Can the legal rules of self-defence and necessity justify militant operations against oppressive organisations, for example multinational companies which kill people in third world countries?

If these rules actually allow that, should politicians change the rules, so that such operations will never be legal?

I am working on a PhD thesis about those questions and will appreciate your comments, either here in this forum or preferably at this website:

http://www.defence.nu

The website is slightly unorthodox and postmodern, so please read the introduction to the forum and especially the article "Perspectivism".

Hope it can provide useful information which can create debates at this military forum also. Thanks!

What do you mean "Kill"? Murder, safety problems, pollution & contamination?

In our context, it does not matter how one causes another person to die as long as the offence is either illegal or can be said to be the ethical equivalent of illegal. The last means that a criminal can sometimes find loopholes in international law and thereby kill people without it being technically illegal. But for this to be ethically equivalent of an illegal act, it demands that one can clearly see from a common sense perspective that the act is murder even though no specific legal rule forbids it.

I think I understand where you come from, but would you mind giving an example for what you would consider "legal (legitimate?) self defense as a population group" (strictly from your POV)?

Generally, there is, as you probably know, a right of self defense recognized both in most national laws as well as in certain circumstances in Intl. Law, but what is legal and what is legitimate there the POVs differ a lot.

Personally, if you do me harm I will react (as a person) and come after you but be willing to bear the legal consequences for "taking justice in my hands".

OTOH, I have always contemplated to found a "morituri-te-salutant" type of organisation where terminately ill persons can strike a last blow w/o fear of juridical consequences and if it is conisdered legitimate.

And here is where the discussion starts (and why I have never bothered to transform that 20 yrs old idea into reality, though I keep it reserved for myself should I ever meet the condition):

Is it legitimate to torture a billionaire (who, just for arguments sake, became it by exploiting hundreds of thousands of slave workers in the 3rd, maybe even against intl or national law) into sharing his wealth with the exploited?`

From my POV, a clear NO.

Is it legitimate to capture and violently (read: torture, blackmail, etc.) politicians to change/enforce laws tht prohibit and pursuit above mentioned exploitment?

Again, from my POV, NO.

Is it legitimate to "take over the claim and act on behalf" of an opressed populaton group that cannot do so itself - for whatever reason - and to resort to (illegal) violence to "help" them/their cause?

Again, NO.

All way to much dependant of the mental state of the person leading your group...

Rattler

If someone treats your people as slaves you have my permission and encouragement to bring it to them where they sleep. Would be hilarious to see one of these rich executive types doing forced labor in some mine in Africa.

Originally Posted by major liability

If someone treats your people as slaves you have my permission and encouragement to bring it to them where they sleep. Would be hilarious to see one of these rich executive types doing forced labor in some mine in Africa.

Lets see (Devil´s Advocate here):

If you go with this basic layout, does it mean that it would be legitimate self defense (as opposed to terrorism) if Hamas - instead of attacking innocent civilians with their rockets - would directly go for the Israeli politicians in person that opress (factually or subjectively) the Palestinian People (and that presumably fill their pockets with the commisions of the arms deals), capture them, use violence against them and make them repent and reconcile?

Like capturing the Prime Minister and make him confess on TV how much he gained form the arms deals? Or make him reveal plans for the "Final Solution" (so it existed)? Or deprive him from his privileges and make him live in a refugee camp (and of cause, film and publish it)?

Just curious,

Rattler

Is it legitimate to torture a billionaire (who, just for arguments sake, became it by exploiting hundreds of thousands of slave workers in the 3rd, maybe even against intl or national law) into sharing his wealth with the exploited?`

From my POV, a clear NO.

Is it legitimate to capture and violently (read: torture, blackmail, etc.) politicians to change/enforce laws tht prohibit and pursuit above mentioned exploitment?

Again, from my POV, NO.

I agree completely.

If you read the article "Perspectivism" in the LAW forum you will see two links to cases where I present arguments in favour of defensive political violence. Also check out the discussion here which I also copy and paste into the LAW forum.

Would be hilarious to see one of these rich executive types doing forced labor in some mine in Africa.

If you understand the seriousness of what we are discussing, you will realise that there is nothing hilarious about it.

Originally Posted by rattler

Lets see (Devil´s Advocate here):

If you go with this basic layout, does it mean that it would be legitimate self defense (as opposed to terrorism) if Hamas - instead of attacking innocent civilians with their rockets - would directly go for the Israeli politicians in person that opress (factually or subjectively) the Palestinian People (and that presumably fill their pockets with the commisions of the arms deals), capture them, use violence against them and make them repent and reconcile?

Like capturing the Prime Minister and make him confess on TV how much he gained form the arms deals? Or make him reveal plans for the "Final Solution" (so it existed)? Or deprive him from his privileges and make him live in a refugee camp (and of cause, film and publish it)?

Just curious,

Rattler

No, because as far as I know Israelis are not using Palestinians as slaves. I was thinking more of the places in Africa where slavery is still practiced.

If someone literally ENSLAVES you as far as I'm concerned, anything you do in retaliation is justified.

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

If you understand the seriousness of what we are discussing, you will realise that there is nothing hilarious about it.

That's just me - I won't be serious on my own deathbed.