The problem with judging someone on the basis of their intentions is this: how to judge when the bad result is not intended, but will naturally result from the actions?
If one deliberately drives on the wrong side of a divided highway, one may not intend to kill the people driving the right way, but death and maiming are the natural consequences of one's actions. The perpetrator thus acts in reckless disregard for the consequences, which is not intentional homicide, but reckless homicide, and may still be first degree murder.
That issue doesn't even arise when considering terrorists. They do intend the death or maiming of their targets, as a means of making a point. This is first degree murder, in peace time, and here in the US, sufficient to get the death penalty in states which have the death penalty.
The problem is applying the logic of law and ethics to war.
If the Israelis are at war with the Palestinians (quoth Ariel Sharon), then by definition the Palestinians are at war with the Israelis.
The fine militant gentlemen on the thread will be happy to tell you that laws against homicide don't apply during war time. In war time, homicide is justified.
No, I think the focus should be, not on whether terrorism is justifiable, but whether killing non-combatants deliberately, or with reckless disregard, is justifiable.
That is where the shoe pinches the feet of both parties. |
