sound, even older school: AND – Israeli and US law of extrajudicial assassinations

London calling to the faraway towns
Now war is declared and battle come down
London calling to the underworld
Come out of the cupboard, you boys and girls
London calling now don’t look to us
Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust
London calling see we ain’t got no swing
‘Cept for the ring of that truncheon thing

The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in
Meltdown expected and the wheat is growing thin
Engines stop running but I have no fear
London is drowning and I live by the river

London calling to the imitation zone
Forget it, brother, you can go it alone
London calling upon the zombies of death
Quit holding out and draw another breath
London calling and I don’t wanna shout
But when we were talking I saw you nodding out
London calling see we ain’t got no highs
Except for that one with the yellowy eyes

The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in
Engines stop running and the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear error but I have no fear
London is drowning and I, I live by the river

Now get this
London calling yes I was there too
An’ you know what they said? Well some of it was true
London calling at the top of the dial
And after all this, won’t you give me a smile?

I never felt so much a’like a’like a’like

THOUGH it may be relative:

‘popularism’, has a long history, and for most of that history, it’s been radically left, authentically, if, anarchistically, politically left, and not right. Philosophically right, but not politically ‘right’, it called out the hypocracies of political alliances and monetary deal making.

for the above video, today, the Clash would be assassinated by MBS. an act of extrajudicial justice no doubt sanctioned by Teresa May, as part of her hostile environment program.

so, in that historical spirit, in defense of their prescient take, there could be no greater lawyer than

harvard’s gabriella blum,

Screen Shot 2018-10-18 at 1.28.59 AM

who helped to create the law international law in support of extrajudicial assassinations. and who seems, now, to be somewhat apologetic about it.

[The Israeli government] didn’t want to call their conflict with the Palestinians a “war” since that would recognize the inevitability of a Palestinian state and trigger a number of requirements under the laws of war. But they also didn’t want call it an “occupation,” since then they would be subject to the laws that govern occupiers. Among other things, occupation law would mandate them to use policing powers instead of offensive military tactics like targeted killing. So to avoid doing either, they simply created a new and unprecedented legal category that is, in effect, a new law for colonial dominance.

After 9/11, there was a shift under the Bush administration toward the use of preventive force, as opposed to pre-emptive self-defense, under customary law, or a response to an armed attack under treaty law. This shift becomes the basis of legal justification for extrajudicial assassinations, or targeted killings, outside of hot battlefields.

It was during the Obama-era drone warfare campaign, however, that these changes were really institutionalized.

No other state has invoked the concept of “armed conflict, short of war” in any other scenario, which Israel’s military lawyers admit they made up. Israel wants to be an occupying power in the Palestinian territories, but also claim that those territories are not occupied as a matter of law so that it can facilitate its settler-colonial territorial expansion. That is why Israel has remained in the territories for so long — it has never intended on withdrawing from them.

What are some of the frustrations that exist with the way that matters of Israeli targeted killing policy are discussed, particularly with regard to legal rationales?

Even in contrast to the United States, Israel attempts to frame itself as the more humane face of war because they’ve been legally regulating their war. But what articles like this don’t really mention is that even when defining rules around civilian harm and proportionality, as the PCATI v. Government of Israel decision does, Israel’s military lawyers, ethicists, and practitioners are able to legally redefine who counts as a civilian or not.

Israeli Gabriella Blum, Lawyer, Professor at Harvard Law School

and don’t forget zappa:

Zappa, from Plastic People:

Take a day and walk around
Watch the nazis run your town
Then go home and check yourself
You think we’re singing ’bout someone else…

and as a reminder of political positionality: so everyone stands somewhere, relative to some ethical ‘center’. how political is your center?

new _left_to_right diagrams.001

left-right_historical shift.002

sound, even older school: AND – Israeli and US law of extrajudicial assassinations

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s