I always wonder, when they catch this kind of criminals, why not shoot them on sight like they did Pablo Escobar or Osama? Special forces officer: "it was low light operation and we thought that he had a weapon so we shot him." and thats that.
And because, in many cases, that procedure actually reflects real values to which the leaders of government have actual commitment even beyond the pragmatic motivation to be seen as committed.
Shooting them is what the cartels do, justice would be that he is tried by a jury and sentenced under law.
I can see how there could be a net benefit to shooting them on site, but you can't say for sure that the witnesses etc lives would then be safe.
Of course, above a critical mass of amassed power/popularity, nothing can stop a dictator to simply do re-found the state with a new constitution, but at that point it's very much a coup anyway.
Teaching, not nit-picking: "shoot on sight" is the idiom here, meaning shoot as soon as target is visually confirmed. Whereas "on site" relates to location.
As far as US judicial system is concerned Osama and Pablo are innocent.
It is always better to try people in court then kill them, because it limits the chances that someone innocent can be killed.
And the nightmare for witnesses will continue after the trial, because they're never, ever, going to be safe.
It's not a problem with an easy answer.
Also cartel knows who are the key witnesses. It is not like the El Chappo discussed his business with infinite number of people. I would say 10-20 max if not less. So they just make a list and see who is present/not present and where are their families.
Though I am not even sure prosecution needs star witnesses. I don’t think there is a juror left who has no opinion on El Chappo.
The bigger problem is that dealing with El Chappo, killing or otherwise, is not actually solving the problem of cartels having nearly infinite resources to pursue informants/witnesses.
In a way dealing with cartel is like dealing with a state actor, but without traditional tools because they are outside the international law.
The only way is legalize the whole thing to bring drug trade into legal framework.
In the end the only leverage USA has is its market. So if they give market to legal entities, cartels and violence associated with them will go away.
Oil is legalized in the US, yet a cartel has until recently dominated that market, and OPEC’s members certainly use violence to maintain their control. The only thing displacing OPEC now isn’t a free market, it’s local production.
Standard Oil, the Seven Sisters, the As-Is agreement, Texaas Raialroad Commission, National Producers, OPEC.
There are economic reasons.
I know this is the cornerstone of all law in western countries but its a really difficult thing to argue for in this case.
Like maybe someone learned mind control and made El Chapo do it. But when he is not under mind control he is 100% law abiding citizen.
It will be a crazy defense, but it will be up to jury determine if that is the case.
Or another scenario is that El Chappo had no choice because rogue officials in the US demanded him smuggle drugs to the US or his family will be killed.
Osama bin Laden was tried and convicted for the first WTC bombing
Even if the whole thing is useless in the big scheme of incentives.
> ‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of...
A defining moment for the US for sure. It showed the war on terror wasn't excusable and that even the most conscious and educated president would still be a hypocrite when it really mattered. It has been downhill ever since with Russia and China doing largely whatever they want.
That's a riot. Is that before or after China annexed Tibet and culturally destroyed it? Before or after they annexed Hong Kong entirely against the will of the people of Hong Kong?
Before or after Russia annexed most of Eastern Europe and held it hostage for nearly half a century? Poland for example is a very large nation, it has only been free of Russia for less than 30 years now.
China and Russia do whatever they want, insofar as they can. That will never change and it's true of all great power nations throughout history.
The lease ran out, this was planned all along. The people don't like the changes that's for sure but their will was never something China would be bothered with.
Up until that point the invasions, surveillance, renditions, torture and threat to civil liberties could be justified as, or at least categorized as, means to oppose Al Qaeda. By killing bin Laden he became just another enemy in a long line of people that the US wants to kill. And the methods of the war on terror, instead of a regrettable period in US history, just another tool for the US to use as it sees fit.
> And would anyone expect different actions from Russia? From Israel?
Probably not, which is sort of the point.
"I wouldn't call Pakistan an allied country of the United States"
"Pakistan joined the "War on Terror" as a U.S. ally. Having failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its attack on Afghanistan, along with other logistical support."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States...
Before you yell about wikipedia as a source, consider that this is a well-known fact.
Besides that, international legality is defined solely by the countries with the biggest sticks. That will always be true, without exception. The UN and all global bodies of justice and rule setting derive their authority and possess capability solely at the permission of the most powerful nations.
The world isn't run by the UN, international legality isn't defined by 195 nations, it's all run by six or seven countries (which control the majority of all economic activity and by far have the most powerful militaries). The UN is a lever for those powerful nations to keep order in dealing with all the others. It's a means to herd cats.
There's a quote by a rather vile heiress named Leona Helmsley, paraphrasing: taxes are for the little people. Respecting sovereignty is only a fixed rule for the little countries. Why? Because of how consequences work and who can dish them out. I'm not advocating that, mind you, I'm saying that's actually how the world works and always will. You see it with every empire that has ever existed, you see it with the US, Russia, China, etc.
Agreed, but governments do plenty of abhorrent things.
In their home country they probably assume they can always use relentless bribing for more favourable conditions and a possible release. In the US, forget it.