1 00:00:00,590 --> 00:00:08,600 So without any more ado, we'll take the main order of the day, which is presentation by Professor Fernando Song. 2 00:00:09,260 --> 00:00:14,710 Many of you will know him by his work on humanitarian intervention. 3 00:00:14,750 --> 00:00:21,139 He was one of the earliest and most influential scholars on this topic, and his work is really no noticeable. 4 00:00:21,140 --> 00:00:24,530 Notable for its very, 5 00:00:24,530 --> 00:00:32,000 very strongly and powerfully orientated conception of international law and international obligation around the idea of human rights. 6 00:00:32,300 --> 00:00:37,280 And actually, just reading his his blurb for the website today, I mean, something I didn't know about you, 7 00:00:37,280 --> 00:00:44,390 Fernando, which was that before your academic career, you had a career in the Argentine diplomatic service. 8 00:00:44,810 --> 00:01:00,710 And in fact, Fernando has resigned his post in 1981 as a a in response to human rights abuses by the Argentine government. 9 00:01:00,740 --> 00:01:09,110 So you can see that his engagement on these issues of human rights is both longstanding and also goes well beyond the scholarly. 10 00:01:09,470 --> 00:01:14,300 Professor, to some, we're delighted to have you here today and we look forward to your presentation. 11 00:01:15,230 --> 00:01:19,890 Thank you, David. It's a great honour for me to be at Oxford. 12 00:01:19,910 --> 00:01:24,350 I love Oxford, who is phenomenal and I go to the most people. 13 00:01:24,350 --> 00:01:28,429 I like it in the wings of that society the way that I really fantastic. 14 00:01:28,430 --> 00:01:37,250 And if you wonder by my Oxford perfect English, just because I was born and raised and when I say something to many of them. 15 00:01:38,360 --> 00:01:40,879 So I'd like to talk today about Target of Killing. 16 00:01:40,880 --> 00:01:49,490 This are a piece that I want to present today as part of a of a of a volume, the Oxford University Press here. 17 00:01:49,490 --> 00:01:54,740 The English of a branch is going to publish an article in February, in March, 18 00:01:54,740 --> 00:02:01,430 I think a couple of months from now, and has all kinds of views about the subject. 19 00:02:02,450 --> 00:02:04,879 All right. So everybody knows. 20 00:02:04,880 --> 00:02:19,790 Everybody knows in May of 2011, a unit of SEALs, a special unit, American commandos and Navy SEALs followed killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. 21 00:02:20,510 --> 00:02:21,979 I am going to talk about that. 22 00:02:21,980 --> 00:02:31,790 But first of all, first, I what I want to do today is to explore the general status, if you will, moral status of targeted killing. 23 00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:37,040 I am not. I really am not. Even though I am I am a law professor. 24 00:02:37,550 --> 00:02:43,520 I write I don't write a lot in law. I read mostly philosophy, world political philosophy. 25 00:02:43,970 --> 00:02:52,970 So I am not going to explore the legal status of target of just the moral standing of it or a moral stance, the morality of it. 26 00:02:53,600 --> 00:03:03,350 And in order to do so, what I want to do is to approach the subject in general and not just related to terrorists, but in general. 27 00:03:03,710 --> 00:03:07,570 And that is what is targeted killing generally. 28 00:03:07,760 --> 00:03:11,270 What is the smallest does generally how what is the best way to think about it? 29 00:03:12,260 --> 00:03:21,560 I define it here just for our purposes as the extrajudicial, intentional killing by the state of unidentified person for a public purpose. 30 00:03:22,100 --> 00:03:28,040 That's in the definition that no, no, something they should translate it just for political purposes. 31 00:03:28,460 --> 00:03:33,100 But just a few words about it. Yes. Start judicial means. 32 00:03:33,650 --> 00:03:44,389 What that means. It's not in killing of somebody by the state in implementation of a sentence, intentional killing by the state. 33 00:03:44,390 --> 00:03:47,810 The state has to be a liberal state, but I don't discuss that. Okay. 34 00:03:48,470 --> 00:03:51,650 Here I have other reasons. I'm not in the paper. 35 00:03:52,040 --> 00:03:59,510 Why only states that are in some sense legitimate, are entitled, morally entitled to conduct this killings of unidentified person? 36 00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:07,190 No, this is an important target. The targeted killing is of the name person is not enough to say that is intentional. 37 00:04:07,190 --> 00:04:10,910 Intentional because you also kill intentionally soldiers in the battlefield. 38 00:04:10,970 --> 00:04:14,270 Those are intentionally killed by a war, right? Seriously? 39 00:04:14,300 --> 00:04:21,470 No, intentionally. In that sense. That's the intent to kill by the person is identified prior to the killing by name and the of 40 00:04:21,470 --> 00:04:29,270 the and the killer the assassin basically zeroes in on the on the target for common purpose 41 00:04:29,270 --> 00:04:35,329 here public purpose means is a very loose term means for reasons other than gain or I'm 42 00:04:35,330 --> 00:04:41,750 going to come back to that but what that what I wanted to start though with your premise. 43 00:04:41,750 --> 00:04:45,890 There are a number of assumptions here that are not that I don't explicate. 44 00:04:46,430 --> 00:04:55,840 One assumption is that it sounds sounds obvious, but it bears repeating that we've won lectures about this really being repulsive topically, 45 00:04:56,180 --> 00:04:59,690 and that is that the deliberate killing of another human being. 46 00:05:00,150 --> 00:05:08,130 It's presumptively a deeply immoral act. The moral presumption has to be it is against this act. 47 00:05:08,580 --> 00:05:18,290 This has to become clear and not accepting any premises that the strategic or or that's the principles of the state has within its arsenal. 48 00:05:18,300 --> 00:05:22,710 This to killing persons in a conflict anywhere. 49 00:05:22,740 --> 00:05:24,930 It's exactly the opposite presumption. 50 00:05:25,470 --> 00:05:33,720 And when I say this, I say not just the doing your own citizens, but also giving foreigners, foreigners a right to life. 51 00:05:34,590 --> 00:05:40,230 You know, just universal. I'm going to come back to that to that as well. 52 00:05:40,260 --> 00:05:47,910 So my strategy is going to be as follows. I'm going to talk about targeted killing in peace time. 53 00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:55,560 Some of these done forget about war on terror for us. We're going to get second world war just in peacetime talking about doing in wartime. 54 00:05:55,930 --> 00:06:00,120 I the situation that the Geneva Conventions define as a war. 55 00:06:00,330 --> 00:06:07,020 So there's a war on a third category and you will see why I would create a third category. 56 00:06:07,350 --> 00:06:15,780 And that is the killing, targeted killing of terrorists, which I think my argument here is going to be that the justification is Sunni generally. 57 00:06:15,780 --> 00:06:22,410 But I'm not I don't want to anticipate. So I want to start first with in peacetime. 58 00:06:23,370 --> 00:06:30,000 So I might I suggest the Taliban started killing in peacetime. 59 00:06:32,280 --> 00:06:35,280 Well, the first reaction I mean, it has to be wrong. All is well. 60 00:06:36,090 --> 00:06:39,000 Right? That's where we should stop. 61 00:06:39,750 --> 00:06:48,870 If we are allowed to send a mission one on the part of Britain or the United States sending a mission to Iran to kill Ahmadinejad, 62 00:06:49,410 --> 00:06:53,510 distasteful as he may be, is wrong. It's just something that is wrong, right? 63 00:06:53,580 --> 00:06:58,170 However, a blanket prohibition against it may be quick. 64 00:06:58,290 --> 00:07:07,499 Imagine, for example, the morality, if you will, of killing Hitler in 1939. 65 00:07:07,500 --> 00:07:14,840 Not during the war. Right before the war. You know, let's assume that epistemic problems are solved. 66 00:07:14,850 --> 00:07:20,010 We know, you know, that this man is going to invade Poland and that is going to. 67 00:07:20,250 --> 00:07:25,319 Let's assume that you are you have enough information to know that this is 68 00:07:25,320 --> 00:07:29,160 going to cost untold suffering in blood and treasure to millions of persons, 69 00:07:29,160 --> 00:07:38,340 including innocent persons. And you also know that killing this person will not will actually abort the war, will actually prevent the war. 70 00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:43,200 I suggest that that may be justified. May be justified. 71 00:07:43,890 --> 00:07:52,140 The other example that I give in the book is suppose that you know that somebody is about to unleash a genocide against its own people. 72 00:07:53,370 --> 00:07:58,160 I understand. You know, it's not that, you know, I don't want any epistemic objection. 73 00:07:58,200 --> 00:07:59,370 I'm saying, how do you know? Well, 74 00:07:59,730 --> 00:08:07,860 let's assume that you know and you know that somebody is about to unleash a genocidal actions when they kill half a million people in some country. 75 00:08:08,250 --> 00:08:12,830 And you cannot and the terrorists are to invade. 76 00:08:12,850 --> 00:08:19,559 For example, the country now invading will cause lots of deaths of of the deaths of the 77 00:08:19,560 --> 00:08:23,730 combatants and the deaths of the of the collateral of this of the civilians. 78 00:08:23,730 --> 00:08:31,620 Right. And so, therefore, I suggest that in May and again, with great caution, those kills may be justified. 79 00:08:31,620 --> 00:08:34,290 Just consider two things, two factors. 80 00:08:35,490 --> 00:08:42,540 One is that both in the case of prevention of aggression, the Hitler hypothetical, or in the case of prevention of genocide, 81 00:08:42,540 --> 00:08:52,530 let's say that Pol Pot hypothetical, assuming that by killing sending a sniper to kill the man will actually prevent the disaster. 82 00:08:52,540 --> 00:09:03,450 Assuming that right. Why would that be worse than actually invading to stop the massacre or invading to stop the aggression? 83 00:09:03,480 --> 00:09:13,350 Think about it. If you if you invade and lots of innocent people are going to die, you want to prevent the aggression of the genocide, 84 00:09:13,350 --> 00:09:19,470 but you're going to cost, of course, all these horrible things, the war cost, right? 85 00:09:20,850 --> 00:09:30,600 Moreover, if you kill the person, you limit the victims to one, and moreover, you limit the victims to the person who's culpable in the first place. 86 00:09:31,170 --> 00:09:42,510 Right. So at least it seems to me that if we value human life, the value of the human life, it seems to me that it is at least arguable, 87 00:09:42,630 --> 00:09:52,660 arguable that it is permissible in those extreme circumstance and only underscore very extreme circumstances to actually kill somebody doing peace. 88 00:09:52,680 --> 00:09:56,190 Them not having both examples is still peacetime. 89 00:09:56,520 --> 00:09:59,700 We're talking physiologically now. We're talking getting qualified before. 90 00:09:59,900 --> 00:10:03,440 Or if he actually perpetrated the genocide. Okay. 91 00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:12,800 So the conditions I put forth for these very strict conditions, I must say the killing increased, I must say, many innocent lives. 92 00:10:13,340 --> 00:10:21,170 I'm not talking about five or ten, many a large number of that asking as they occurred during an aggression or a war. 93 00:10:21,260 --> 00:10:26,410 Right. Or a genocide. Secondly, must have adjust course. 94 00:10:26,420 --> 00:10:29,660 Let me explain that, because this is unclear. 95 00:10:30,440 --> 00:10:35,400 I think that it seems to me that the first reaction will you say the course is to save the innocent life? 96 00:10:35,430 --> 00:10:41,120 That's the cost. That is to put your life will be that the cost to save the innocent lives. 97 00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:49,880 But it is possible to perpetrate a targeted killing that saves innocent life and yet still is murder. 98 00:10:49,910 --> 00:10:53,140 How is that? And imagine, again, several. 99 00:10:53,220 --> 00:10:57,280 What we also like is also that's a good question to the to the bad guys. 100 00:10:57,830 --> 00:11:12,500 So the motive is that people know that if even they stole it in 1939, Churchill would react, will plunge Britain into war. 101 00:11:13,310 --> 00:11:22,280 He knows that. So therefore, he goes and just sends a sniper to kill a church and he kills Churchill. 102 00:11:23,030 --> 00:11:32,210 He knows that now. Now Britain is going to, let's say, soon the Britain will not go to war after Churchill is assassinated, unfitness as well. 103 00:11:32,240 --> 00:11:35,870 I spoke to someone says that you have to save the lives of lots of millions of life. 104 00:11:36,110 --> 00:11:41,149 It was now the allies are not are not interposing themselves into my purpose as well. 105 00:11:41,150 --> 00:11:43,190 That's murder, even if it saves lives. 106 00:11:43,190 --> 00:11:52,490 So that second requirement has to be something like the states that conduct the killing must not be on the wrong side of a war, 107 00:11:52,820 --> 00:12:02,180 of just war, must not have the just got an unjust cost. That is better food than having a just got the target must be culpable of. 108 00:12:02,180 --> 00:12:03,080 All right. 109 00:12:03,440 --> 00:12:14,450 So I think the matter of culpability is is also thorny culpability may mean a moral culpability or may mean causal culpability for causal causality, 110 00:12:14,450 --> 00:12:15,410 causally opposing the threat. 111 00:12:15,890 --> 00:12:27,140 But generally speaking, I think the person that is the target must be somebody who is culpable of creating the threat of the many lives of the deaths. 112 00:12:27,470 --> 00:12:32,840 That was part of the first condition. I'll come back to that later. 113 00:12:34,220 --> 00:12:45,170 And finally, there are no non-lethal alternatives available to the life that I discussed briefly in in the piece are diplomacy. 114 00:12:45,740 --> 00:12:55,190 I mean, if you can have that well-studied, if you can actually issue a credible threat to avoid the violence, then you should try that. 115 00:12:55,970 --> 00:13:00,020 Now, notice that in order to issue a credible threat, the third has to be credible. 116 00:13:00,020 --> 00:13:01,700 So that would be lying or bluffing really, 117 00:13:02,180 --> 00:13:10,520 because otherwise it would be in fact unleashing the catastrophe if the person does not yield to the threat or capturing the real. 118 00:13:10,610 --> 00:13:17,120 So if the snipers can capture Hitler, I said to kill, people are going to capture him. 119 00:13:17,570 --> 00:13:24,889 That is morally preferable. Always. I'll come back to capture the issue of capture when I discuss terrorist because it 120 00:13:24,890 --> 00:13:29,270 applies in the case of bin Laden in the cases that are very much in our minds today. 121 00:13:29,870 --> 00:13:33,560 So these are the various notice how strict the conditions are. 122 00:13:33,950 --> 00:13:41,510 Only only avoiding a catastrophe like an aggression of genocide justifies killing somebody in peacetime. 123 00:13:42,170 --> 00:13:49,570 That is not enough. You have to have the you have to be on the right side of the conflict, only that the pits you against the villain. 124 00:13:49,970 --> 00:13:52,640 The target must be a villain, the culpable person. 125 00:13:52,640 --> 00:14:02,870 For example, you are not allowed to kill the family of of of of the person who is threatening terrorism, even if that will stop the threat. 126 00:14:02,990 --> 00:14:03,260 Right. 127 00:14:03,270 --> 00:14:12,510 So my position differs from the position of many philosophers who actually think that avoiding the threat, saying the is the only thing that matters. 128 00:14:12,530 --> 00:14:16,009 If that were true, you would kill the children. You know why don't kill the children. 129 00:14:16,010 --> 00:14:24,739 If you thought of killing the children of some dictator will actually make anything of glass and not carry out his murderous intentions. 130 00:14:24,740 --> 00:14:28,940 Then I think that that is for me, the have to focus on the villain. 131 00:14:29,270 --> 00:14:33,500 Right. On the person who's responsible. Alright. 132 00:14:33,530 --> 00:14:37,570 So this is in the history of militias in peacetime. 133 00:14:39,380 --> 00:14:43,050 I don't know what the rules are. I speak for 40 minutes. Then we have a discussion later. 134 00:14:44,300 --> 00:14:47,210 Okay. Now let's move on to war. Stories of killing war. 135 00:14:49,130 --> 00:14:59,770 Some some authors, not notably Francis Lieber are not be a new chapter leader was a German guy that was hired by Abraham Lincoln to write the loss of. 136 00:15:00,150 --> 00:15:09,970 He thought that he was forbidden in the battlefield to kill just the killing to say, we are going to focus on Colonel Sanders now. 137 00:15:10,020 --> 00:15:14,879 We want to kill someone we don't like Sanders. And if you saw that he said that that's outrageous. 138 00:15:14,880 --> 00:15:18,080 That the soldiers fight for the honour of our homeland. 139 00:15:18,430 --> 00:15:23,540 Dating someone send out a lot of criminals. But I think that has to be a level. 140 00:15:23,660 --> 00:15:30,690 It's. I mean, I know what he's doing. Something has to be wrong, because if it is, let me remind you something. 141 00:15:30,690 --> 00:15:40,649 I'm sure this audience knows very well that unfortunately in war they licenses the prohibitions against killing. 142 00:15:40,650 --> 00:15:49,140 Others are significantly relaxed. But we cannot kill other people during war under circumstances specified by the laws of war. 143 00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:52,680 It is morally, legally, morally permitted to kill other people. 144 00:15:53,570 --> 00:15:57,790 But so I suggest that the permission, some restrictions of the laws of war apply. 145 00:15:57,810 --> 00:16:04,080 So, for example, when the needs of troops are in Afghanistan fighting terrorists on the battlefield, 146 00:16:04,090 --> 00:16:10,889 right, then it doesn't matter that the enemies are, you know, where you enforce. 147 00:16:10,890 --> 00:16:13,890 It doesn't matter what they are a of the army. 148 00:16:14,250 --> 00:16:19,260 But actually they can be named. Somebody supposed to come in and says, look at Colonel Sanders. 149 00:16:19,260 --> 00:16:22,950 They are he's actually decimating our troops and with a machine gun, 150 00:16:22,950 --> 00:16:27,030 go and take him out if it's primary to kill him without saying that is politically insane. 151 00:16:27,210 --> 00:16:31,500 So it seems to me that his position doesn't go, it doesn't wash. 152 00:16:31,500 --> 00:16:34,960 They're now off the battlefield is a little bit more complicated. 153 00:16:34,980 --> 00:16:37,980 So both are. Colonel Sanders goes to sleep. 154 00:16:37,990 --> 00:16:43,410 Can we kill him in the barracks? Right when he's asleep, sleeping in the barracks? 155 00:16:44,220 --> 00:16:50,640 Well, the laws of war say, yes, the Geneva Convention is allowed to do that. 156 00:16:51,090 --> 00:16:59,770 The brought in with the Maleficent Book of Charlie that if he seems to be that he believes that the more common lobby does not allow. 157 00:17:01,950 --> 00:17:08,880 I think I follow others. I disagree a little bit with Davis here that if Colonel Sanders is sleeping in the barracks, 158 00:17:10,020 --> 00:17:17,370 restoring his energies for the battle, then it is better to go from there like the general conventions permit. 159 00:17:17,490 --> 00:17:20,780 Recall the Colonel Sanders is unjust enemy. 160 00:17:20,790 --> 00:17:26,370 He's fighting an unjust war. The permission of our to kill our own provisions. 161 00:17:26,520 --> 00:17:30,989 Well, look, for my purposes of the side that has a just cause. 162 00:17:30,990 --> 00:17:38,350 And this ends. I follow Judge McMahon, who very convincingly argued about that, argued that it doesn't apply to all sides. 163 00:17:38,370 --> 00:17:46,230 So when the unjust enemy kills our guys, either in the barracks or anywhere in the battlefield, this is an unjustified killing. 164 00:17:47,170 --> 00:17:50,969 But if you go off to Gitmo, that's up to me, I think. 165 00:17:50,970 --> 00:17:58,590 But I want to make my case. I want to make sure that, you know, when when the state that carries out the target of killing has to adjust. 166 00:17:58,590 --> 00:18:04,410 Cos I think that to me that's important. So what about the political leaders during war time? 167 00:18:04,420 --> 00:18:10,440 What about if if fighting a war, can we, could we could the United States have gone, 168 00:18:10,440 --> 00:18:15,690 for example, just to change example a little bit during the Iraq war, assuming controversially, 169 00:18:15,690 --> 00:18:20,459 that the war was justified, which many people think it was not, but assuming that it was something like that, 170 00:18:20,460 --> 00:18:28,260 could the United States have gone to a to Baghdad and killed Saddam Hussein? 171 00:18:29,130 --> 00:18:33,050 If that would have ended, the war would have saved lots of end of the war. 172 00:18:33,060 --> 00:18:39,930 Is it just not justified? Well, I think there is a sense that they are the commanders in chief of that unjust aggressor. 173 00:18:40,290 --> 00:18:45,300 So killing Hitler in the Second World War was justified, not on some weird grounds of assassination, 174 00:18:45,630 --> 00:18:49,860 but on the loss of killing enemies, fleeing the loss of war, 175 00:18:49,860 --> 00:18:54,360 because, in fact, Hitler and Saddam Hussein are the commander in chief, 176 00:18:54,360 --> 00:18:59,040 where I would say commander in chief of the armies that are fighting the unjust war. 177 00:18:59,520 --> 00:19:06,000 So you can kill them are not out of culpability or anything like that. 178 00:19:06,240 --> 00:19:15,330 You can kill any enemy soldier. The only justification being to increase the chance of victory as well as says and so forth. 179 00:19:15,750 --> 00:19:21,030 Now I in the paper I talk about honour operations in doing war. 180 00:19:21,450 --> 00:19:25,049 I was fearful. For example, the Second World War was the killing. 181 00:19:25,050 --> 00:19:30,150 I was fear was the minister, the brilliant young minister of armaments of Hitler's. 182 00:19:30,300 --> 00:19:34,110 He was a civilian architect. Minister, if I'm wrong, it is pretty. 183 00:19:34,950 --> 00:19:46,060 So I think that if if he was sufficiently involved in the war effort to be justified under because of the policy during a war, during a war. 184 00:19:47,280 --> 00:19:52,250 But random officials unrelated to war are the much more does. 185 00:19:52,260 --> 00:19:59,370 I mean, I don't think you could justify killing the German undersecretary of public parks at the time just because he's not. 186 00:19:59,840 --> 00:20:05,450 Part of the sect of Germans that were the enemy who are vulnerable to kill. 187 00:20:05,570 --> 00:20:10,580 So I think that in war, as you can see, things are much more permissive, but there are restrictions. 188 00:20:11,870 --> 00:20:17,599 For example, some of the foreign minister to suppose I said that when Colonel Sanders is sleeping in the barracks, 189 00:20:17,600 --> 00:20:23,120 you can we're not going to have him with him. What about Donald Sanders implication? 190 00:20:24,260 --> 00:20:31,190 Well, you're at war zones. None of the barracks was his back in his in his country, just having dinner with his family. 191 00:20:31,910 --> 00:20:37,309 And you send a sniper disguised as a waiter and his services like poisoned fruit? 192 00:20:37,310 --> 00:20:40,330 I think, you know, you killed him. You know, what about that? You like that? 193 00:20:40,850 --> 00:20:45,799 Well, Danielle Statman says if you can feel him in the barracks, you can him the invitation as well. 194 00:20:45,800 --> 00:20:48,980 And I will. Great hesitation. So I draw the line somewhere. 195 00:20:49,070 --> 00:20:55,340 I think I don't think I think that killing in the barracks, reluctantly, I would say, is justified. 196 00:20:56,120 --> 00:20:59,360 Well, killing him on vacation, reluctantly, they say it's not justified. 197 00:21:00,080 --> 00:21:04,610 And the reason is that he has removed himself from the war machine at that point. 198 00:21:04,860 --> 00:21:11,580 He's truly in his civilian capacity and he sees the permissibility in general. 199 00:21:11,600 --> 00:21:18,799 What is Trump's terrorism already? We shall interpret it as narrowly as possible and with great reluctance. 200 00:21:18,800 --> 00:21:21,230 I think that the geographical location matters. 201 00:21:21,260 --> 00:21:27,530 So I think that to give an example to that, I think it is justified, if it is justified to kill the Taliban at all in the war, 202 00:21:27,530 --> 00:21:36,019 if it is assumed that it is right in that war for naval killing while kids are fleeing their barracks the day before the of something like that, 203 00:21:36,020 --> 00:21:45,830 to kill him is justified. But if he is back in Kabul with his family, I don't think they are going to send a mission to kill him. 204 00:21:47,600 --> 00:21:49,300 You know, in the interview, 205 00:21:49,310 --> 00:21:57,980 I have mentioned that there is that the distinction is where his very genuine statement says not true and he goes ahead is as a field in any war. 206 00:21:58,100 --> 00:22:02,150 If you are a boy, you like killing anyone. These people and I don't go that far. 207 00:22:02,540 --> 00:22:12,199 All right. Okay. So that leads us to the the the topic of terrorism. 208 00:22:12,200 --> 00:22:19,310 And I think it is important to start with these other forms in peacetime, in wartime, in order to tackle terrorism. 209 00:22:19,580 --> 00:22:27,020 But I want to start with something that some people talk about this on the book, and that is what is a terrorist? 210 00:22:29,180 --> 00:22:33,559 I am going to suggest a definition. It is not common in the literature. 211 00:22:33,560 --> 00:22:39,830 In the literature. The definition of a terrorist are very complicated, very convoluted, very controversial. 212 00:22:40,250 --> 00:22:45,300 The reason why it is complicated is that this is that the term is not neutral. 213 00:22:45,320 --> 00:22:51,840 I mean, nobody says I'm a proud terrorist. You know, terrorism terrorist, to be a terrorist is a derogatory term. 214 00:22:52,100 --> 00:22:57,750 It's something that carries the reason to go to condemnatory condemnation. 215 00:22:58,440 --> 00:23:04,639 But that makes it difficult. So most people accept that and say, well, look, there are two elements. 216 00:23:04,640 --> 00:23:12,350 The first, we have to be killing people with the illegal or immoral means that we, for example, kill innocent. 217 00:23:13,460 --> 00:23:17,480 And then also they say the terrorist has to have a political purpose. 218 00:23:18,170 --> 00:23:23,569 It doesn't matter what it is, but it has to be supposed to be some of the mafia or something like that, someone who has a private purpose. 219 00:23:23,570 --> 00:23:28,370 Right. In the literature, you have that definition to those two requirements. 220 00:23:28,400 --> 00:23:31,970 I modified that definition of someone. Let me explain. 221 00:23:32,660 --> 00:23:37,490 I believe that I define this. By the way, this is a verbal issue if you're going to fight anything you want. 222 00:23:37,770 --> 00:23:41,240 I am going to propose this even though I know it's just a verbal issue. 223 00:23:42,440 --> 00:23:48,990 I define a terrorist as somebody that has the characteristics, does not identify himself as a combatant. 224 00:23:49,010 --> 00:23:56,000 That's one. Number two, uses immoral means to fight in killing of innocents. 225 00:23:56,840 --> 00:24:05,960 And number three, and this is the new element that introduced he does this, he kills immorally in the pursuit of an unjust political cost. 226 00:24:06,740 --> 00:24:10,760 So in my international law class, I usually ask my students, you'll see what I mean. 227 00:24:11,750 --> 00:24:23,600 So so about 9/11, why why do you say, general, what do you think about the attack of so many horrible, immoral illegal murderers? 228 00:24:23,630 --> 00:24:27,670 Let's give them a very good life. I you that. 229 00:24:27,950 --> 00:24:31,580 But why? Because they killed all these innocent people. 230 00:24:32,900 --> 00:24:38,420 Which, of course, the killer was innocent people. All right, now. Well, somewhere like when I looked like he was alive, right? 231 00:24:38,780 --> 00:24:41,839 So somebody says, oh, I read the criticisms. 232 00:24:41,840 --> 00:24:46,730 Now all these critics are right. I should not have killed all these people in the Twin Towers in New York. 233 00:24:46,760 --> 00:24:53,210 That was wrong. So I want I want to aim at the White House, the Pentagon and all military targets. 234 00:24:53,540 --> 00:24:59,690 I want you to conduct my my war against the United States and the West in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. 235 00:24:59,780 --> 00:25:03,350 I just want to talk to them so I can message you like that. Your brother? 236 00:25:03,560 --> 00:25:09,650 No, of course not. That is not true. That the reason why they were wrong is just that they were killing innocents. 237 00:25:09,650 --> 00:25:10,850 There has to be something else. 238 00:25:11,180 --> 00:25:21,970 So I suggest that the cause that they are pursuing, that this person who does not define himself as a combatant and who kills him immoral, 239 00:25:21,980 --> 00:25:28,370 kills innocents for a cause that cause also to be unjust, to be called a terrorist, 240 00:25:28,940 --> 00:25:35,690 someone who does not intend to kill himself as a combatant, uses immoral means killing of innocent. 241 00:25:35,690 --> 00:25:39,760 But for a just cause is something different. 242 00:25:39,770 --> 00:25:43,700 Maybe a freedom fighter who is also a war criminal? Take the machine. 243 00:25:43,760 --> 00:25:47,770 The Second World War, the mocking blew up like kindergartens, you know. 244 00:25:47,790 --> 00:25:52,790 You know, Second World War, right field children in schools and things like that in the resistance against the Germans. 245 00:25:53,360 --> 00:25:56,540 I believe that that's a crime killing innocents, 246 00:25:57,110 --> 00:26:06,770 but I would not call them terrorists in my definition because they were pursuing a just cause in the pursuit of which they committed war crimes. 247 00:26:09,110 --> 00:26:22,820 So if somebody conversely pursues does not identify himself as a combat right, it pursues an unjust cause, but uses moral means, 248 00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:33,139 then I'll call the person made an unjust end use of the term or something like killing depends upon opponent is an unjust enemy deserving of defeat. 249 00:26:33,140 --> 00:26:34,100 We have to fight them. 250 00:26:34,430 --> 00:26:41,540 My students are right about that, but in my definition it's not a terrorist because the requirement of use immoral means is a financial requirement. 251 00:26:41,540 --> 00:26:45,139 What a terrorist is, is just again, as I say, it's a verbal decision that I made. 252 00:26:45,140 --> 00:26:50,840 But I think it serves the function of distinguishing between terrorists and so-called freedom fighters, 253 00:26:51,470 --> 00:26:54,650 because it's a big discussion of one person's terrorist as another person. 254 00:26:55,190 --> 00:26:59,930 I think my religion helps to say, at least when you have a freedom fighter, 255 00:27:00,020 --> 00:27:07,220 that is somebody who will if it was the first two conditions, but now the last one, he fights for a just cause. 256 00:27:08,300 --> 00:27:11,660 A different analysis is needed. And that's all I'm going to say. 257 00:27:11,660 --> 00:27:15,139 I'm not going to say it's justified obviously don't just I'm a different analysis 258 00:27:15,140 --> 00:27:21,050 from the one I propose here is needed the one that has to deal with the just cost. 259 00:27:21,230 --> 00:27:26,830 Okay. So we have now then we know then what is a terrorist now? 260 00:27:26,900 --> 00:27:38,600 What is the of the conditions and the conditions first before plunging into it? 261 00:27:38,750 --> 00:27:49,160 I like to say of mention what are both in the West commentators the literature on terrorism. 262 00:27:49,430 --> 00:27:59,450 How to deal with terrorism is is a such you know, vast and they're basically in two camps, one camp that I call the law enforcement camp. 263 00:28:00,560 --> 00:28:06,770 According to the law enforcement camp, terrorism is like any other crime and the liberal state should deal with it. 264 00:28:07,100 --> 00:28:13,520 Confronted with the tools of law enforcement, that is detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction. 265 00:28:15,350 --> 00:28:23,600 Even though terrorism is a particularly grievous crime because of its extent and its ubiquitousness still, 266 00:28:23,600 --> 00:28:28,009 and the state can resort to new techniques to increase the sentences, 267 00:28:28,010 --> 00:28:31,309 it could increase the US, for example, 268 00:28:31,310 --> 00:28:37,190 the Germans and the Italians did in the seventies facing these terrorist groups that they had or the United Kingdom. 269 00:28:37,190 --> 00:28:42,400 The respect in Iraq that are examples it start of law enforcement techniques. 270 00:28:44,840 --> 00:28:51,229 This position is extremely strong I think because it actually not only for the obvious 271 00:28:51,230 --> 00:28:55,250 reasons that actually is most respectful of the rights of the person that you are pursuing, 272 00:28:55,550 --> 00:29:02,420 but also because it is a much more standard duty for the liberal liberal state itself, for prostitution, of democracy, for freedoms in a long time. 273 00:29:02,420 --> 00:29:09,500 There's a lot written about that, how actually departing from the traditional strictures about killing people, 274 00:29:09,710 --> 00:29:11,600 the state killing states killing people, 275 00:29:12,000 --> 00:29:19,160 the departing of that is bad not just for the people person was given for us, for us citizens in a liberal state. 276 00:29:19,550 --> 00:29:21,150 So that's the law enforcement, 277 00:29:21,710 --> 00:29:33,080 the just war the other Canada the just Walker maintains that terrorism is such that the only way to to confront it is to resort to the tools of war. 278 00:29:33,080 --> 00:29:39,200 Make it this has a double dimension the what is the first consequence of that decision? 279 00:29:39,560 --> 00:29:44,300 For example, the formulation of the use of war that the United States government received after 911. 280 00:29:44,570 --> 00:29:49,640 They said that you can just wage war against the terrorists, period, use whatever words. 281 00:29:49,650 --> 00:29:56,240 And then Supreme Court has endorsed that. The United States, while striking out other aspects of policy of the U.S. government. 282 00:29:57,230 --> 00:30:06,139 The first the thing that is normal is the other. The rumours that the first consequence of saying that you are not just trying to find criminals, 283 00:30:06,140 --> 00:30:12,140 the terrorists who committed crimes, but trying to wage war against them, is that permission to kill them? 284 00:30:12,860 --> 00:30:21,469 That is the first thought was this is a consequence of the categorisation of the conference is to say it's not that this person has committed a crime, 285 00:30:21,470 --> 00:30:27,390 horrible crime. It's simply they are they they perform an act of war. 286 00:30:27,440 --> 00:30:35,510 They made war against us. And now we are at war against them and we're going to kill them on sight. 287 00:30:35,600 --> 00:30:42,050 So for this new target of killing is the function equivalent of killing in war. 288 00:30:42,680 --> 00:30:49,490 When you talk to anybody, even very liberal, people always say, well, they feel something about World War II war with us. 289 00:30:50,360 --> 00:30:56,179 This is the same as and he was saying I in about just whatever in Pakistan over there is a 290 00:30:56,180 --> 00:31:00,610 saying that if he had been a soldier in fighting in the in the battlefield they at war. 291 00:31:00,630 --> 00:31:05,450 Right. They are it's a different kind of war, like a war we can kill him because he's an enemy combatant. 292 00:31:05,450 --> 00:31:14,890 In fact, he's an unlawful enemy combatant because and because he he does not identify himself as a member. 293 00:31:16,010 --> 00:31:23,840 Well, I say a number of things in the piece. I want to make it clear to you, I think this position is a mistake. 294 00:31:24,560 --> 00:31:34,730 The just war position, the reserves is simply put, that if somebody has a right not to be killed with the appropriate process, 295 00:31:34,940 --> 00:31:40,760 somebody has a right to life, let's say even the worst. You cannot. 296 00:31:43,530 --> 00:31:47,130 They raise that right by a simple unilateral declaration. 297 00:31:47,400 --> 00:31:52,650 If somebody has the right to life not to be killed in this way, 298 00:31:52,890 --> 00:31:57,990 you cannot simply the states cannot simply say we are not at war with those persons 299 00:31:58,620 --> 00:32:05,010 and therefore authorise itself to kill them on sight to see why this is so. 300 00:32:05,220 --> 00:32:10,050 Think about this. Suppose now the government has a list of the only one who belongs to the Mafia. 301 00:32:11,550 --> 00:32:13,980 The Mafia, I think committing crimes. Very serious crimes. 302 00:32:14,010 --> 00:32:19,190 Murder in all kinds of the things the mafia, like prostitution of with just killings and things like that. 303 00:32:19,200 --> 00:32:24,900 It was like in Chicago in 1933. Well, now the government says we declare war against the mafia. 304 00:32:25,170 --> 00:32:30,240 So they don't have ongoing, you know, killing persons. 305 00:32:30,750 --> 00:32:38,379 They don't know. It is because I believe the mafia. Think about, for example, sexual predator paedophiles who these are practically repulsive people. 306 00:32:38,380 --> 00:32:40,880 Right. Why doesn't the way if we are going to be, 307 00:32:40,970 --> 00:32:50,130 why wouldn't the government compiled a list of sexual predators and declare war against them as they go around killing them on site? 308 00:32:50,730 --> 00:32:54,900 That is not acceptable. Take it to anybody. Why will this be different? 309 00:32:55,440 --> 00:33:01,170 Well, well. Everybody knows the crimes they committed. Well, now everybody knows the idea does not work either. 310 00:33:01,410 --> 00:33:06,030 Suppose somebody in a public square in the middle of London. 311 00:33:06,050 --> 00:33:08,910 I showed. That doesn't doesn't happened here. Right. 312 00:33:09,660 --> 00:33:18,390 But also from here, I was saying death to the west and kills 30 people, innocent people in Trafalgar Square. 313 00:33:19,320 --> 00:33:24,240 Now, the person contrary to others who kill themselves, also, he doesn't kill himself. 314 00:33:24,240 --> 00:33:28,380 He just please the police in search of him. And they got him. 315 00:33:28,590 --> 00:33:34,920 They're right. He's in a. Now they're more like 250 witnesses to this crime that he committed. 316 00:33:35,730 --> 00:33:39,030 Everybody knows he committed the crime. Why wouldn't the police then shoot him? 317 00:33:40,650 --> 00:33:45,780 Now, I might say you might say, well, you know, nobody would be very sorry they shot him. 318 00:33:45,780 --> 00:33:50,609 But that's not the issue. There's just not to get. Well, you should get happy. 319 00:33:50,610 --> 00:33:54,360 Like in the movies when the good guys get the bad guys is what are the strictures? 320 00:33:54,360 --> 00:33:58,560 Are we complying with the scripture that we're bishops against state killing? 321 00:33:59,070 --> 00:34:04,229 I would take it they would not accept that, but that what they should do is to say freeze them, 322 00:34:04,230 --> 00:34:10,050 you know, in the movies, you know, and capture him if if, if, if, if they can. 323 00:34:10,080 --> 00:34:14,040 So therefore. How so? 324 00:34:14,130 --> 00:34:22,650 I reject the just the word for that reason. However, the just war crowd has a point with respect to the nature of the threat and 325 00:34:22,650 --> 00:34:27,750 has a point with respect to the relative difficulty of the law enforcement, 326 00:34:29,390 --> 00:34:34,290 law enforcement, the principles to deal with terrorism. 327 00:34:34,300 --> 00:34:39,120 So I think that this suggests a sui generis approach. 328 00:34:39,210 --> 00:34:45,360 The sui generis approach. I anticipate we saw the two paradigms in peacetime on a war, too, right? 329 00:34:45,750 --> 00:34:59,430 My my suggestion for the justification of the legitimacy of the killing of terrorists falls between the two. 330 00:34:59,430 --> 00:35:03,030 But is also you're going to see to the peace time, right. 331 00:35:03,480 --> 00:35:12,360 So and so in a wartime setting that doesn't apply the conditions apply that apply the Geneva Conventions in a peacetime setting, 332 00:35:12,360 --> 00:35:13,410 which is a difficult case. 333 00:35:14,250 --> 00:35:23,069 The killing is necessary to foil a terrorist plot to prevent the death of innocent persons is the same as the peace, the in peacetime, the invasion. 334 00:35:23,070 --> 00:35:26,459 Except that it doesn't is not Astrid. 335 00:35:26,460 --> 00:35:30,510 It doesn't require massive deaths of hundreds of thousands of persons. 336 00:35:30,510 --> 00:35:33,720 As I said, it should require for the peace. 337 00:35:34,290 --> 00:35:38,160 It's enough that the killing is necessary to foil a terrorist plot. 338 00:35:39,030 --> 00:35:42,629 The terror is culpable. So the same as before. 339 00:35:42,630 --> 00:35:46,100 You cannot kill the family of the terrorist. 340 00:35:46,560 --> 00:35:54,660 The terrorist. The state just has a just cause. In the sense I mentioned before, if the state is does not have a just cause, 341 00:35:54,660 --> 00:35:59,850 the entire killing will not be acceptable and there are no non-lethal intent. 342 00:35:59,860 --> 00:36:02,280 So exactly as before in peacetime, 343 00:36:02,280 --> 00:36:10,800 except that the first condition is relaxed and the killing is not necessary to avoid a war or a genocide, both to foil a terrorist plot. 344 00:36:12,030 --> 00:36:21,060 So it is a sui generis in the state. The state only needs to show to make it lawful, that it's necessary to follow terrorist plot. 345 00:36:22,290 --> 00:36:26,790 Okay, I have 5 minutes. I want to discuss some of the objections to all of this. 346 00:36:26,790 --> 00:36:30,720 But there are two kinds of objections that are general objections to target of killing. 347 00:36:31,620 --> 00:36:35,040 One is what I call the epistemic objection. 348 00:36:35,820 --> 00:36:40,080 The state has to determine all these things. 349 00:36:40,140 --> 00:36:44,370 Now, think about this, for example. A killing is necessary is a necessity, a requirement. 350 00:36:44,580 --> 00:36:51,810 I don't adopt imminence. Some people for payment, for example, suggest imminence, but necessity because I'm an enforcer. 351 00:36:52,110 --> 00:36:55,350 But that's a that's a very big assessment that the state has to make. 352 00:36:56,100 --> 00:36:59,460 You know, we learned when bin Laden was retired, I don't know. 353 00:37:00,330 --> 00:37:03,840 Do you know that bin Laden has actually retired already? I have no idea. 354 00:37:04,230 --> 00:37:10,230 I mean, was he I mean, I if I had to guess, I would say I know that he was onto something bad. 355 00:37:10,790 --> 00:37:16,200 But do you know? No. I know if he was for what he was up to, maybe he was not into. 356 00:37:16,530 --> 00:37:28,770 So even in his case, how difficult it is, they have to all to know that the person is the person that actually created the risk and that he missed. 357 00:37:29,000 --> 00:37:33,480 Mr. I did. And I don't think mistakes are not uncommon in these operations. 358 00:37:34,080 --> 00:37:39,720 They often kill the wrong person. The state has to be sure that is a just cause, right? 359 00:37:41,400 --> 00:37:47,790 There are no lethal alternatives. With respect. Just to finish my 40 minutes, I have a lot of Osama bin Laden. 360 00:37:48,570 --> 00:37:57,030 I, i assuming he's giving the benefit of the doubt to president obama on the first conditions. 361 00:37:57,300 --> 00:37:58,950 My problem is with capture. 362 00:37:59,670 --> 00:38:07,530 If you read the accounts, it is unclear at the very least whether Osama bin Laden was completely unarmed, if he was unarmed. 363 00:38:07,680 --> 00:38:15,750 My contention is that the officer, the person who killed him, I've been diligent because he will have the upper hand captured. 364 00:38:16,500 --> 00:38:21,690 Right now, the policy of administration says, well, it is very preferable to capture him. 365 00:38:21,690 --> 00:38:26,849 A person is not is not a preferred thing for killing somebody. 366 00:38:26,850 --> 00:38:31,379 But you can capture you have no risk to others and persons I discussed that was in 367 00:38:31,380 --> 00:38:37,570 the paper is my it is not simply preferable like the administration says right so. 368 00:38:38,740 --> 00:38:42,420 So in the case of bin Laden. 369 00:38:42,630 --> 00:38:47,940 If he was reaching for a gun, then reluctant to conclude that the killing was justified, 370 00:38:48,210 --> 00:38:53,910 if he was an arms race, his hands, if he or not Vietnamese, if it was an arm, then the killing is not. 371 00:38:54,450 --> 00:39:06,649 So the. It does epistemic objections do objections want to call it is an interesting philosophical problem. 372 00:39:06,650 --> 00:39:10,470 The political virtue of objection. What does that mean? 373 00:39:10,520 --> 00:39:17,150 That means that even if everything else is just satisfied, we don't want to be the persons who pulled the trigger. 374 00:39:18,180 --> 00:39:21,860 Just there's a distinction between the following two assertions. 375 00:39:22,700 --> 00:39:28,380 It is a good thing that bin Laden is dead. And it is a good thing that I killed him. 376 00:39:28,400 --> 00:39:33,080 No. It's called the problem of agent relativity, the discomfort, Tom Nagel and others. 377 00:39:33,500 --> 00:39:40,640 Extremely complicated philosophical problem. But the gist of it is there is something problematic about the liberal state, 378 00:39:41,240 --> 00:39:47,660 which is supposed to reflect the feelings of sensitive human citizens who are being more sensitive, killing people. 379 00:39:48,170 --> 00:39:56,479 The liberal right there is something for a moral something and it sometimes has to be done that doesn't have to do with the values of the person, 380 00:39:56,480 --> 00:40:04,880 but with our goodness. So there is a presumption also, again, I'm wrong that the liberal state should not be in the business of killing. 381 00:40:05,330 --> 00:40:11,600 I think it is objectionable if the President gave secret orders to kill him, if he got him dead or alive. 382 00:40:12,110 --> 00:40:18,110 That is immoral. I mean, I think more even to do that if somebody is unarmed. 383 00:40:18,260 --> 00:40:24,480 You have actually to. To refrain from killing him, he's not gonna come. 384 00:40:25,340 --> 00:40:28,940 So just to conclude, this is my conclusion. 385 00:40:29,420 --> 00:40:31,399 This is one of the topics we know. 386 00:40:31,400 --> 00:40:40,580 Those of you who have read my book, I don't think you would say that I am soft on the question of war, on the question of terrorism. 387 00:40:41,450 --> 00:40:45,020 I have supported the war in Iraq and is a great, great cost to my career. 388 00:40:46,640 --> 00:40:50,160 I am fine with it. Nothing happened. Right. 389 00:40:50,210 --> 00:40:55,050 And as many know on this issue, I didn't know where I was going to come out. 390 00:40:55,070 --> 00:41:00,290 I suspect that I will come out in favour of the killing of of people like bin Laden. 391 00:41:00,890 --> 00:41:06,980 But the more I thought about it, the less likely that seemed to be what the claims, 392 00:41:07,220 --> 00:41:10,730 the mainstream claims are made for this the legitimacy of being a terrorist. 393 00:41:10,730 --> 00:41:16,850 And I realise these people are followed by everything that the law allows me to see. 394 00:41:16,850 --> 00:41:22,610 The problem here is my own experience with Argentina. In the 1970s I wasn't in government. 395 00:41:22,910 --> 00:41:28,490 Okay, different government is not Obama. They know that. But there's a big difference if it is a liberal democracy. 396 00:41:28,530 --> 00:41:33,050 I called the fascist group, but they follow that the same thing they said. 397 00:41:33,650 --> 00:41:41,930 And it is true that the terrorists in Argentina, circa 1976 were very violent and vicious and they were threatening the really horrible people. 398 00:41:42,800 --> 00:41:43,700 Urban guerrilla. 399 00:41:44,720 --> 00:41:53,000 The Contras are guerilla and this right wing military junta took over the civil war, began these people, and they started feeling the little side. 400 00:41:53,630 --> 00:41:57,410 But of course they killed them and the families and the friends and everybody else. 401 00:41:57,410 --> 00:41:59,630 And to show what happens when you get that kind of power. 402 00:41:59,990 --> 00:42:07,100 So I don't argue that I don't want my government to be able to declare war on individuals and start killing them. 403 00:42:07,850 --> 00:42:10,040 VICIOUS But those are the rules. Maybe that's.