(Los Angeles Times) Amos Guiora - I was the legal advisor to the officer in command of Gaza from 1994-97, and in that capacity was involved in targeted killing decisions. I believed when I served in the Israel Defense Forces, and I believe now, that targeted killings are lawful, predicated on the following caveats. There must be reliable, valid, viable and corroborated intelligence indicating that the individual intends to commit future terrorist acts. International law does not tolerate revenge-based action. In addition, the decision must meet tests of proportionality, military necessity, alternatives and collateral damage. I think there is a fundamental difference between drone attacks as presently conducted [by the U.S.] and targeted killing, for the latter is person-specific whereas the former seems to result in not insignificant collateral damage. I have long advocated person-specific operational counter-terrorism as a means to protect the state and to protect innocent lives. The writer is Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah.
2010-02-22 08:09:40Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive