IS STATE SPONSORED ASSASSINATION THE MOST

EFFECTIVE WAY OF COMBATING TERRORISM?

BY:

LAUREN

HANNAH

JORDAN

BEC

ALYSSA

BEN

JILL

JENNY

0

INTRODUCTION

1THE CONTEXT OF TERRORISM

2THE MOSSAD AS A MODEL

4THE ETHICS OF STATE SPONSORED ASSASSINATION

8ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO APPROACHING TERRORISM

12CONCLUSION

14REFERENCES

15

1

INTRODUCTION

Over the centuries, terrorism has developed, modernized and become a popular method for extremist groups to make dangerous and harmful statements. Terrorism is defined by the US Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Terrorist acts are committed around the world for different purposes and can cause injury and death to those targeted.

For this reason, governments have been trying for many years to eliminate the threat of terrorism. A method which has been considered is state-sponsored assassination, or targeted killing. This involves the targeting of leaders and important people within terrorist groups in order to break down the group and prevent it from continuing to spread terror. The question is: Is state-sponsored assassination the best method of combating terrorism?

In order to answer this question, a number of things must be considered. The famous saying, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” raises the issue of ethics and punishment. To understand a terrorist, the roots of terrorism must first be explored, as must other available methods of combating terrorism.

This report looks at the context of terrorism, the use of the Mossad as a model for state-sponsored assassination, the ethics of this method, and the alternative methods available.

2

THE CONTEXT OF TERRORISM

As globalisation has occurred, civilisations and cultures have been exposed to each other after millennia of separation. In this new global community, these cultures are forced to interact, despite inherent ideological differences. As these cultures interact more and more, the differences have become gradually more obvious. Some of these differences have been revoked, as societies attempt to adapt, and be reconciled in this increasingly global community. But this is not always the case. There are certain attributes that are intrinsic to certain cultures, but reviled by others, so much so that they are persecuted for being enforced. It is these inter-cultural differences that have been predicted to be the main cause for conflict in the coming years. Huntington's predictions in particular have already begun to show. A political analyst, Samuel P. Huntington gained fame after publishing his Clash of Civilisations in 1993, and then a revised edition in 1996. His work was a thesis on the new post-Cold War new world, and his predictions for the political climate over the coming years.

Clashes between Islam and the West, whose values are based upon Christian ideals, are prime examples of cultures that struggle to co-exist, as they have been subject to violent clashes for the last 1300 years, ever since the founding of Islam, and the ensuing Arab and Moorish surge west finally stopped at the battle of Poitiers. For the next three centuries, the devout Christian west launched crusades against the Muslims, until the Ottoman Turks turned the tables and forced the crusaders from the Holy Land in the fourteenth century, and then expanded. There is a history of bloodshed between the two civilisations, one that is not easily forgotten by either side. Now, as conflict grows, driven by catalysts like the ongoing war on terror, the potential nuclear threat of Iran, and that country's determination for its allies to acquire similar weapon technologies, and the ever present wars waged by and against Israel, individual nations look to those countries that herald from the same kind of civilisations, believing them to be more trustworthy than outsiders. This is rarely a conscious decision, rather than being singularly racist, it is a result of what Huntington defines as Kin-Country syndrome. Huntington suggests that when groups or states belong to a certain civilisation, they will always attempt to gather support from other members of their civilisation before going to outsiders. Huntington does say this in the context of his predictions of clashes between civilisations, and his fear of a third world war. He believes that this is an emerging trait, as recently developed as the Cold War.

An example of this is that when the Allied forces invaded Iraq, Safar Al-Hawali, the dean of Islamic studies at Umm Al-Qura University in Mecca stated that, "It is not the world against Iraq, it is the West against Islam." Similarly, despite the rivalry between Iran and Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for a Jihad, a holy war against the west for invading Iraq. He claimed that, "The struggle against American aggression, greed, plans and politics will be counted as a jihad, and anyone who is killed on that path is a martyr." It is a small wonder that soldiers fighting against the West often seek refuge in Iran. There are many more examples of the Arab nations uniting against the West, the most blatant being King Hussein of Jordan arguing about the West's intervention in Iraq , "This is war, against all Arabs and all Muslims and not against Iraq alone." Huntington believes that the rallying of Arab elites and masses behind Saddam Hussein caused those Arab governments in the anti-Iraq coalition to moderate their activities and public statements. Arab nations distanced themselves from the Western efforts to control the situation in Iraq, because when it came down to it, they were all Arabs.

3

The kin country syndrome is one of the main reasons that terrorists are still able to conduct such an efficient manner of guerrilla warfare. Nations like Pakistan are all for hurting the Western civilisation that so brazenly invaded Iraq, killed its kinsmen, and could potentially even have designs upon the rest of the Arab nations. Pakistan has been developing a reputation as terrorist central and could potentially be a flashpoint for a larger scale conflict.

The West is currently in an extremely powerful position compared to the other civilisations. Its superpower opponents have disappeared from the map. Military conflict between Western States is virtually unthinkable, and the military power of the West is unrivalled. Other than Japan, there is no economic rival to the West, and it dominates international political and security institutions, and in the case of Japan international economic institutions. Global political and security issues are essentially settled by a directorate of Britain, France and the USA, whilst economic issues are dealt with by a similar coalition of the USA, Germany and Japan, all of which maintain extremely close relations to each other to the exclusion of lesser and largely non-Western countries. The vast majority of decisions made by the UN's Security Council, the only aspect of the UN to have any real power other than simply being a forum for discussion, represent the interests of the West, although they are presented in such a way that it can seem like a reflection of the desires of the world community, rather than a certain ideological group. Huntington also realises that the phrase "world community" has become so intrinsic with Western civilisation, that it has replaced the term "the Free World" and gives global legitimacy to actions reflecting the interests of the United States and other Western Powers.

Through the use of the International Monetary Fund and other international economic institutions, the West has promoted its own economic policies, often at the expense of other non-Western nations. This economic monopolisation has made it difficult for other states to compete with Western nations, or find their way into this exclusive club.

Given these things, the difficulty to be economically competitive, and the near-impossibility of comparing militaristically, it is possible to see exactly why so many of those that would compete against the forces of the West would use guerrilla warfare and what has widely become known as terrorism to fend off those who could buy their lives upon a whim. The West has been using similar techniques for decades before they began to be utilised by those who would oppose the West.During the Cold War, the USA and its daughter organisations like the CIA supported numerous revolutionary organisations, training many individuals like Osama bin Laden to fight against Russia and its communist advances. Al Qaeda was formed using money that the West had funded bin Laden with to prevent the expansion of other, non-Western civilisations. The USA achieved its goal of preventing the expansion of Russia, and ending the Cold War, but this left hundreds of well trained Islamic soldiers without a cause. It was not until the Persian Gulf War that these soldiers again found a cause to fight, and die, for. When the USA deployed its troops into Saudi Arabia, their presence offended many Muslims who believed that their holy places of Mecca and Medina should be sacrosanct, and not open to non-believers. Heedless of this feeling, the West responded by deploying its troops in force, seemingly threatening the most holy sites of the Islamic religion, something that the followers of Islam could do nothing but defend against, in any and every way at their disposal And lo, the modern era of terrorism came into the world.

4

THE MOSSAD AS A MODEL

The policy of targeted killing has traditionally been the main counteraction from Israel in response to the growing amount of terror activity in Palestine. Targeted killing is defined as the “intentional slaying of a specific individual or group taken with government approval.” (1) Some would argue that targeted killings are the same as state-sponsored assassinations; however the Israeli government has refused to refer to their attacks as assassinations due to the fact that assassinations usually concern the elimination of senior political officials. The majority of Israeli attacks are targeted at people who merely plan the attacks – and these individuals are generally not senior officials in Palestine. Most of the attacks conducted by Israel are generally assumptions because the Israeli government usually do not officially acknowledge their roles in the attacks unless it is obvious that there are Israeli forces involved. Attacks by Mossad are known for their sophistication in choice of weapons, their efficiency, professionalism and their efforts to minimise innocent casualties.

The Mossad is known as the Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks, or “ha-Mossad le-Modiin ule-Tafkidim Meyuhadim” in Hebrew. An Israeli organisation formerly known as the Central Institute for Coordination and the Central Institute for Intelligence and Security, it was established by the then prime minister David Ben Gurion in 1951 due to his realisation that intelligence was crucial to the country’s security. “Since its creation [our state] has been under siege by its enemies. Intelligence is the first line of defence,” he claimed, “We must learn well how to recognise what is going on around us.”(2) Thus began the Mossad we know today – now not only responsible for human intelligence collection and the undercover movement of Jewish refugees out of Syria, Ethiopia and Iran, but also counterterrorism, placing its primary focus on Arab nations and organisations spread throughout the world. Mossad agents are said to be active in the West, the United Nations and former communist countries such as China and the former Soviet Union. The Mossad is divided into several departments: Collections; Political Action and Liaison; Special Operations Division or Metsada; LAP or Lohama Psichlogit; and the Research Department. The Collections Department is the largest, responsible for espionage operations, and has several offices of both diplomatic and unofficial cover internationally. The Political Action and Liaison Department carries out its namesake with foreign intelligence services Israel is friendly with, as well as with nations whom it does not have normal diplomatic relations. The Metsada unit is responsible for the highly sensitive assassination, paramilitary, sabotage and psychological warfare projects. The LAP Department carries out psychological warfare, and missions involving the use of deception and propaganda. Finally, the Research Department is responsible for the production of collected intelligence – it is organised into specialised “desks”, each in charge of a significant nation such as the US, Canada, Western Europe, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Former Soviet Union and China. This department also has a “nuclear” desk responsible for issues associated with what is termed “special weapons”. (3) In addition to this, Israel’s intelligence system itself is specialised, with the operation of Shin Bet – in charge of internal security – and Aman – in charge of military intelligence – besides that of the Mossad. (4)

The debate over whether the anti-terrorist techniques used by the Mossad, i.e. assassination of key figureheads of well-known terrorist groups, is appropriate has amassed growing support in recent

5

years, especially following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the US. The main rationales justifying the assassination of terrorists are pre-emption, retaliation and revenge – that is, to assassinate the terrorist suspects before they can harm the national security; to prevent further terrorist behaviour; or to perhaps bring some comfort to the loved ones of the innocents, who deserve closure. (5) Terrorists have frequently been the target of Mossad agents, and several assassinations have successfully been made. An apt example of such covert operations would be the reaction to the Munich Massacre in 1972, where eleven athletes of the Israeli Olympic team were killed by Arab radicals known as the Black September Group. In response to this outrage, the prime minister of the time, Golda Meir, authorised the Mossad’s formation of several “hit teams” to assassinate those responsible, each with specific mission constraints. One used standard Mossad operating procedures whilst the other was placed outside the control of the government, with the aim being to provide covert financial support to the latter in order for complete anonymity to complete their mission. The former, using normal channels, failed, whilst the latter managed to fulfil their objectives and did not compromise their operation. (6) This case demonstrates the effectiveness of fully decentralised and flexible operations, which would allow agents the freedom of action as their situations may dictate, rather than being held back by governmental red tape – thus increasing the chance of success in an assassination. In his paper discussing the Munich Massacre, Calahan claimed, “In this respect they attacked the problem from varied angles, hoping to develop an interlocking information net which terrorist targets would be unable to avoid. If one method was ineffective or missed a lead, another team would probably fill the gap.” (7) To take up this case in point, establishing a government agency similar to what Mossad has done with decentralised authority plus a clear understanding of tactical techniques and “tradecraft” – that is to say, methods of espionage and undercover operations, will increase the efficiency of eliminating the terrorist threat to national security, whilst allowing for innocents to be unharmed and ignorant. The year 1995 saw the successful assassination of Palestinian Jihad head Fathi Shikaki, without whom the Islamic Jihad organisation was thrown into relative chaos for several years due to there not being a competent successor. Yehiya Ayyash, better known as “the Engineer”, is another prime example of quick and efficient targeting: he was killed in 1996 with a bomb implanted in his mobile phone, ending a “reign of terror” which took the lives of several hundred Israelis. (7) It is believed though that Shin Bet was responsible for this particular target.

Whether for revenge, pre-emption or retaliation, the fact remains that the assassinations of such radicals will prevent them from (further) damaging Israel’s national safety. Certainly, decentralised power should not be limitless, lest personal grudges cloud one’s judgement. Using Israeli law as an example, any targeted killing by organisations such as the Mossad may be restricted by first fulfilling three terms: the Palestinian Authority – or in the case of Western societies, any such country from where the terrorist in question has been identified – has to ignore any appeals for the arrests of the terrorist; Israel must deduce that an arrest of the terrorist of its own is impossible; and the killing must be done out of a wish to avoid an impending or future terrorist attack rather than out of revenge or self-decided “justice”. (8) In summation targeted assassination is, at least, in theory, cheaper, quicker and can avoid the mess of political operations with its covert nature.

Of course, the Mossad is not without its own failures. One of the more infamous botched operations is the mistaking of Moroccan waiter Ahmad Boushiki in Norway as one of the masterminds behind the Munich Massacre, Ali Hassan Salameh. The latter was later killed in 1979 in a car bomb

6

explosion, which may be attributed to Mossad agents. Still, this case of faulty intelligence was a highly embarrassing episode for the institution, even as agents responsible were tried before a Norwegian court. The Mossad also stirred up the wrath of Jordanian authorities when two of their agents failed to kill one of the top leaders of the radical Hamas organisation, Khalid Meshaal, in 1997. (3)(8) Israel’s unsuccessful attempt to poison Meshaal in Jordan, a previously friendly Arab country, has led to strained relations between the two countries, and required not only the supplying an antidote but also the release of Sheik Ahmad Yassin – the founder of Hamas in order for the agents to be released. Likely, Jordan was also resentful of the foreign assassinating individuals residing in their country, as would be expected. (5) Canada too was infuriated with Israel for having their agents use Canadian passports – tarnishing their name, perhaps – to enter Jordan for their attempt at assassination. Possibly the most significant effect these failures had on the Mossad was to destroy the impression of the institution as “invincible” and “shrewd”. (8) Such is the risk which establishing an organisation for intelligence and targeted killings: besides receiving condemnation from countries around the world, just one bungled operation would lead to the ruining of one’s country’s reputation. (5) No doubt, by identifying these causes for error a stronger defence of intelligence and anti-terrorism campaign can and will have been built. It should also be acknowledged that the Mossad has been accused of targeted killings which have not been proven to link to it. By substitution, one can infer that any organised institution Western societies may choose to make responsible for targeted assassinations would be similarly cast under suspicion, putting the country in a bad light internationally.

Targeted killing is effective as it is a counter offensive action against terrorism, which is an offensive action. It is too difficult to defend or to deter attacks in places where they might occur since there are literally tens of thousands of areas where terrorists could attack. It would require too much effort to defend all of these areas. Deterring terrorists is particularly difficult when there are individuals ready to die for their cause. In this case, the best approach is to eliminate the terrorists before they attack. As mentioned above there have been many successes with this method. There are also many benefits; one being that targeted killing has caused disarray in the hierarchy within many terrorist organisations. There are only a certain amount of people available who carry the skill and expertise to plan and conduct these attacks. When these people are eliminated the ability to mount terrorist attacks is diminished.

Targeted killings also force terrorists to keep on the run. The Israelis usually inform the Palestinian Authority on who they are after and the information is then generally passed onto the suspected terrorist. The focus of the targeted individual is then to avoid the Mossad and more effort put into avoiding the Mossad means less effort is taken into causing terror and destruction. Targeted killing may also in some cases work as a deterrent because even though there are some people out there willing to die for their cause, there are also some people out there not ready for martyrdom. There is also evidence that a targeted killing is so effective that it alters the behaviour of some terrorists. When the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon met with three other Arab leaders, he asked them about their priorities and what they wanted from Israel. The first thing they replied with was to put an end to the targeted killings. Islamic Jihad and Hamas promised to stop launching attacks in Israel (pre 1967) if Israel would stop killing their leaders. Although this ceasefire didn’t last long, it goes to shows the deterrent power of targeted killing.

Although there are a number of successes with targeted killing, there is also a big price to pay for killing selected individuals. This policy has understandably been met with condemnation from around the globe. Human rights groups within and out of Israel such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’tselem have all described the killings as “extrajudicial, unlawful” and “an

7

excessive, disproportionate [and] negligent use of force.” (9) The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has urged Israel to end the killings as he believes that it violates the international law and disrupts any chances of peace in the Middle East. Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has also criticized the policy of targeted killings saying that, “We continue to express our distress and opposition to these kinds of targeted killings and we will continue to do so.” (9) Although criticisms from the US has been reduced after the September 11 attacks, the European Union and the Arab States are outspoken in their condemnation about Israel’s approach to combating terrorism. This was especially the case when fourteen innocent Palestinians were killed in an operation in 2002 when the Hamas leader Shehada was assassinated. Nine of the victims were children.

Targeted killing also disrupts diplomatic relations and any chances of negotiations between Arab countries in Palestine for peace in the Middle East. Peace negotiations in the Middle East can be intensified and disrupted due to the attacks. For example in 1998, the Mossad succeeded in assassination of Yasser Arafat’s (the President of the Palestinian National Authority) second in command, Abu Jihad. They didn’t only eliminate a person suspected of several attacks, but they also killed a person who many believed was capable of making negotiations and peace compromises. Israel’s refusal to drop the policy has also disrupted many attempts for ceasefires.

Killing selected individuals may also encourage more attacks and more potential terrorists. Each time a person is killed, a “martyr” is created. Palestinian organizations have initiated propaganda, displaying pictures and posters of the bombers, portraying them as heroes and romanticizing them. At their funerals, it is common to see mourners who are willing to die in their place and become suicide bombers. Among terrorist organizations it is seen as an honour to be killed by the Israelis and the organization to which the terrorist belongs gains popularity after their death. It is believed that more media coverage of particular terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Jihad has encouraged them to launch more attacks to increase their popularity.

Arafat’s organizations have also stepped up on the amount of their attacks to compete with the success of Hamas and Jihad. An unofficial deadly competition has developed to see which organization could launch the deadliest attacks against Israel. Due to this reason, targeted killing has encouraged what it was made to stop.

Lastly, one of the most obvious cons to targeted killings is that it increases the amount of Israelis killed. It provokes more retaliation which arguably leads to more deaths than it saves lives. It is also believed that targeted killing promotes destabilisation in many individuals thus provoking more aggression and violence. As mentioned earlier, over fifty Israelis were killed by suicide bombers after the slaying of Ayyash. Also in 2002 after the assassination of a Tanzim leader, Raed al-Karmi, the ceasefire declared by Yasser Arafat the previous month broke. During this ceasefire, terror activity had been at its lowest ever since the second infintada in 2000. Karmi’s death unleashed a massive wave of suicide bombers. What was worse was that his death led to the formation of another organisation, the Al-Aksa Bridafe; whose aims are to pay respect to Karmi and engage in suicide bombings.

THE ETHICS OF STATE SPONSORED ASSASSINATION

8

By state-sponsored assassination it is meant that the State or government has provided a form of funding towards the resources for an assassination, or has directed or agreed to the actions to be partaken in for the purpose of counter-terrorism. In this context assassination is defined as murder in surprise attack for the purpose of protecting the wider community. On many occasions assassination has proven to be a successful tactic in protecting large numbers of people, as illustrated by intelligence organisations such as the Mossad.

What constitutes war has changed over time. In the past, the requirements of war were battle-lines, guns, trenches, and each side in uniform, etc. but in today’s modern world, parties present themselves in new ways. As Adolf Hitler once said, “Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.” (10) With today’s technology, it is likely to be able to identify who will win a war if the war is fought traditionally. For this reason those parties that are less likely to win the war fight in a new kind of war; one which has no boundaries. Terrorism is one of the most commonly employed techniques of small groups. This small group can injure many innocent people while terrorising a population, to accomplish gaining political advantage, or whatever aim they are attempting to obtain. The other group is faced with the challenge of opposing these terrorists, and there are a number of ways in which they can do so. For example, there is traditional war, blockades, pressure groups and assassination.

War may not always be practical when fighting terrorism. There may not be a point to invading an entire country when there is only a small group of people that need to be eliminated. For this reason, governments turn to alternative ways of fighting terrorism. Blockades are one of these alternative ways, but not always effective in eliminating a small group of terrorists. Pressure groups can be effective but at times they are dysfunctional. Sometimes the only option is to hunt the terrorists; it is the only practical solution.

State-sponsored assassination involves the planning and taking of one or more lives without a fair trial for the purpose of counter-terrorism. For this reason state-sponsored assassination can be viewed as murder, a small-war, and a violation of the respect for human life. However, on the other hand for the purpose of counter-terrorism, the elimination of one or a few leaders can save the lives of many. A large debate regarding state-sponsored assassination is whether it can be justified or not.

For many religious and personal reasons people believe that state-sponsored assassination is immoral and unethical. There is a large moral deliberation on the sanctity of life and the intentional killing of a human being.

There has been much debate over the ethics behind the idea of state-sponsored assassination and for many aspects it can be seen as a positive method towards reducing the death count associated with terrorist actions. That is, by preventing the terrorists from completing their roles in an organisation, it could potentially save lives; saving the many lives, at the cost of one. There is a significant ethical argument that lies behind this murder of individuals with state consent and whether it can be morally justified.

State-sponsored assassination can be viewed as having no respect for human life. It kills someone without subjecting him or her to a fair trial. It is based on the opinion of a few people, giving a great amount of power to these leaders, but also breaches respect for the terrorist’s lives.

As there is no trial it can be seen as undemocratic and unjust. It is sometimes thought that if the assassins can find the terrorists and have enough time with them to assassinate them, then they

9

should be able to arrest them, although this view is opposed with the laws of jurisdiction. When discussing the idea of trial for terrorists, it can be argued that the terrorists do not subject their victims to a trial either, but this does not necessarily make it ethically correct.

Another issue to do with assassination is the misuse of power and possible corruption. If a system were to be corrupt, there is potential for the abuse by the government as well as the assassins. The government has the power to choose who is assassinated; if this system were corrupt, the government could direct the assassins to kill whoever they like. Most commonly, in countries where their legalised system may be corrupt, there is a potential for discrimination of particular races, religions or social groups. It is likely that specific groups may be targeted, and consequently they may be subject to an unlawful death without a fair trial proving the guilt for such terrorist actions. In more developed nations there are ethics regarding fair trail, where law and justice should play a key role in deciding the fate of a single life. Whether this only applies to people who do not follow the same laws is another argument.

There is a huge degree of human error in society, which is likely to have an impact of the effectiveness of the operations. There is a high chance of mistakes and inaccuracy with the decisions and objectives, which could potentially lead to the unnecessary death of innocent bystanders. An example of human error in identifying targets is the accidental killing of an 18 year old male in Palestine by an Israeli death squad at the Bureij refugee camp on the 22nd of August 2001. The Israelis sought the boy’s father, however by a turn of events killed the boy in a car bomb. This was referred to as “collateral damage” and was dismissed by the Judeo-Masonic organization in America.

Having multiple assassination organisations can cause unethical issues such as competition between agencies. Having multiple agencies can have two outcomes; one is that the organisations can work together to have more efficient and effective work. The other possible outcome is agencies competing against one another to have the best and fastest organisation. Although this competition could be healthy, there is risk that the work could be rushed and complications of agencies targeting the same person or group of people could arise. The competition can create a race-like environment that is dealing with the life and death of certain people. It is unethical to “race” other agencies in eliminating people, as is the possibility of the ethics and values of the agency submerged by the need for a swift assassination.

When starting a state sponsored assassination organisation, money, weapons and training are required. Training a person to kill, and to be secretive and lie isn’t seen as being ethically correct. There is a major issue in the idea of trust associated with state-sponsored assassination, as it is hard to put all of society’s trust into an assassin who is being paid to kill another person. The agencies are provided with resources by the government to complete an act that is not condoned by all of society. In a murder trial, a unanimous decision is needed to find the accused guilty. Using this idea it isn’t right to assassinate someone without the unanimous decision of a whole society or country.

By 1980 it was reported in the Washington Post that the mujahedeen were receiving arms from the U.S., although former CIA director Robert Gates admits that the support actually began in 1979. Throughout the U.S. aid to the mujahedeen, approximately $3-6 billion was invested into recruiting and training both mujahedeen fighters and others from the three million Afghan refugees in Pakistani and other Islamic countries. According to Pakistani General, Mohammed Yousaf, by 1983 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition had been provided. One of the many recruits was Osama bin Laden, who resulted in recruiting 4,000 more volunteers and working closely with the CIA. “In 1988, with U.S. knowledge, bin Laden created Al Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across at least 26 countries,” wrote Rahul Bhedi, an Indian journalist.

10

Osama bin Laden was later blamed for the 9/11 terrorist attack, after being recruited, trained, and provided with resources by the U.S. The Los Angeles Times reported that a U.S. diplomat in Pakistan stated, “This is an insane instance of the chickens coming home to roost, you can’t plug billions of dollars into an anti-Communist jihad, accept participation from all over the world and ignore the consequences. But we did.”

The Osama bin Laden case is an extreme example of the consequences of how providing training and weapons to people can have negative effects, and the risk involved with trusting someone to not deceive. State sponsored assassination requires training and resources similar to the bin Laden case. The aim is to fight terrorism, but to fight it with terror (hence fighting fire with fire). Essentially the U.S. created a terrorist, and there is a risk of history repeating itself, even if it is not as large scale as the bin Laden case. It can be viewed as unethical to train a killer to kill a killer, or to promote the use of terror. Anti-state sponsored assassination groups would view the duty of assassins as unethical and hence instilling unethical morals and values in the assassins.

It could be argued that retaliation by state-sponsored assassination would be a fair move as terrorism is an example of an asymmetrical war, meaning that the terrorists have the upper hand, having planned it out and with all of the resources, whilst there is no indication when they are going to attack and there is no provocation by the rest of society who are to bear the attack inflicted on them.

Assassins are trained to be expert liars to the outside world. Not only is it morally wrong to lie, but it can also create conflict within agencies, “Agents and case officers, working under false identities over long periods of time, develop different perceptions of the ‘truth’ or ‘truths’ in plural… Lies, half truths or omissions can endanger lives, wreck operations and worse of all, could taint assessments.” Assassins are required to potentially risk the lives of accused terrorists and innocent bystanders and adopt an unethical role of lying.

Although there are many unethical arguments against state sponsored assassination, there are also ethical reasons for it. The assassination of a terrorist can save the lives of potential victims, and choosing assassination over war can save the lives of soldiers.

Agencies such as the Mossad aim to eliminate important figures within terrorist organisations. In completing this aim the terrorist organisations become unstable and difficult to operate, i.e. without a manufacturer or weapons, there are no bombs or guns, and without a leader there are no directions as to who to target in attacks or who to recruit. It is for this reason that only one or a few are targeted by these organisations. The assassination is not just spontaneously carried out, much planning and investigating goes into the procedure. This ensures that the most possible lives are protected from the harm that may be incurred to other victims. It keeps casualties to a minimum while saving the lives of many potential victims. Another result of this is the lives that may be ruined by recruitment in the terrorist organisations are protected. The lives of potential bombers are saved, as well as the lives of their families and the families of potential victims are protected from being shattered. The death of this one terrorist may cost one life, but at the price of thousands of others that will consequently remain unharmed.

It can be argued that assassination can be more effective than going to war. It has fewer targets, and fewer casualties, as well as having less of an economic effect, and similar goals can be accomplished. Assassination can save the lives of the soldiers who would be sent to fight (from both sides of the war) if war is chosen. Some argue, that the U.S. should have chosen to assassinate Saddam Hussein

11

over going to war. If this had happened, many of the soldiers who have been fighting in the war may still be alive or at least lived longer. Choosing assassination over war could potentially save many.

If there were to be a state-sponsored assassination organisation, there would need to be ethics standards, similar to that of the Israeli Intelligence ethics standards. The Intelligence ethics in Israel have four main components, they are truth, protection of source internally and externally, resisting internal cover-ups, and respect for religions.

The core of effective intelligence work is trust, truth, and true and full reporting. Intelligence is full of expert liars and is hence is a danger. Lying can endanger lives; wreck operations and can taint assessments. It is one of the standards that all Intelligence agents lie outside, but tell the truth inside.

Agents are required to resist the temptation to use a source too much or too many times. When a source is used, he or she increases the risk of exposure. Agents must be able to identify when not to use a source and deny demands from high positions that could over-exploit the source. Every intelligence agency strives to keep mistakes secret from the public, and especially, the media. However, the agency must be punishable by law for failing to prevent a problem. During training, agents are taught about different religions and are expected to respect all religion, even in physical interrogations or operations. The main key religious principles are “He shall live by them (the laws)”, “He who comes to kill you, you shall kill him first”, “Thou shall not stand idle while thy friend bleeds”, and “Thou shall make war by cunning”. The latter is the most common justification for Intelligence operations. It recognizes that ‘dirty tricks’ may be required in extreme circumstances such as terrorism, when they would otherwise be viewed as unacceptable.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF APPROACHING TERRORISM

There are other approaches to stopping terrorism other than state-sponsored assassination. However, nearly all of them are either set in place to prevent terror attacks from occurring or are about using diplomatic means such communication and compromise. In the United States, the topic of how to combat terrorism is leading the mainstream news agenda and has been a very important issue in the lives of US citizens since the September 11 attacks in 2001, otherwise known as 9/11.

12

However, this new attention to effectively stopping terror campaigns may have mislead most Americans, and indeed everyone else, about the genuine acts of terrorism – for instance, an analysis by START (the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism) revealed that of the fifty-three foreign terrorist groups deemed to be “the most dangerous to the United States”, ninety-seven percent of their attacks were not on American soil. This provides another problem to having alternative approaches to the terrorism threat other than state-sponsored assassination; the question of the jurisdiction certain countries are allowed when dealing with terrorists. Where does the jurisdiction of superpowers such as America end, and who could possibly have the task of handling it? State-sponsored assassination does not have the same drawback, because if every state had a group that sought to fight terrorism then the “red-tape” of politics would not be troubled as the jurisdiction would be clearer.

The biggest field in making sure countries are kept safe from radical violence from extremist groups is the area of counter-terrorism. Counter-terrorism are all the practices and tactics that such groups as the government, military and police departments adopt in order to prevent or in response to terrorist actions and threats. The measures that have been put in place under counter-terrorism ideals have become stricter after the events of 9/11. Some of these include increasing the amount of intelligence and surveillance, passing firmer anti-terrorism legislation, and increasing police power. The current campaign that America, with support from the United Kingdom and other NATO countries, has against the Middle East, dubbed the “War on Terror”, is a mix of defence policies and a series of goals to accomplish in ridding the entire world of terrorism. Other points that the “war” wishes to achieve, from the American point of view, are and have been:

Defeat terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations

Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists End the state sponsorship of terrorism Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating

terrorism Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism Work with willing and able states Enable weak states Persuade reluctant states Compel unwilling states Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens Diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent

(re)emergence of terrorism Win the war of ideals Defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security

Surprisingly, one of the objectives that America has in this list of policies is to end the state-sponsorship of terrorism, which is relatively similar to the model of state-sponsored assassination. In saying this, however, the Bush administration claimed to want to achieve the destruction of several terrorist figures and groups, through the use of the US military. Most would argue that war

13

in this form is just like the state-sponsored terrorism that they want to end, with their country handing out weapons and money to fight for the rights of the nation.

It is hard to take the other option of peaceful reconciliation as a method of solving terrorist conflicts because the conflict of ideologies and thoughts is by far a greater enemy to international relations than any physical weapon. Reconciliation is one of America’s many objectives listed above, as they want to “compel unwilling states” to help them in their war on terror. However, it is not very clear how the United States would, theoretically, influence those nations or states on to their side of the war through diplomatic means. Of course, in theory, diplomatic discussion would appear to be the best plan to opt for, but once put into practice, compromise with terrorists will inevitably end in loss of liberty and freedom, maybe even more so than using assassins to fight those battles.

There are numerous arguments for and against the use of either strict policies put in place to prevent terror attacks or using ambassadorial methods in order to achieve peace. One major problem with the two measures is that they lack any real effectiveness, because they have not stopped terrorism completely, although it is doubtful that any technique could end the threat of terror once and for all. State-sponsored assassination also has numerous negatives, such as the cost of maintaining a group for the sole purpose of assassinating terrorist groups and the morals questioned by such a method but, when compared to other methods, state-sponsored assassination has the potential to work effectively to combat terrorism.

CONCLUSION

From the evidence provided, it can be seen that although there are negatives and complications to combating terrorism with the use of state-sponsored assassination, the positives far outweigh these.

14

The Mossad is an excellent example of the use of state-sponsored assassination in a real context. Many of their missions have been successful and have saved many people from injury and death.Ethics is, and will remain, an issue in this on-going worldwide debate, and each individual is likely to have different opinions. However, at the heart of the matter is the number of lives potentially saved by the loss of a single person who made little contribution to society.

It can also be seen that the other available methods of combating terrorism are impractical and will never succeed in eliminating the threat of terrorism. Before launching into a campaign of anti-terror using trained killers, this method must be carefully planned and monitored, as the killing of anyone is never done lightly, and the training of professional killers has the potential to be dangerous. If mistakes are made, they are irreversible. This is not to say, however, that this method should not be employed by governments. With enough care anti-terror assassination groups could be established.

Of all the methods which could be used to disband terrorist groups, state-sponsored assassination is the most effective and the most practical of all. This is one method which truly could eliminate terrorist groups worldwide.

REFERENCES

Books(1) Colonel Peter M. Cullen, The Role of Targeted Killing in the Campaign Against Terror(2) Matt Webster, Inside Israel’s Mossad: The Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks

15

(3) Richelson, Jeffrey T.(2002) When Kindness Fails: Assassination as a National Security Option, International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 15: 2, 243 — 274(4) Calahan, Alexander B. (1995) Countering Terrorism: The Israeli Response to the 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre and the Development of Independent Covert Action Teams(5) Herb Keinon, Janine Zacharia, Lamia Lahoud, UN, US: Stop Targeted Killings, Jerusalem Post · Amnesty International, Israel and the Occupied Territories: State Assassinations and Other Killings, Amnesty World Wide Web(3) http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/israel/mossad.htm (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Bet (5) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/hits.html (6) http://biu.ac.il/Besa/david.pdf (7) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler.html (8)http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/28/911-misleads-americans-view-of-terrorism/  

16