Can Science Ethically Justify Assassinations for Profit?

[Dr. Courtney]

Perhaps another case would serve as an illuminating example. Consider Edward Snowden. Some regard him as a traitor, but the case that he is an ongoing an enemy combatant is much harder to make. I would not object to him being arrested and brought back to the US for trial, but an assassination via drone, polonium, or any other means would be an evil path and should attach full criminal culpability for murder on the perpetrators. Snowden is owed due process under the US Constitution.

As far as the moral responsibility of scientists and technologists, I don't think we're different from anyone else. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Providing the tools of war and assassination do not attach moral culpability for their misuse unless those providing the tools know and are complicit with their intended misuse. This aligns simply with the presumption of innocence. A farm supply store isn't guilty of selling an approved insecticide that gets used as a murder weapon in a poisoning unless they know of its intended use and are complicit. Negligence only attaches when there is a well-defined duty to exercise some kind of due diligence (such as background checks for guns and prescriptions for medications and licensing for certain hazardous materials.) Creating "duty to know" after the fact is analogous to an "ex post facto" law.

At the same time, there may be wisdom (though no moral imperative) in considering how weapons or provided in the present may be used in the distant future. Most technological and scientific advances have advantages that decay over time, and it would be wise to consider whether a given power is likely to remain upright in its use of those advantages over the relevant time period. We don't see many cases of a 70 year advantage like nuclear weapons, but drones and other more incremental advances do translate into real power advantages for a decade or two.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

So being complicit in their intended use seems a key point.

 

[russ_watters]

Asking a question is not the same as stating an opinion.

Saying: "Or should each scientist decide for herself when murder is acceptable?" is stating the opinion that the acts we are discussing were murder and asking if murder is acceptable (which pretty much by definition it is not). It's both a false premise and begging the question.

For the record:

Good to know where you stand. It helps understand where you are coming from better.

Spies killing people is murder. It may be the way the world works, but that doesn't make it right, or legal.

We're not talking about "spies killing people", we're talking about spies killing spies. Under the rules of war, spies are illegal combatants and are not subject to legal protections. Killing them is not illegal/murder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution#Military_jurisdiction

According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.

Soldiers who are wearing uniforms of the opposing army after the start of combat may be considered illegal combatants and subject to summary execution. Many armies have performed this kind of false flag ruse in the past, including both German and U.S. special forces during World War II. However, if soldiers remove their disguises and put on proper insignia before the start of combat in such an operation, they are considered legal combatants and must be treated as prisoners-of-war if captured.

Now the recent Russian case is a little different in that Litvinenko wasn't even in Russian custody. He was an illegal combatant engaged in warfare (espionage) against Russia. He was a legitimate target.

Perhaps they have it coming to them. If so, let a jury decide.

Assuming that were the way it should work, can you even propose a way in which that could be made physically possible?

The law, the law you swore to uphold as an officer (the constitution), is clear on this.

It's not actually very simple in these cases, which is why your understanding of how these things work are not correct. The Constitution contains nothing discussing the conduct of war. There are other government policies and in particular the Geneva Conventions that describe these issues.

My question was about what responsibilities scientists and other technologists have or should have in this area.

Nothing different from the responsibilities of non-scientists.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps another case would serve as an illuminating example. Consider Edward Snowden. Some regard him as a traitor, but the case that he is an ongoing an enemy combatant is much harder to make. I would not object to him being arrested and brought back to the US for trial, but an assassination via drone, polonium, or any other means would be an evil path and should attach full criminal culpability for murder on the perpetrators. Snowden is owed due process under the US Constitution.

I would agree with that provided he is no longer actively engaged in espionage, and I'm not sure if that is true or not.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I would agree with that provided he [Snowden] is no longer actively engaged in espionage, and I'm not sure if that is true or not.

Supposing some US party assassinates him. On whom is the burden of proof?

I say put them on trial for Snowden's murder and make them demonstrate that Snowden was still actively engaged in espionage as part of their affirmative defense.

If they fail to prove to a jury that Snowden was actively engaged in ongoing espionage, then the jury would be acting within their fact finding powers to find them guilty of murder.

My point is that parties purportedly acting on behalf of the US need actual proof that someone is an enemy combatant to deprive US citizens of their due process rights. Otherwise, how are they any better than other tyrants in history?

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

We're not talking about "spies killing people", we're talking about spies killing spies. Under the rules of war, spies are illegal combatants and are not subject to legal protections. Killing them is not illegal/murder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution#Military_jurisdiction

Now the recent Russian case is a little different in that Litvinenko wasn't even in Russian custody. He was an illegal combatant engaged in warfare (espionage) against Russia. He was a legitimate target.

Warfare is define in international law as a conflict between militaries. Unless I missed a war, Britain and Russia were not so engaged. So the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

The constitution does discuss the conduct of war, in several places. Relevant here is: Art. 1, §8, "The Congress shall have the Power To [...]To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; [...]To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;[.]"

In it's wisdom our congress chooses to define spying as: "Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the Unites States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death." (UCMJ sub chapter 10, 906, art. 106, Spies.) (There are likely criminal codes as well, but they also allow due process.)

It seems spies only exist in wartime for the military. Further, they are still to be given due a trial by general court marshal.

The idea that any overseas tyrant can informally declare a citizen (and journalist) of another country a spy, then secretly kill him is and ought to be scary.

I find it even more disturbing that a military academy graduate doesn't know the congress has the power under the constitution to regulate the military, nor that accused spies are granted trials whenever possible. (Yes, I know that summary executions are allowed when no other option exists.)

But to the basic point, No, spies killing spies is not legal under U.S. or British law. It happens, but when they get caught, it's off to prison just like for everyone else.

 

[Hornbein]

So are scientists morally responsible for the applications of their research or not. Albert Einstein was troubled by this issue. Perhaps this was a motivation for his retreat from the real world into a fantasy land of high-class crackpottery. Albert's best friend was Kurt Godel, who reassured Albert that this was the best of all possible worlds.

My view is that one never knows what one will do until the situation actually arises and a decision must be made.

 

[russ_watters]

Supposing some US party assassinates him. On whom is the burden of proof?

What burden of proof? That sounds like a reference to civilian court standards and if civilian courts are not involved, there is no such issue. In al-Awlaki's case, for example, his dad (and the ACLU) sued the US government to have him removed from the targeted killing list (how anyone knew he was on the list is another matter...). The case was dismissed for lack of standing: the issue was ruled "not judicially reviewable".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Lawsuit_against_the_US

In essence, that renders his killing legal by virtue of being extrajudicial -- ironically, the opposite of what the term is [wrongly] generally assumed to mea.

I say put them on trial for Snowden's murder and make them demonstrate that Snowden was still actively engaged in espionage as part of their affirmative defense.

If they fail to prove to a jury that Snowden was actively engaged in ongoing espionage, then the jury would be acting within their fact finding powers to find them guilty of murder.

That's quite a can of worms, though, isn't it? Doesn't that open-up the judicial system to any citizen waging war against the US? Again, I use the civil war as an example: were the soldiers and generals illegally deprived of due process?

My point is that parties purportedly acting on behalf of the US need actual proof that someone is an enemy combatant to deprive US citizens of their due process rights.

I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't have proof, I'm stating that the decision isn't reviewable by the courts. This US isn't Russia: if reporters (for example) start getting "disappeared", I'm confident that the courts would rule that such actions are within their purview. I suppose that begs the question: what makes the issue within the purview of the courts?
1. Location (people physically located in US territory are accessible by law enforcement).
2. Nature of the action (warfare is not an issue for courts).

 

[russ_watters]

Warfare is define in international law as a conflict between militaries. Unless I missed a war, Britain and Russia were not so engaged. So the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

If the Geneva conventions don't apply here, then nothing does.
Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_spy
Litvinenko was a double-agent. A turned spy. That basically makes him country-less. What you are suggesting is that a country can/should have no recourse at all against spies living in other countries.

In several places. Relevant here is: Art. 1, §8, "The Congress shall have the Power To [...]To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; [...]To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;[.]"

How does that help us? It doesn't say anything about spies.

In it's wisdom our congress chooses to define spying as: "Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the Unites States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death." (UCMJ sub chapter 10, 906, art. 106, Spies.) (There are likely criminal codes as well, but they also allow due process.)

Yes. So what about spies who aren't "within the control or jurisdiction" of the US? What is to be done about them?

It seems spies only exist in wartime for the military.

No, that's not what it says. That describes what to do with local resident spies during wartime. It doesn't say anything about spies in foreign lands during wartime or spies anywhere not in wartime.

I find it even more disturbing that a military academy graduate doesn't know the congress has the power under the constitution to regulate the military...

That's unserious.

...nor that accused spies are granted trials whenever possible. (Yes, I know that summary executions are allowed when no other option exists.)

Um...ok, so that's exactly my point. In the case we're describing the spy was not accessible to the judicial system of Russia.

Just to make sure we're clear, I'm not claiming al Awlaki was a spy: he was a combatant.

But to the basic point, No, spies killing spies is not legal under U.S. or British law. It happens, but when they get caught, it's off to prison just like for everyone else.

With the above caveat about Awlaki being a combatant, not a spy, I'll assume you still disagree since you previously suggested he had standing in the legal system. So should Obama be arrested for murder? You said "when they get caught...": has such a thing ever happened?

 

[Evo]

Closed for moderation.