, and not intentionally targeting uninvolved civilians, I believe it is fair to hold Hezbollah responsible for the results.

As for Andy?s comments regarding a Palestinian homeland, they now have one. Yet, having a homeland has not stopped Hamas from continuing its attacks on Israel. Unless and until all groups/countries (Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran), recognize Israel?s right to exist, I think the problems will remain.

 

I agree with everything you said. I've been following the thread and am glad it didn't degenerate into a flame war.

 

needforspeed:

I would love to continue this conversations. I agree 100% that we learn from other peoples views and I have also been very interested to read your posts. I agree with robg and jiio also that this topic has remained very civilized and respectful and because of this I hope the topic will continue on.

As for the bank robber anology, I'm sure it is not 100% accurate worldwide, no anology is, but I do side more so with Prof. D and robg. I think Prof. D sums it up very nicely in the second paragraph where he says

"Hezbollah and Hamas, by contrast, deliberately operate military wings out of densely populated areas. They launch antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties, and then hide from retaliation by living among civilians. If Israel decides not to go after them for fear of harming civilians, the terrorists win by continuing to have free rein in attacking civilians with rockets. If Israel does attack, and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory: The international community pounces on Israel for its "disproportionate" response. This chorus of condemnation actually encourages the terrorists to operate from civilian areas."

I hope this does not come off the wrong way, but I feel like you have pounced on Israel for its "dispropoartionate" response and are thus allowing the terrorists to win a propaganda war, like Prof. D stated. I agree with robg that as long as Israel is not intentionally targeting civilians, then Hezbollah is responsible.

I also fully agree with robg that this conflict will not end until all the groups/countries involved recognize Israel's right to exist. However, I also understand why these countries refuse to recognize this fact. Israel was simply given this land as a homeland after WWII by Britain. No one in the region agreed to this then and therefore no one agrees to this now.

 

I think the 'felony murder rule' demonstrates quite a fundamental difference between UK and USA law, which probably explains why I find Prof D's position profoundly illogical and others do not.

To me it is a basic principle of natural justice that, regardless of mitigiation or justification, a person who takes another life cannot argue that doing so was not his absolute responsibility.

I suspect the 'felony murder rule' springs from the fact that in the USA the police and many criminals are armed - whilst in the UK armed police are few and far between.

Personally I am very glad that we have a generally unarmed police force in the UK because it avoids situations like those described becoming commonplace. However this is another debate.

Heiss5 - If I am absolutely honest I would have to admit that I would tend towards being critical of Israeli foreign policy because I am unhappy with their actions in recent years in Palestine.

Thinking through the situation I am forced to admit that Israel are justified in attacking to defend themselves. However, I do remain convinced that the attacks are disproportionate.

This could be considered on a purely practical level - Israel have caused much more damage to the Lebanon that Hezbullah have caused to Israel - in terms of both life and infrastructure.

Regardless of individual views about this. I am certain that continued Israeli attacks are becoming counterproductive (in fact I believe that Israels actions have directly led to the increased Hezbullah rocket attacks in the last couple of days).

Clearly the UN are finally getting ready to call for a ceasefire and I hope both sides listen.

 

Andy, Do you think giving the Palestinians a state would solve things? Aren't there groups and countries, such as Hamas and Iran that will not be satisfied until Israel is destroyed. What about the central issue in any Palestinian state, Jerusalem? Would these same groups respect our Christian shrines? No more feces on the walls of the birthplace of Christ by terrorist groups/freedom fighters?