While most of the civilized world is taking grim satisfaction from the news about the latest Iranian nuclear scientist to turn up dead, predictably, the hard left is outraged. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald is particularly upset because he recalls that when Glenn Reynolds wrote in 2007 to urge the Bush administration to strike out at the Iranians in this fashion, the suggestion was widely denounced–at least on the left. But though Greenwald is unhappy about the fact that Americans view the possibility their government or its allies are taking out those behind Tehran’s nuclear program, he isn’t shy about labeling it as terrorism. As far as he is concerned, if the U.S. or Israel are behind the killings, then both are “terrorist states” and President Obama may be a “a terrorist, a state sponsor of terrorism or, at the very least, a supporter of terrorism.”
But you need a particular form of moral myopia not to see that heading off a potential second Holocaust in the form of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel or the nuclear blackmail of the rest of the Middle East is not a form of terrorism. Anyone who believes Iran should be allowed to proceed toward the building of a nuclear bomb has either lost their moral compass or is so steeped in the belief that American and Israeli interests are inherently unjustified they have reversed the moral equation in this case. Rather than the alleged U.S. and Israeli covert operators being called terrorists, it is the Iranian scientists who are the criminals. They must be stopped before they kill.
As far as Greenwald is concerned, the fact that we are not currently at war with Iran renders any attacks on those aiding its effort to build a nuclear weapon illegal, if not outright terrorism. It may be that international law may not necessarily deem preemptive strikes to halt an illegal action — such as Iran’s nuclear efforts — as strictly legal. But the question here is whether it is within President Obama’s power under the Constitution to defend the United States and its allies to order operations that would avert a dangerous and possibly catastrophic development such as putting nuclear weapons into the hands of Iran’s ayatollahs. The argument that the United States must sit back and wait to see if the Iranians succeed in achieving their nuclear ambitions ignores the fact that Iran is a rogue state whose own support of international terrorism has placed it outside the law.
Just as we commonly state that democracy is not a suicide pact, neither is international law. States can and must act, sometimes preemptively, to defend their interests as well as the lives of their citizens. The most immoral thing either Barack Obama or Benjamin Netanyahu could do would be to abide by Greenwald’s notion of the legal niceties rather than to act to stop the Islamist state. It is far from clear covert activities such as assassinations of Iranian scientists or computer viruses will be enough to halt the threat. But the alternatives — either acquiescing to a nuclear Iran or contemplating massive military action — are far less palatable and will certainly result in far more bloodshed. Therefore, the targeted killings of those engaged in the development of this terrible threat is the least destructive option open to either the U.S. or Israel.
Who's Glen Greenwald? n nIs he the guy who made fun of the reporter who was raped/violated in Tahrir Square? n nWhy is what he says important? Is he representative of left of center consensus opinion? n n n n
No, that was not Greenwald who made fun of the reporter being beaten.. Greenwald condemned both those who did the beating and the “reporter” who joked about it.r nr nYou really should consider learning to read before commenting.
I think you fail to realize that whether something is justifiable and whether it is an act of terrorism are two utterly different questions. An act can be both, neither one or one and not the other. In this case, it was both… justified and an act of terrorism (by almost every definition of the term). n nBTW, this confusion goes back to Bush's ill-advised decision to wage a 'war of terror' when in fact, the tactic used was not the issue (would we have been less upset if our enemies had attacked us wearing a uniform of some kind?)
Actually I would be less upset about an attack by an enemy wearing uniforms. The uniform has purpose beyond everyone looking the same while marching in a parade. The moral and practical purpose is to distinguish combatants from civilians in hopes that the respective military forces aim their attacks at their military counterparts thus sparing the lives of civilians. Wearing uniforms is also associated with formal declarations of war, so objectives and intentions are defined in advance for those concerned.
A bit less upset, but not enough to make a difference to me. I don't want Americans killed by our enemies and it doesn't matter where or how they do it. And I want our enemies killed and I don't care where or how we do it.
No, but it would have moved them under the laws of war in the first place.
It seems to me that Iran has been at war with the United States starting in 1979 with the invasion of U.S. sovereign territory (i.e., the American Embassy in Tehran) and taking hostage of its diplomats, to the murder of 241 Marines in Beirut in 1983 by its Hezbollah henchmen, to the 19 American Air Force airmen killed in the Khobar Towers terrorist attack on June 25, 1996, to its collaboration with Al Queda dating back to before 9/11, to the most recent arming and assisting in attacks on U.S. servicemen in Iraq. And whether or not we know it or like it, we have been at war with Iran. It would be nice if someone in authority pointed this out.
True, but I think you just gave the reactionary leftists apoplexy.
Could be the Kurds or who knows who.
I don't see "grim satisfaction" from most quarters. I see disgust on the one side, and sadistic gloating on the other. n nThis was a malicious and cruel killing. Even if justfied by some species of Realpolitik, there was no reason for it be conducted in such a public manner. Expanding the concept of a "second Holocaust" to justify this killing frankly would enable anyone to kill anyone as long as the words could be re-defined and someone to write 600 words to justify it. n nAt least buried in this apologia is a recognition that the killing was illegal according to US law. Along with the recognition that in the writer's opinion, the leaders of the US and Israel can violate that, and any other law, whenever they like. n nBut the simple fact is that a 32 year old father of a one year old son involved in uranium enrichment is not a "terrorist" except to a schizophrenic, and murdering him is not going to stop whatever it is that Iran is intending to do. n
Lie down with dogs, fellas, get up with fleas.
targetted killings are the opposite of terrorism. they attack a single dangerous person secretly rather than a large group of innocent people in a public place.
Who would Jesus assassinate?
I am sorry, but in what way is the USA (and therefore any ally that wishes to join in) not at war with Iran? Since the revolution Iran has been committing acts of war against the USA and her allies. Remember the Iranian Embassy anyone? The killing of British police officer Yvonne Fletcher, an attack on the soil of a NATO country which, had we invoked the North Atlantic Treaty would have brought every NATO country into war against Iran. Let alone the constant acts of war (indeed war crimes in many cases) by Iranian irregulars against US, Iraqi, British and other allied forces/civilians in Iraq. n nThat means that the USA is perfectly entitled, under the customs an practices of war, to act as if a state of war exists.
What did Greenwald's sockpuppets say?
We ARE at war with Iran. They've been saying so for thirty years, and killing our people to prove it. So killing their nuclear scientists isn't terrorism, it's an act of war, and perfectly legitimate.
No, sorry.r nr nThe Constitution provides strict controls for the concept of war, of killing and destruction in the name of the United States.r nr nAnd it needs more than a word from the president to do it.r nr nSo if Obama did this, it is indeed extra-constitutional terrorism. I have no idea what Israeli law allows.r nr nIf the Iranian development is such a threat, then solution is to declare war.
So if China decides it needs to off any US citizen it likes – say, a few scientists in the US's bio-warfare labs – this Tobin guy will be OK with that? n nNah…. I didn't think so. n nThe Soviets had nukes, and MAD worked. If Iran was pursuing nukular weapons, the regional balance of power would change slightly – the US would not be as comfortable in supporting bunch of Eastern European interlopers. n n(If I was Iran I certainly would be trying to develop nukes – North Korea shows that if you get one, the US backs off; that said, the IAEA and the NIE from last year make it clear Iran is NOT). n nThere's no evidence that any of the Iranian leadership is a nutty as, say, Avgidor Lieberman – and plenty of evidence that they're LESS nutty than the average Haredi. Tobin should leave his Chosen-centrism at the door if he wants to be taken seriously.
The Iranians go around the world with Hezbollah murdering Jews. Without a thought or care in their pretty little heads. Let''s get real.Go read about the massacre of 87 Jews in an Argentinian community center with the assistance of Iran. I guess, in Ron Paul's words, this is all a case of perfectly understandable, what is the word, ah, "blowback."
"Or….is that priviledge reserved for the United States and Israel? If so, why do you believe that. n" n nBecause we can. The best reason to get rid of Copperheads and Paultards is so we can continue.
Greenwald is a lawyer and a constitutional law expert, so he might have some important info on the legalities of American action abroad. Unlike Tobin, who is apparently a complete moron for his failure to comprehend the definition of terrorism. I guess when the U.S. or Israel supports terror, its not terror. But when Iran allegedly tries to develop a nuclear bomb, that's terrorism? News flash hypocrites, Israel has over a hundred nuclear weapons and the U.S. could blow up the world 5 times over with our giant stockpile. This article is nothing more than cheerleading for team America and Israel and should be disregarded by any fair minded person who has an interest in mid-east stability or international law.
You know why Iran should build a bomb and nuke Israel? Because they can! Ha Ha. Two can play at this completely stupid game. I guess from now on we should make decisions based on this criteria. n nYou know why Hitler killed so many Jews? Because he could! Hitler must have been right based on your logic!